What is the Deal with all this US stuff?

[Aaron_G_T]

One viable option for increasing the planeset
for more than one nation might be to add
aircraft that served in more than one airforce.

For example:
  P39 - USA, USSR, UK, Free French
  B24 - USA/UK
  B25 - USA/UK
  A20 - USA/UK (France 1940 if you count DB7)
  Mosquito IV - USA/UK
  Beaufighter - USA/UK
  P51 - USA/UK
  P38 - USA/UK
  TBM - USA/UK
  F6F - USA/UK
 
Sometimes all that is needed to make
a new version is a paint job for the
respective country. In the case of the P39
armament and armour changes are also needed.

Basically by modelling 6 new aircraft, and
some modifications and painting you could
get:

USA    + 6 ac
UK     + 10 ac
USSR   + 1 ac
French + 2 ac

This unfortunately doesn't help the axis
very much, though.

[SKurj]

Beaufighter RAAF, RCAF
P40 USSR, CHina, UK, RAAF, USA RNZAF(?)

I dunno how difficult it would be to just add a new paintjob, and give the aircraft a different name so that players could fly an aircraft from their homeland.  Until the planeset can be filled out better.

SKurj

[Nashwan]

One viable option for increasing the planeset
for more than one nation might be to add
aircraft that served in more than one airforce.

Spit LF iX
RAF
USAAF
VVS
RAAF
RCAF
RNZAF
etc etc etc
 

[SKurj]

Beaufighter RAAF, RCAF, USAF, RNZAF, RAF

SKurj

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Karnak:

The USSR played by far the biggest role in the defeat of Germany.  The US played the biggest role in the defeat of Japan.  The UK and the Commonwealth played an important part in both.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

jesus! glad SOMEONE READS history books !

'important'? critical part more like.If England hadnt have held out....until the US finally decided that europeans were worth helping, germany would have taken europe.Russia would have been defeated if the germans didnt have to fight the 2 front war(later 3 front). and i garentee the US would never have been able to invade Europe from the states.

This American 'we won the war for the brits etc attitude really turns my stomach!.You think a polish/french/english/australian/canadian/indian/chinese/russian life is worth any less than an american one?
We ALL fought and died to win that war and the idea that america could have done it alone is a childs fantasy.
If hitler was allowed free reign in europe he would have nuclear bombed america BEFORE you even had the thing.they would have had jets before you, intercontinental missiles before you and seat of power in europe which would have matched america for production/fuel etc.

damn we are gratefull the yanks helped, of that theres no doubt.And we'd fight side by side again im sure but to claim you won it alone is to spit in the faces of all those brave non American men/women that died fighting the same fight.

enough said?

[Toad]

Originally posted by hazed-:
....until the US finally decided that europeans were worth helping, ....enough said?

No, not quite. But I'm on the way to work and I don't really have time for a detailed reply.

However, to address the main point, I've been seeing this comment more and more lately.

I'm sure those who use it are aware of the rule of law. The US had, then and now, rules of law about when and how war is declared.

Some research of history books will no doubt clarify those if confusion still exists.

In short, it wasn't about "deciding to help" it was about a legitimate "causus belli".

That did not occur until Pearl Harbor.

[Dowding]

Well said Hazed.

[garrido]

Hello:

We must have but well-taken care of at the time of choosing that airplanes must be included in AH, is requested Re 2005, and my data single of constructed 37, so that they want to include it if it did not have influence?

A greeting

SUPONGO

[hazed-]

ok Toad let me put it this way.......

a legitimate cause to declare war? (from the US perspective)

Gulf War: official reason....to save a nation of innocents (kuwait) from a tyranical regime (Iraq)
unofficial: (and we are all aware of this im sure) to protect the oil
a reason to delare war for Great Britain?
Falklands: official reason to protect soveriegn territory and its subjects from a tyranical regime/country (argentina)
unofficial: (apparently)the huge untapped oil fields that are in that area.

a legitimate cause for declaring war during WW2: (again from the US perspective)
an attack by the axis powers on the USA? (this is what you claim)

well the reason i sarcasticly said 'decided to help' was that whilst The Third Reich murdered thousands of innocent civilians during the period of the outbreak of war in poland through to when the USA finally declared war(ON JAPAN I MIGHT ADD NOT GERMANY) the USA remained neutral.
I am well aware of the fact that many Americans wanted to stop the nazis and many did come to fight in british forces before the US was officially involved, and that your president was doing as much as he could to help the british 'legally' whilst im sure his heart and gut told him to act immediately.
your point that it had to be done legally is correct but it is disgusting to me to think that ANY country would hold back on helping human beings that are being persecuted/murdered, for 'legal' reasons.You and i know right from wrong and if i were american id be proud of what you(AND OTHERS) did to save the world, but i would not be able to justify that period of non-action whilst the whole of northen europe was being brutally exterminated.
I dont claim Britains role was anything other than self preservation.We like to attribute all our actions as a fight against evil by the powers of good but the truth is usually more simple and less idealogical.
The one thing i am proud of was that when poland was invaded Britain declared war on germany.It wasnt legal(i cant beleive we are discussing legality when this is about murder etc) but as our ally we tried our best to stand by them.
I am ashamed that we did not do the same for czechoslovakia.We abandoned them for whatever political reasons and as a human being i find this shamefull.
The USA has now become the worlds unofficial police and im glad its them and not the russian/chinese with the most power.We can at least be sure that no regime like the Nazis could ever invade innocent countries without retribution/action by the US or NATO.
we are closer to the ideal we all would like to live by.Protect the innocent,destroy aggressors.

so you see ...you claim it had to be done legally..i claim THAT is exactly what was wrong.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]

[funkedup]

Aaron that's a great idea.

A-20 and B-25 both served USA, UK, Commonwealth and Allied Forces In-Exile, and USSR.  Would love to see multiple variants of those with a variety of markings.

[Hangtime]

Wow.. some strong sentiment there Hazed!

Some points of refrence... Europe had been involved in war after war after war. The USA had involved itself in a 'forigen war' in europe before.. many lost sons, nobody was sure why we got involved in the first place.

America was pretty disintrested in another european war.. and info on the holocost was not yet available, so your statement of "europe was being exterminated" was a bit over the top. From the USA's perspective at the time, it looked like yet another one of those intermitable wars in europe... none of our buisness, none of our affair. Europe of the 30's was not exactly a 'major market'.. the standard of living there had hardly improved a bit in the last 100 years... thanks to all those damn wars.

It's easy for someone with a history book in his hand, having all the PC answers in front of him to look at the US and say "you should have come sooner!".

Fact is, England and France set that war up; we did not give hitler czech lands. It was not OUR war, now was it?

Oh... thanks for letting us help England out of it's bind.. and thanks for letting us restore France to the French. We had nothin better to do with ourselves at the time.

[Toad]

Hazed,

Think about what you wrote.

Did England have an official military alliance with Poland?

Did the US have any such alliance with any of the European countries prior to WW2? (Let alone WW1; we won't go into the quite real possibility that the Lusitania incident was a "set up" to allow the US to enter WWI legitimately.)

Additionally, the League of Nations had absolutely no power to coerce. It had no power to do much of anything.

The UN is a post-WW2 institution and it has little power, as you may have noticed.

You might pause, however, to consider that NATO and the UN both have their roots deep in the pre-WW2 situation. Both of these institutions now allow and provide for legitimate US intervention without a direct incident or cause of war against the US, a rather large change in the situation.

There was no way for Roosevelt to involve the US in the European war without "causus belli", humanitarian or moral issues aside.  

I'm sure you are aware of the strong isolationist sentiment in the US after WWI. It was still there in 1939; we had no mutual defense treaties with European nations.

I refer one and all once again to George Washington's farewell address; there were then.. and are now.. many people quite familiar with it and in agreement with it.

Had Hitler not been so stupid as to declare war on the US, there still would not have been a legitimate "causus belli" to enter the European war after Pearl Harbor.

Stop a minute and look at your justification for demanding immediate US intervention in '39. Then look around today's world at the nations where people are being slaughtered and explain to me why Britain hasn't declared war and sent troops. If you want trouble spots to examine, put "human rights genocide" in a search engine... you'll find enough.

EDIT: I'll be happy to continue this discussion in the "O-Club" Forum if you like, however, this will be my last reply here. This isn't really what this thread is about.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[Aaron_G_T]

The UK did have an official military
alliance with Poland. However it was
only formalised comparatively shortly
before Poland was invaded, and thus
was more or less devised to create
a casus beli. After all the UK didn't
exactly help Poland much while it was
being invaded.

The USA also need a casus belli in 1941
due to the lack of interest from Congress
in a European war when the focus of
attention was directed east to the
US interest in the Philipines, China,
and so on. This is where there were a
number of US economic and raw material
interests, however in the late 1930s it
was felt that the policies of embargo
against Japan would be sufficient to clip
Japan's wings and protect those interests.

With regard to Europe, there were also
economic reasons for intervention:

1. War was good for the economy
2. The emergence of a fairly isolationist
   fascist Europe did not provide a good
   market.
3. The emgergence of a large power blocks
   in Europe would not be good for the USA
   as it meant that it was not likely to
   be the only superpower.

There were also humanitarian reasons,
conditioned by the large number of people
of European ancestry in the USA. (The
rape of Nanking didn't really evoke
the same sort of response).

Prior to the end of 1941, though, the
support for a protracted war was not
sealed until Pearl Harbour, even with FDRs
creeping involvement of US forces in the
war in Europe. However I suspect that by
the end of 1942 or mid 1943 as the USSR
began to defeat Germany the USA would have
entered the war in Europe to prevent
preeminence of the USSR (which threatened
both European and Asian interests). If you
delve into some of the history it seems
that the cold war started even before WW2
ended. Mind you, US, UK and French troops
had fought against the Red Army already in
1919...

[lazs1]

hazed... in short... to Americans, europe was a cesspool of inhumanity before WWI and it was still a cesspool after we left in WWI and had been for centuries.   Most Americans had no interest in getting involved in what appeared to be another  european sensless/endless squabble.   when we did tho we gave it everything we had ... no 6 months of "phony war".   We had our own cesspools in the pacific to deal with.  

saying that russia and the U.S won the war is kinda harsh but the amount of manpower that russia put into it and the material and manpower that the U.S. put into it dwarf that of the brits.

now.... There are many important and high production airframes that were used by every allied country that are not being modeled.   Unfortunately for those who would like unheard of planes modeled..... they were U.S. planes.    You want a fiat modeled or a P40?  A frog plane or an F4f?   I want em all but modleing U.S. planes is not out of line.  Even a version of the russian polikapov would be far more logical and "important" than most of the non U.S. planes requested.
lazs

[Nashwan]

Most Americans had no interest in getting involved in what appeared to be another european sensless/endless squabble. when we did tho we gave it everything we had ... no 6 months of "phony war".

And the huge US military operations in Europe in early 42 were...?

 

saying that russia and the U.S won the war is kinda harsh but the amount of manpower that russia put into it and the material and manpower that the U.S. put into it dwarf that of the brits.

Both are much larger, more populous countries than Britain. Britain did incidentally take similar casulaties to the US, out of a much smaller population.