Soviet Aircraft

[Karnak]

If you compare the Soviet participation in WWII and the Italian and then compare their unit sets in AH, the Italians are over represented.

The biggest land war in human history was on the east front of WWII and we have a whopping two Russian GVs (yes, they used lend-lease Shermans too) arrayed against ten, eleven if you count the 251, German models.

[Arlo]

If you compare the Soviet participation in WWII and the Italian and then compare their unit sets in AH, the Italians are over represented.

Ahhh, this distraction to argument has been tried before, complete with retraction when I challenged such.  

[Karnak]

Arlo, you are presenting facts, but only the facts that suit you and you are declaring any other facts as to be irrelevant.  I understand that you want more Italian stuff, but you are seriously doing a disservice to history when you minimize the Soviet participation like you're doing here.

[Wmaker]

I presented facts, not massaged facts. Wmaker can't honestly say the same, even with your wholehearted support.  

It has been said to you time and again by more than one person in here. Soviet Union was one of the five major players in WWII, Italy was not. Therefore, the lack SU's most important bomber is a far bigger gap than the lack of Italy's most important bomber. Simple as that. 11400 built compared to 1350. It really doesn't get much more trivial than that. Looking at this thread, you seem to be the only one that does not grasp it, Arlo.

[Arlo]

Arlo, you are presenting facts, but only the facts that suit you and you are declaring any other facts as to be irrelevant.  I understand that you want more Italian stuff, but you are seriously doing a disservice to history when you minimize the Soviet participation like you're doing here.

Huh. Are we having the same conversation? I never downplayed Soviet participation. I sure am seeing Italian participation being downplayed when the actual argument should have stayed about what the actual most glaring gap in the AHII plane-set is. I'm a very realistic potential ally when it comes to exploring what historical relevance, desire and perceived need is in this game's plane and vehicle set.

1. Statement was made that the game's most obvious gap to plug is that of a Soviet built bomber. However, scenarios and events can provide more historically accurate bombers sporting a Soviet star than they can bombers sporting .

2. I illustrated the latter above.

3. Suddenly all the A-20s sent to Russia were used to drop torpedoes and patrol over water.

4. I challenged such.

5. Italy gets poo-pooed, in general.

6. Argument forgets where it all started from there.

[Arlo]

It has been said to you time and again by more than one person in here. Soviet Union was one of the five major players in WWII, Italy was not. Therefore, the lack SU's most important bomber is a far bigger gap than the lack of Italy's most important bomber. Simple as that. 11400 built compared to 1350. It really doesn't get much more trivial than that. Looking at this thread, you seem to be the only one that does not grasp it, Arlo.

The complete lack of any level bomber sporting a Soviet star (which, is patently false) versus a level bomber sporting Regia Aeronautica markings in an AHII scenario being an argument you can't win, however. What you're repetitively stating still doesn't support your opinion of what is and isn't the most glaring gap in the AHII plane-set. However, it apparently seems the core of your argument made in place of concession and agreement on what order the next 5, even 2 models should be and in what order.

[Arlo]

 




 

[Karnak]

You're downplaying the Soviets when you put them on equal footing with the Italians.

[Motherland]

3. Suddenly all the A-20s sent to Russia were used to drop torpedoes and patrol over water.

4. I challenged such.

You said 'nuh-uh' and provided no counter argument based on statistics.
You're citing summaries from random websites and Wikipedia and WMaker is citing data and hard numbers from published books. If you don't see the gap in each argument here you're either putting up blinders or trolling.

Also with how small the Regia Aeronautica was in comparison to the VVS I wouldn't be all that surprised if 25 Ju-88s made up closer to an equal proportion of the RA's bomber force as lend lease aircraft made of the VVS' bomber force than one might initially imagine.

[Arlo]

You're downplaying the Soviets when you put them on equal footing with the Italians.

You're confusing my point in what's being discussed if that's what you're getting out of it. What I've challenged is what the largest gap (and perhaps gaps) in the Aces High II plane set is/are. This involves comparing what is modeled to what isn't as well as what scenarios leave out what planes and nations or often what gets subbed (out of desperation) because the plane just plain wasn't modeled (or hasn't been yet). This isn't about modeling the D.520 fighter because France deserves representation in the game (or whether that means France is more important than the Soviet Union or the British or the U.S. in the overall scheme of credit due in World War II). There is an Italian category to fill and it doesn't have a bomber. The Soviet plane-set can claim the lend-lease planes sent by allied nations for historically accurate scenarios. Hence, your triage reasoning is somewhat skewed. The Soviets in an Eastern Front scenario (as if there's really another front we could portray for the Soviets) aren't suffering nearly as much as the Italians in a Med scenario (as if the Italians could have a shot in anything other than a Med or African scenario - BoB the exception, though a limited one).

There's no racial, national nor ethnic bias in my argument, whatsoever.  

[Arlo]

You said 'nuh-uh' and provided no counter argument based on statistics.

I'm missing detailed statistics other than some rather tunnel-visioned ones to challenge from Wmaker, for that matter.

You're citing summaries from random websites and Wikipedia and WMaker is citing data and hard numbers from published books. If you don't see the gap in each argument here you're either putting up blinders or trolling.

The Wiki article came with source citing built in. When you see a '[(number)]' you can scroll down to see a source reference. They are generally from published books.

The argument is what is or is not THE most glaring gap in the plane-set. This would be an historical event argument. Since I've flown the Soviet lend-lease bombers in more than one event (such being historically accurate, requiring no plane to sub) and I have yet to see an Italian bomber that could be flown without it being subbed by a completely different aircraft and nation, I'm fairly convinced the point you fail to acknowledge has been made quite sufficiently.  

And, again, what hard numbers were provided for the A-20 other than a selected late period in the war where Soviet production was indeed increased and reliability on lend-lease was reduced?

Also with how small the Regia Aeronautica was in comparison to the VVS I wouldn't be all that surprised if 25 Ju-88s made up closer to an equal proportion of the RA's bomber force as lend lease aircraft made of the VVS' bomber force than one might initially imagine.

Rather than being surprised, do a comparative analysis your-own-self as you critique me for not being detailed enough to be taken seriously by you?  

[titanic3]

 

[Vinkman]

It would seem as an observer of the arguments presented that Wmaker is talking about the absolute size of the hole, and arlo is talking about the relative size of the hole.

If the war effort was represented by a sheet of cloth, the Italian sheet would be a large table cloth, whereas the Soviet sheet would be the size of soccer pitch.

-Not having the Italian bomber is like a 2ftx2ft hole in a table cloth.
-Not having the PE-2 is like having a 60ftx60ft hole in a soccer pitch.

Relatively speeking, the 2x2 is a larger percentage of the table cloth, but the 60x60 is a larger hole.

...Ok continue..

[Arlo]

My point is that there are historically accurate Soviet level bombers available for events (though minus the ShKAS modification).

"Through Lend-Lease, Soviet forces received more than two-thirds of version A-20B planes manufactured and a significant portion of versions G and H. The A-20 was the most numerous foreign aircraft in the Soviet bomber inventory. Actually the Soviet Air Force had more A-20 than the USAAC. [9] They were delivered via the ALSIB (Alaska-Siberia) air ferry route. The aircraft had its baptism of fire at the end of June 1942. The Soviets were unsatisfied with the four Brownings machine guns and replaced them with faster firing ShKAS. During the summer 1942, the Bostons flew low-level raids against German convoys heavily protected by flak. Attacks were made from altitudes right down to 33 ft (10 metres) and the air regiments suffered heavy losses. [9] By mid 1943 Soviet pilots were well familiar with the A-20B and A-20C. The general opinion was that the aircraft was overpowered and therefore fast and agile. It could make steep turns with angle of up to 65° while the tricycle landing gear facilitated take-off and landings. The type could be flown even by scarcely trained crews. The engines were reliable but rather sensitive to low temperature, so the Soviet engineers developed special covers for keeping propeller hubs from freezing up. [10] Some of these aircraft were armed with fixed-forward cannons and found some success in the ground attack role. [11]

By the end of the war, 3,414 A-20s had been delivered to USSR, 2,771 of which were used by the Soviet Air Force. [9]"

^ a b c Gordon 2008.
^ Gordon 2008.
^ "Douglas A-20 Havoc / Boston." militaryfactory.com. Retrieved: 30 August 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DB.7

There are no historically accurate Italian level bombers for anything.

Since the argument centers on what the most glaring omission is in the AHII plane set (relative size of national air forces not an issue), then the claim of it being a Soviet built bomber is no more glaring (less so if we take the lend-lease bombers into consideration) than the claim of it being an Italian built bomber. Changing the argument to how important the Soviets and the Eastern front was in comparison to Italy in the Med and Africa or which bomber was better (the SM.79 vs. the Pe-2 [or Tu-2] ) doesn't change the hole in the plane set argument.

[Karnak]

My point is that there are historically accurate Soviet level bombers available for events

As there are for Mediterranean and North African events.