Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: brady on August 17, 2001, 07:13:00 PM
-
We have so much US stuff in this game every patch we get some new US units, Their are so many cool units, land see and air, from other countries that could(corect me if I am wrong) be just as easly added, why the preocupation with US equipment?
I love this game and I realy appricate all the hard work that goes into the creation of these new toys for us but frankly after a year of seing new stuff added for countries with tons of stuff already at the expense of Italy and Japan, and to a lesser degree Russia, I am geting a little disapointed.
-
Maybe because it was the United States which played the largest part in the defeat of the Axis?
-
It is easier to add US stuff because of the available material on it, both general info and official test documentation. The main market for AH is also the USA and so it makes sense from a business perspective to add a lot of US stuff as well.
The US had a larger variety of aircraft than any other nation due to its two front war.
I am glad to see the M8 actually.
That all said, I would love to see more foriegn stuff.
T-34/85 anybody?
G.55?
Re.2005?
S.M.79-II?
B6N2 Tenzan?
Ki84-Ia Hayate?
P1Y1 Ginga?
Ki67?
Ju52?
Mosquito FB.VI?
Me410A-1?
watjen,
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 ]
-
I can't speak for the makers of this game, but I would venture a guess that being a US company run by (I would guess) American citizens, that of course there may be an affinity for the US stuff. Had this game been created in Germany or Japan, it might have been a slightly different story with a slightly greater emphasis on the aircraft of the home country. We generally grow up hearing stories mostly about the indigenous hardware. Yes, they would or do have to appease the masses, but who's to say the masses do not desire this or more US stuff? I am an American and I realize I fly almost exclusively the American-iron concentrating on F4U, P51B and P38. Though the war happened before my time, my family has lost family-members to both the Germans and Japanese and I would again guess that there is just an affinity for the US stuff when you live in the USA. Yes, I am generalizing and there are and will be exceptions. I look forward to Kates and Jills and early Zekes mostly because I want to fight them in Wildcats and Warhawks. If you want it your way, you kinda have to make it yourself.
Just one dog's opinion.
-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels
-
Karnak great list. Would love to see all them
Brady is in my squad while we fly mostly german planes but he has convinced me that the more variety the greater the fun. Even though I would never fly the majority of them I will enjoy killing/being killed by them......... :)
Agreed Brady..... :)
-
well are geting 2 versions of the Hurricane, and a ME 262, are you not happy with those additions as well? Do you think that this AMERICAN company should not add AMERICAN stuff to its sim? Hey I am just an indidvidual, not working for AH but I certainly see something you dont.
Also, please explain the large number of German AC and GV's along with your argument.
-
ammo
brady never argued for more lw stuff even though hes in a lw oriented squad.
What is it you see?
He simply would like to see more japanese italian russian finish french etc stuff.
He cant express that?
-
Antiamericanaphobia :) sux ! Add P-40!
-
I think people are over reacting. We have NO idea what the total output of planes and such will be. They have only mentioned a couple. I'd wait and see... if you think your getting hosed then pitch a squeak.
xBAT
-
Hmm... I would say that the US pretty much defeated Japan on it's own, except for some shreckless participation by the UK/Commonwealth.
Against the Germans the USSR surely lost more people, however, I don't think we should judge a countries amount of support in a war just because of how many deaths they suffered. Clearly the U.S. could have just fed severely undertrained troops into battle just to be slaughtered in pointless rushes just as the Soviets did and maybe then the US would be more respected because of how many soldiers it lost?
Overall, since the USSR did nothing to aid in the Japanese surrender, and the US's arrant participation against both powers merits the U.S. as the main contributer in the defeat of the Axis. ;)
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: watjen ]
-
FWIW, I would like to see some Russian ground vehicles. I don't know of any Japanese or Italian vehicles competitive with or better than the stuff we have, but I could be very wrong. I leave that to Juzz and other GV experts.
I do know the Russian T-34 has the answer to the PIV. ;)
-
Known units as of 1.08:
American (20)
B-17G
B-26B
C-47A
F4U-1
F4U-1D
F4U-1C
F6F-5
LVT-2
LVT-4A
M3
M8
M16
P-38L
P-47D-11
P-47D-25 (Brazilian)
P-47D-30
P-51B
P-51D
PT Boat
TBM-3
German (14)
Ar234A
Bf109F-4
Bf109G-2 (Finnish)
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-10
Fw190A-5
Fw190A-8
Fw190D-9
Fw190F-8
Ju88A-4
Me262A
Ostwind
Panzer IV H
Ta152H-1
British (8)
Hurricane MkIIc
Hurricane MkIId
Lancaster MkIII
Seafire MkIIc
Spitfire MkVb
Spitfire F.MkIX
Tempest MkV
Typhoon MkIb
Russian (6)
Il-2M
La5FN
La7
Tu-2S (hinted at)
Yak9T
Yak9U
Japanese (3)
A6M5b
Ki61-I-KAI-C
N1K2-J
Italian (2)
C.202
C.205
Subtotals
Fighters: 36
Bombers: 8
Transports: 1
Vehicles: 7
Boats: 1
Total Units:
53
-
Originally posted by watjen:
the USSR did nothing to aid in the Japanese surrender
Wrong. After the 1st or 2nd A bomb was droped - not sure, Russian declared war on Japan. Russian finsished in May and moved to west shore near japan. Maybe Japanese taught, ok US no problem but US with USSR? Bad. Don't forget that the USSR fought Japan before. The US did everything by them selves, those big americans. The Chinese and Brits in the CBI were there for fun i guess.
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: pdog_109 ]
-
I thought I heard mention of the a Russian Bomber this version...? Also, they always hold back one or two as a surprise. Either the P-47 or the 190A5 came out in a patch 2 days after the initial release. To say "All this Ami stuff" before the actual release is a bit assanine. Wait and see then squeak, cause you can always find fault with something.
One thing I'd like to see...and OHMY, its Ami...is the Pershing. We could've had that puppy before D-Day if Patton wasn't such a knothead. He thought that since the Shem was lighter it was more manueverable. WRONG! With the Shermans skinny bellybutton tracks it bogged down much quicker than the German tanks and of course...the Pershing. 90mm of fire breathing hell.
-
watjen,
Look at where the German military was comminted and it what strength.
The vast majority of it was commited against the USSR and the USSR destroyed most of it. Also, Soviet troops were battle hardened veterans by 1944, not undertrained recruits. Read what happened the first time US troops came under heavy attack in North Africa. The Brits had to bail us out.
You are also undervaluing the efforts of the UK and Commonwealth in the CBI theatre.
-
Originally posted by Wotan:
ammo
brady never argued for more lw stuff even though hes in a lw oriented squad.
What is it you see?
He simply would like to see more japanese italian russian finish french etc stuff.
He cant express that?
He just seems a little ungrateful, hard to satisfy. Kind of like the spoiled brat you see in the store pulling at his/her mothers dress, kicking and screaming because she says no.
I am for one happy with how HTC is progressing. I used to play WB's and remember how stagnant the game got.
No offence brady, I think you are an OK dude, just disagree with how you see this.
-
Watch your step watjen.
Calling the Commonwealth's participation in the Pacific "shreckless" (weak, ineffective, worthless, irresponsible) when it came at the loss of thousands of lives is horrendously offensive and highly innacurate.
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
Naa I gotta agree with Brady. He has been probably the most vocal in the pursuit of more non-american stuff. I don't feel he is errm whatever ammo said.
Now that Aces is cheaper I wonder if it won't become more accessible to foreign customers (eek from outside of north america) If so, more foreign units will only endear HTC to these customers which in turn will lead to possibly a larger player base.
Adding the P40 or P51H won't attract as many players as perhaps the ki84, or mossie would.
My thots... who knows if they are accurate..
SKurj/Molson
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: SKurj ]
-
It seems to me that this US plane type conspiracy is a figment of AXIS pilots imaginations. I prefer US planes but it has nothing to do with national origin, I just prefer planes with good high-speed handling and lots of ammo. I fly non-US planes too. But most of the LW pilots or Russian pilots or Italian pilots fly ONLY the planes of those countries.
So far HTC has concentrated on late war aircraft, so you end up with a lot of US aircraft. The US had a lot of planes designed after 1940. You should be checking what % of US fighter types built in WWII are modeled in AH, what % of UK, Russian, Jap, German, Italian. For example, about half the Jap fighters built were some version of the Zero, so having the A6M5 modeled covers about half the Japanese fighters built, though with a late war slant.
Of the US types only the CHog and the P51 are uber. The 109G10 and the Tempest and the Niki and the La7 are uber too. It really isn't that far from reality. HTC is gradually adding more planes, with the Hurri2C coming it's clear that they are starting to model non-late war planes.
So quitchersqueakin! :)
ra
-
Keiran,
Throughout the war, the average life-expectancy for a Russian soldier on the Eastern Front was not long, compared to the Germans... there were very few Russian soldiers who were 'battle-hardened', this is a sad but true fact.
What was it? 1 German lost for every 15-20 Russian's killed?
Everyone missing my original point and mis-construing it to hypothetical situations.
I give up.
-
I'ld have to argue that Watjen, especially considering all the talks I've had with my German uncles who actually served on the East Front against Russia (you don't want to hear the the Russian prison camp stories).
If you drop the naive "USA can't be beat" crap and actually sit down and do the research on the subject you WILL realise that Russia vs Germany was the main event. That land war raged for 4 years, while the Western Front only was 1 year. That alone will let you know where all the fighting was taking place.
And calling the Russian army a bunch of morons who can't do anything right is load of lies too. If they were so inept, why did the US and Nato then spend 50 years spending trillions of dollars trying to keep tabs on them.
Everyone missing my original point and mis-construing it to hypothetical situations.
You mean this quote?
Maybe because it was the United States which played the largest part in the defeat of the Axis?
Ok, lets be really clear about this. Your 100% WRONG! The US did NOT win the war.
Hans.
-
Originally posted by SKurj:
I don't feel he is errm whatever ammo said.
SKurj/Molson
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: SKurj ]
<S> I just called the way i saw it. It looked like a whine to me, but like you said, I may not be accurate.
-
wtf u talking about ra
It seems to me that this US plane type conspiracy is a figment of AXIS pilots imaginations. I prefer US planes but it has nothing to do with national origin, I just prefer planes with good high-speed handling and lots of ammo. I fly non-US planes too. But most of the LW pilots or Russian pilots or Italian pilots fly ONLY the planes of those countries.
look at karnak's list.......
No mention of conspiracy
Brady flies axis planes why dont you check his stats to see which one.
He like a lot of other folks would like to see equipment modelled from other countries.
How does that equate to "allied conspiracy"?
-
+) <$> Wotan!! you beat me to it.
I do not call this any sort of conspiracy myself. We can fly P51's F4U's in any number of sims on the market, boxed or otherwise. I, like brady, would like to fly some of the less common aircraft from other nations, just for a change of scenery if for nothing else.
I am curious about what other country's air forces have to offer. Its not about conspiracy crap. I realize alot of the US stuff is easier to model, and I accept that. I would just like to see just a little more effort spent on "other" aircraft.
The TU-2 maybe a sign of things to come!! +)
Brady has been lobbying for other aircraft for as long as I can remember, and I salute him for it!! <$>
SKurj/Molson
-
Bah.
There's only one Force.
The US Army Air Force.
<get off yer bellybutton and SALUTE, soldier!!>
Accept no imitations. Everybody else just flies wannabe planes.
We need More Jugs, More Pony's, More P38's, Liberators, P40's P39's P61's A20's A26A's..
MORE MORE!!
USAAF Iron RULZ!
<we now return this thread to it's regularly scheduled third world nation airplane whine>
-
Mosquito FB.Mk VI Series 2 will make all your dreams come true.
Eh!
:D
-
While this is the wrong place to discuss who won the war, quite a few put their 2 cents in...
Even if we never fired a shot, without US production capabilities, the ships that hauled the equipment, and the Navy that enabled their delivery, neither Russia nor Britain would have made it. Also, we were Japan's primary source of materials prior to the war. Denying Japan the resources she needed to take over Asia is why she declared war on us in the first place.
The U.S. was the only country with both the resources and the resolve to produce enough ships (both war and merchant) fast enough and long enough to control the ocean and thereby control the world to this very day. Germany, without a real Navy was doomed to control only mainland Europe (they couldn't keep Africa supplied) and Japan without its own steel could only fight a short war.
By no means did the U.S. win the war by itself. Almost the entire world struggled against the Axis while the U.S. lazily got its war machine in full gear. In both theaters, costly fighting retreats bought the U.S. the time it needed to build up the production capability needed to turn the tide against the Axis.
Stalingrad was the pivotal point in Europe, much more important than D-Day. But if the U.S. had allowed Britain to fall, the full might of Germany might have overcome the Russians.
In my opinion, acting alone the U.S. would have been able to hold out for such a long time that it could have negotiated a peace with the axis, or even singlehandedly fought and defeated both of them. But speculation is meaningless. All that matters is the end result. Anyone on mainland Europe and Asia paid dearly in lost lives. Only people living in places isolated by oceans were spared death, imprisonment, and/or subjugation.
As for the inefficiency of Russians in combat, our data is largely based on German records which were previously assumed to be very accurate, but have recently been determined to be nearly as unreliable as our own inflated combat reports.
For a lesson in U.S. propaganda, try researching our kill ratio in Korea against MiGs, I can assure you it wasn't even close to the U.S. claim of 10 to 1 (which was only true during a limited period of the war).
-
Originally posted by watjen:
Maybe because it was the United States which played the largest part in the defeat of the Axis?
You're either being sarcastic or tremendously ignorant :)
-
"... Personally I believe that if a P47 looks like a "jug" then a 190 looks like a perfume bottle with it's delicate little fuselage and nipped in area in front of the tail..."
- lasz
lol, somehow i felt this was relevent. i was waiting for a chance to use that and btw screw you lasz the 190 is a beaut and 109 looks like a greek goddess. prominant nose and graceful lines ahhh....love... :D
more on topic: i don't mind seeing more u.s. stuff, i agree we need to diversify (japanese, russian, italian etc) but i like anything that will bring variety.
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: mrfish ]
-
Originally posted by watjen :
Hmm... I would say that the US pretty much defeated Japan on it's own, except for some shreckless participation by the UK/Commonwealth.
Mate, our countries were fighting the good fight for nearly 2 years (for the second war running) before your wonderful americans came and decided to win it for us.
Thanks for that by the way, and for lending us all the guns to fight with as well....But don't ever,ever,EVER think we were just hanging around waiting for you to come rescue us.
Last I saw you americans did diddly all in the BOB, or in the middle east while the ANZAC's, Canadians, Pommies, South Africans and the rest of the 'token' commonwealth were fighting, and winning battles against the Germans.
And don't worry, I haven't forgotten the war that you helpfully had a hand in causing in the pacific. Lucky for us, you didn't allow Australia to fall..or you wouldn't have had a place to retreat to.
I'm sure all the diggers who gave their lives in singapore, and New Guinea are happy that you can take all the credit.
Tronsky
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: -tronski- ]
-
But if the U.S. had allowed Britain to fall, the full might of Germany might have overcome the Russians.
I think Britain not falling had a lot more to do with the RAF and it's Commonwealth and Free XXXX allies. Us support for Britain before mid 41 was only token, and in no way made a difference to Britain falling or not. After that, Hitler was a bit busy in Russia, and never had the strength again to even try giving Britain a push.
US supplies and participation made a contribution to winning the war in Europe, they came to late to contribute much to Britain and Russia avoiding defeat.
-
Ok, with all the updates that we have had, how many were ENTIRELY US planes? 1? 1.05, the naval addition? Why does it matter if we add a US plane or vehicle if we are also gettting planes from other countries? Yes, I agree that we need more planes, particularly Japanese ones. However, the ranting and whining that seems to come out with every new announcement of a new US plane pisses me off. Why does it piss me off? Because it seems that in order to please you guys, it has to be non-US planes only.
Why can't it be planes and equipment from other countries PLUS US planes?
Also, if you feel like you are going to explode into a rage and kill your neighbor because we are getting an F4U-1, think about it this way: The two fronts that the US fought on were very, very different. They thus required different planes. You can almost think of the "blue" planes as being from another country. And if that doesn't work because there are stars and bars on the wings, then quit, because you will never be satisfied.
Just my 2/5 of a nickel, take it however you like.
-math
-
Watjen - let's see now, the UK and Commonwealth countries were fighting on 2 fronts for TWO years before the US got involved in any significant way. Furthermore, every single cent of aid was paid for in full by the British government.
Your comments about the pacific pretty much piss all over the graves of those British and Commonwealth men (and women) who died in Burma, India, Singapore etc.
Take for example Burma. A jungle country, badly supplied, 'forgotten' by the high command due to pressures elsewhere. For nearly 4 years Commonwealth forces fought a viscious fight largely on the enemy's terms with virtually no recognition either at the time or for many years afterward.
I'm sure the survivors would be greatly pleased to have their efforts labelled as 'shreckless'.
As for Hitler taking Britain in 1940 - even with the RAF destroyed it wouldn't have happened. He simply didn't have the resources.
-
Dowding has it nailed. Even though the RAF somehow would have gotten decimated, Sealion would never have succeeded. There just wasn't enough resources for a full scale invasion *across a body of water*.
-
Reread your history... FDR provided a hell of a lot of covert support for Britain before getting official congressional support. Cut off the flow of supplies from the US, and see how long Britain would last alone.
As it was, the primary reason Britain won the Battle of Britain was due to Germany shifting focus from airfields, radars, and factories to London hoping to break morale. At the time they switched strategies there were only a handful of Spitfires and Hurricanes left. British production could not match the the Luftwaffe when they were using the correct strategy. Thank Hitler and Goering for being idiots.
If Britain was so great by itself, why did it retreat from Europe, China, and almost Africa? Britain was fighting a delaying action while the American public was being swayed toward being willing to fight another European war it didn't want. If Russia and Germany had waited a little longer before going at it, I am not sure what would have happened. But both FDR and Churchill knew what was needed to win the war: our materials and factories that were beyond the reach of either Germany or Japan. Only Japanese carriers and German subs really presented any threat to our sea power. Count the Japanese carriers built after Pearl Harbor, then count the US carriers built afterwards. Of course it was the British capture of Enigma, the German policy of reporting submarine positions prior to attack, and huge convoys complete with escort carriers that pretty much ended the submarine war in the Atlantic.
If you take away all the convoy support to Russia and Britain (ships, planes, ammunition, etc.), I believe Britain would have collapsed. If Russia had to face Germany alone and Japan at the same time without our supplies, I am sure even their massive resources would have been tapped out.
Even with our full support, it took a long time to overcome the Germans. If the Germans and Japanese had made better decisions, We might not have won at all. It took all of us to win. I will not even listen to any claim that the war was already won or could have been won without the US. Without us, I am certain the outcome would have been vastly different.
I don't ever mention the Italians, because I have never studied their contributions and failures much. I don't want to insult them based on heresay. Though I do know they had trouble defeating Ethiopia when they had armor divisions and Ethiopia barely had rifles and horses. But that is little different than the US in Vietnam or the USSR in Afghanistan, numbers and technology do not win a guerilla war.
-
I think most of us are used to movies and stories made by Americans. We play AH because it makes us "revive" those movies/stories and satisfy our passion.
When doing so, we use the material of our heros, mostly American stuff. Off course, some of us still like to play the "bad guy" and fly the opposition, but I guess it's not the majority.
I'm sure that if you go in the street and ask :"what plane would you like to fly", guess what would be the answer if you are not falling on an experten?
Olivier "Frenchy" Raunier
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/rauns/sig-frenchy1.jpg)
-
Amazing how many guys continually get sucked into some idiot's claim "...the US won the war...". Happens every time. If you know what really happened, what do you care what his interpretation of history is?
bowser
-
As it was, the primary reason Britain won the Battle of Britain was due to Germany shifting focus from airfields, radars, and factories to London hoping to break morale. At the time they switched strategies there were only a handful of Spitfires and Hurricanes left. British production could not match the the Luftwaffe when they were using the correct strategy. Thank Hitler and Goering for being idiots.
The worst month for the RAF was August, when they lost 594 Spitfires and Hurricanes. New production and repair provided 527 replacement Spits and Hurris in August, so there was a net loss of 67 fighters. RAF reserves at the start of the battle were over 500 Spits and Hurris, so it would take the Luftwaffe around a year to begin cutting front line fighter strength, if they had been able to keep up August's level of fighting. In return, the Luftwaffe lost 300+ Bf109s, and production and repair acounted for only 200 or so replacements, meaning a net loss of 100 fighters for the month. The Luftwaffe began the battle with reserves of less than 100 Bf109s, so August alone more than wiped out their reserves.
Actual numbers of Spits and Hurris, counting reserves, never fell below around 1000 aircraft.
Pilot losses were a concern for the RAF, but even so they trained more pilots than the Luftwaffe during the crucial period, and by the end of August had more fighters and more fighter pilots than the Luftwaffe.
Even before the switch to London, the Luftwaffe was already being defeated.
Reread your history... FDR provided a hell of a lot of covert support for Britain before getting official congressional support. Cut off the flow of supplies from the US, and see how long Britain would last alone.
If you define support as selling goods and weapons, at full price, cash only, no credit, all purchases to be paid for in gold or dollars, Britain to provide all shipping, then yes FDR provided a lot of support. Most people would consider selling things to be something other than support. I have never considered myself to be supported by Tesco, for example. (US readers, Tesco is supermarket chain like Wallmart)
If you consider support to be credit, loans of goods or weapons, free delivery etc, then the US provided very little support to Britain before mid 41.
-
Nashwan is right; Britain had to pay full price of armament it got from States (at least in early years of war) and part of payment was some british owned companies in USA.
And the price was what government of USA was willing to pay; Not the real price of property.
-
btw resources of russia were/are huge, sooner or later it would have beaten Germany; With or without USA.
Only difference is western europe stayed democratic 'cause of USA.
Better that way IMHO :)
-
living on a big island has it's advantages :)
eg.a big arse moat around us
And y do u ppl think that Britain was losing then,we were just starting to get our resorces together.
And america was only going loan weapons to us,the only reason y america joined was cos of the japs attacking pearl harbor,which was a disaster,and 1 that could have been easerly avoided.
and i'm sure u would have had suffered more loses if the RAF hadn't more or less,cleared the skys of LW planes.
-
Interesting. In the matter of 40 messages, we've gone from America making the largest contribution to defeating the Axis to America having absolutely no real impact.
Methinks the truth is somewhere inbetween.
-- Todd/DMF
-
I believe the "US profiteer" label is a bit of an overstatement. In hindsight, we should have realized the dynamics of Nazism earlier, and responded more aggressively, but there were a lot of complexities at work at the time.
The US was a very isolationist country coming out of a depression, and there was no real support for the cause. The U.S. people (like all the other populations throughout the world past and present) were ignorant about the full dynamics of events going on outside their boarders. The govt. saw the need and better understood the dynamics of what was about to take place in Europe and the Pacific. Unfortunately, because of the depression we really didn't have the resources to "give" our own military the type of support it needed. U.S. industry didn't get rolling until 1943 and then it was an avalanche.
The full sickness of the Nazi regime wasn't well understood, and it actually seemed like a good "get tough, no B.S." approach to many conservative elements in both the U.S. and Europe. People have to understand why they have to sacrifice blood and resources for a cause and that takes time -- unless you bomb their fleet. The US people didn't want us involved in another one of those European monarchy-style wars. We had already fought one such pointless war that century -- WWI. Sentiment was shifting though, and after Pearl Harbor there was nothing less than a 100% commitment to the cause.
Russia on its own would likely have eventually worn the Germans down, but with perhaps double the casualties. One thing I've always wondered: Given the Russian involvement in the Invasion of Poland, how did they get off the hook as an aggressor? Does anybody know?
As for the Brits, there's no denying they held the Germans off alone during some of the darkest days of the war. Yet their attitudes before the war and immediately after it started were fairly pacifist. You could argue that a tougher line over the Sudatenland might have prevented WWII in the first place. The role Winston Churchill played in stopping the Nazis, by absolutely denying the possibility of a negotiated settlement, cannot be underestimated.
And, the contribution of the Brits and Commonwealth forces in the Pacific, and their sacrifices in the darkest days of that conflict cannot be underestimated. Still, after 1943 it was an American show and we were perhaps a bit rude about it.
My misc. ramblings,
Charon
P.S. To get back on topic, the US fielded numerous front-line aircraft used by all the allies (even if it didn't use it themselves -- Bring the Baltimore IIIA to AH!) and fielded fron-line equipment for both naval and Air Corps use. There is simply a lot more front line, heavy use equipment to choose from.
-
You guys are funny, everyone knows that a hoser named Oagie Oglethorpe flying a Mosquito FB.Mk VI Series 2 Won the war eh!
-
No NATO in 1941, 1939, or 1937, or whenever that damn war started. I have no idea why the USA could be expected to fight some cursed European or Asian war. No one really expected a sneak attack, hence the sneak part. The USA was brought into the war at the point of a gun, and was poorly prepared to fight.
Was Germany invaded in 1939, or Japan in 1937 by the great European fighting armies? No! They fought a defensive war reluctantly and got whooped at first just like the USA.
-
Is it just me, or is Poulette's bellybutton overmodeled?
BTW, this is a very silly argument.
Just be thankful we ALL haven't had to pony up to the bar again.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by streakeagle:
As it was, the primary reason Britain won the Battle of Britain was due to Germany shifting focus from airfields, radars, and factories to London hoping to break morale. At the time they switched strategies there were only a handful of Spitfires and Hurricanes left. British production could not match the the Luftwaffe when they were using the correct strategy. Thank Hitler and Goering for being idiots.
Totally, and completely wrong.
Nashwan beat me too it as to why :)
Remember, for Germany to invade the UK they had to do it during September. The weather in the channel would prohibit any attempt after then. The clock was ticking. And given on September 14th the RAF was fielding 269 Spitfires and 533 Hurricanes, the LW didn't come close, not remotely.
And as for reading history, check out the damage Royal Navy task groups inflicted on the seaborne invasion of Crete in 1941 under conditions of total LW air supremecy. Now picture RN battleships sailing from Scapa Flow under cover of darkness to arrive at invasion beacheads at dawn. Yes, losses would have been heavy. But the damage done to the invasion would have been catastrophic.
With hindsight, the German invasion of Britain in 1940 was a military impossibility.
This is not to denigrate the US in any way. Eductated Britons fully realise that defeating Germany would not have happened but for US involvement; those who do know their history have the warmest feelings towards Americans for this reason.
It's still true that we mortgaged our own future financially rather than conclude a truce with Germany in 1941 (for which we could have obtained favourable terms).
But I'm damn glad we did so.
Vladd
-
Actually Vladd,
I like the ending tagline from a PBS special over here on the BoB.
It said that Britian knew she could not win the war against Germany alone, but during the BoB, she proved she would not loose it!
Cobra
-
No single nation was in a postion to DEFEAT Germany in WW2 after thev fall of France. It took the Combined resources of UK, Russia, and USA to do it.
Now before you attack me and all that just look at it this way.
No way could the UK alone defeat Germany, yes they were able to stop the planned invasion and won Bob, but Its clear tyo us that UK alone couldnt retake Europe.
The Russians couldnt do it alone either. If there was no more UK in the war circa 1941, then the Germans would have much more resouucres free for the east. Lets examine a few issues.
The Barbarossa plan was delayed several months due to to German deplyoyments in the Balkans. This was due to Italians inability to deal with Greek and UK forces. This also took resources awayt from Barbarossa. One of the reasons poften stated for the inital Barbarossa attack was this late start which put Moscow out of reach before winter.
The British also tied up good sized German forces in the Mediterrainan, and who can forget the Crete losses.
The British tied up the Germans in North Africa, just as the Barbarossa operation was to start.
The RAF had to be dealt with on the Channel coast, so JG2 and JG26 had to kept around in France/Belgium.
Other LW units had to stay around Germany to to defend agasinst British incursions.
The total effect of this British interfearence on LW strenght?
Significant bomber losses in BoB.
and
MORE 109s were used in the 1940 FRANCE attack than were available for the 1941 RUSSIA attack. Just comapre the size of the fronts please.
As for USA.
If there was no UK to provide a base of operations for USA forces, America for all here material strngth could do nothing to DEFEAT Germany ot retake Europe. All they could do was maybe wait for B36s to to conventinally bomb sometime after 1947 or so.
If there was no USA in the effort the russians would not hold on due to vast amounts of supply from the USA.
No Single country could do it. So its simply unfair to say ONE country beat Germany, thats impossible it took all 3 big ones to do it working together.
-
Hehe bottom line: if the US "stays home," Japan stretches from Japan to, oh, India or so, and the Soviet Union is the REST of the Eurasian continent.
Assuming, of course, that the Germans, fighting a one-front war and being area-bombed at night, don't hold out long enough to get their nukes built (an extra year or two, perhaps possible in the absence of daylight bombing and Normandy invasion).
In which case the Soviet Union is Eastern Russia, Japan still stretches to India, and Central Europe east of Germany to the Urals is a big radioactive parking lot.
So, let's just say the US had a "significant impact" on events during and after WW2 and leave it at that, eh? ;)
Oh yeah, on the planes...
Re-do your count only don't count varients, and see how many "major, front-line" fighters are "missing" from the non-US planesets. With the exception of a few Russian planes, I don't see a lot of missing "major players" there other than bomber types. I'll bet they modeled the MAIN planes they had good data for, and are probably still looking for good data on the others, (anybody seen any reliable He-177 data lately?) And of course, the emphasis on the second half of the war is going to limit the number of non-US types to begin with, and make modeling the early planes from the other countries kind of a waste of resources...
-
Let me take another stab at this. If this thread is about a lack of diversity in non-US planes then the fact is that there is also the same lack of diversity in US planes. Of all the aircraft types the US used in large numbers all over the world, only a handful are modeled in AH. Planes like the P-40, A-20, F4F, SB2C, and the P-39 are not here yet. Of the major combattants in WWII probably only the USSR is short-changed in the current planeset. But those planes are probably very difficult to get hard data on.
The reason it looks like AH has a US-heavy planeset it is because in late WWII the planeset was US-heavy.
We all want more planes, but I don't see a slant toward a particular country.
re BoB: A good book on this battle is 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'. Sorry, I forget the author's name. He makes a pretty good case that the BoB was not nearly as close as it is made out to be. The Germans just didn't plan it thoroughly like they did all the other European campaigns, in fact Hitler didn't want war with England.
The LW ended up losing as many planes in accidents as they had expected to lose in combat against the RAF.
The author also gives credit to the British radar system, which was well thought-out and integrated with Fighter Command. It was one of the few things that worked as advertised during the war, right out of the box.
ra
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
If there was no UK to provide a base of operations for USA forces, America for all here material strngth could do nothing to DEFEAT Germany ot retake Europe. All they could do was maybe wait for B36s to to conventinally bomb sometime after 1947 or so.
B-29, atomic bomb, and Berlin. :)
-- Todd/DMF
-
B29 cant get to Berlin, no Atom bomb either without US/UK cooperation.
-
Originally posted by watjen:
Hmm... I would say that the US pretty much defeated Japan on it's own, except for some shreckless participation by the UK/Commonwealth.
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: watjen ]
Tell that to the Aussies, Kiwis, Winnipeg Rifles, etc. What a careless, stuipid comment.
-
Only thing which is really puzzles me now is the reason why there are not japaneese buff modeled yet. May be HTC just do not have enough data on them?
Fariz
-
You know, I can only imagine that HiTech and Pyro are rolling their eyes while reading this and mumbling "They're never quite satisfied" :)
<chuckle> Sounds to me like a damned if you do, damned if you do not situation :D
-
Assuming, of course, that the Germans, fighting a one-front war and being area-bombed at night, don't hold out long enough to get their nukes built (an extra year or two, perhaps possible in the absence of daylight bombing and Normandy invasion).
jedi
Not even close. The Nazis' weren't even in the ballpark with their heavy water research and had no real interest in the concept. Perhaps the Moron Race could have used a few more of those "Untermensch" scientists that fled in the 1930s.
B29 cant get to Berlin, no Atom bomb either without US/UK cooperation. GRUNHERZ
True, that’s why we developed the B-36. The Manhattan Project was a go from the start in the U.S., and was developed with surprisingly massive Govt. and political support. Very likely, the U.S. would have seen an influx of the British brain trust had the Nazis threatened G.B., and the bomb would have been built well before anyone else could even establish the foundation behind the weapon. Look to massive night-time A-bombing that stars off gradually in 1945/46 and builds in intensity by the month. All speculative anyway, except the total lack of interest shown in the A-bomb concept by the Nazi regime.
Fortunately, Nazi Germany did not particularly value creativity -- whether it was modern art or theoretical physics. If they couldn't easily rationalize something as possible they dismissed it -- Enigma cracking and centimetric radar for example. A great focus on engineering though and the V-2 was an amazing development except for its enormous impracticality. The ballistic missile didn’t become practical until A-bombs shrunk and payload capabilities increased dramatically some 15 years after the war.
In the end, the Reich's days were numbered once Churchill ruled out a peace settlement, American sympathy shifted strongly during the Blitz, and particularly after the Invasion of Russia.
Charon
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
B29 cant get to Berlin, no Atom bomb either without US/UK cooperation.
B-29s certainly could have gotten to Berlin and back again from Iceland, but they'd be on fumes upon return. I calculated the air distance between Reykjavik, Iceland and Berlin, Germany as about 1,480 miles according to this (http://www.javacommerce.com/cooljava/calculators/airdistance.html) nifty website.
Most stats I've read about the B-29 (here (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap20.htm) and here (http://www.ixpres.com/ag1caf/usplanes/american.htm?http://www.ixpres.com/ag1caf/usplanes/aircraft/superfort.htm) for example) show it as having a range in excess of 3,000 miles.
In addition, the B-29 has enough range to fly from Iceland to Berlin, and then from Berlin to North Africa or the Middle East (or vice-versa). So range would likely not be an issue. Could the US have developed the atomic bomb without an autonomous UK's help? Well, probably, but it would have taken longer. There's also no reason to believe that British brain power would suddenly disappear because of Nazi occupation, and in all likelihood US/UK participation would have continued with the UK's government in exile somewhere.
-- Todd/DMF
-
DMF, The B-29 couldn't do those figures with an atom bomb, both Fat man and Little boy cut her flight time by a third due to the wieght.
All that Uranium weighs allot! :D
-
<points hijackers at history forum>
There are holes throughout the entire planeset, that's why we keep adding more and more. It sounds as if you want some sort of affirmative action for AH planes. How do you do that? How can you not have a lot more U.S. than Italian? You can look at it as if that Italy has the least representation, but you can also look at it and see that Italy has the fewest holes to fill.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Tell me what U.S. planes you wouldn't have done to make room for the planes that you're advocating. Stay within the work cap too, i.e., you can't trade something that requires little work for something that requires a lot of work. Tell me what you'd do in my role and then I'll take your role as a customer.
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Pyro ]
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
DMF, The B-29 couldn't do those figures with an atom bomb, both Fat man and Little boy cut her flight time by a third due to the wieght.
If the statistics listed here (http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Med/Lbfm.html) are accurate, Fat Man and Little Boy both weighed half of the maximum allowable bomb weight that the B-29 was capable of hauling to its standard range of 3000+ miles. Both websites I listed earlier stated that the maximum bomb weight that B-29s could carry was 20,000 pounds. Little boy was 8,900 pounds and Fat Man was 10,300 pounds.
-- Todd/DMF
-
Pyro,
I don't think the percieved problem is so much with the US stuff, rather its the years of entry.
The US stuff is almost all from 1944, whereas, for example, all of the Spitfires and Hurricanes, more than half of the British planeset, are from 1942 or earlier, the Spitfire IX and Seafire are the worst examples of their type, non representative and, in the case of the Spit IX, mis modeled.
It seems to me that a more rounded US planeset could have been done, but I don't know all of the things you guys have to do to model these aircraft.
Certainly some things HAD to be US. For example, AFAIK nobody else built usable amphibious units.
The planesets are getting filled out nicely now.
It seems to me that what remains is:
Early War, some mid war and a few perk US things. F4F, F4U-4, TBD, SBD, M4A3 Sherman, P-39, P-40, P-47M, P-61B, B-17E, B-24J, B-25 and B-29A.
Early war, some mid war and some late war British stuff. Spitfire MkIa, Hurricane MkI, Wellington or Blenheim, Beaufighter MkXXI, Fulmar MkI, Lancaster MkI, Mosquito B.IV, Mosquito FB.VI, Spitfire LF.MkVIII, Spitfire F.MkXIV.
Early war, some mid war and some late war and maybe some wonder weapon German stuff. Bf109E-3, Bf110C-4, Ju87D, He111, Ju52, Do217, He177, Bf110G-2, Ju87G, Me410A-1, Me163A, Panther V G, Tiger I and Tiger II.
Early war, some mid war and ground Russian stuff. I-16, MiG-3, Pe-2, Il-10, T-34/76, T-34/85 and IS-2.
Lots of Japanese stuff. Of the Big 5 combatants, the Japanese are by fare the worst represented. I know that performance data is hardest to get for Japanese aircraft, but here are some that would be nice. A6M2, G4M2, B5N2, Ki43, Ki44, Ki49, Ki61-Ia,, B6N2, D4Y1, Ki61-II, J2M3, H8K2, N1K1, P1Y1, B7A1, Ki67, Ki84-Ia, Ki100 and Ki102-Ib.
One to three more Italian units. S.M.79, G.55, Re.2005.
The version of the Brewster Buffalo used by the Finns. :D
You of course have a better idea of what is required, particularly for the ground war, most of those are what I think would flesh out the planeset.
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
If i were in your role Pyro... I'd concentrate on getting the big jobs done first (the new AC) and plug away at the easy mods (US AC versions) part time +)
The more countries represented,= more players I believe
Just my thots +)
SKurj
-
OK Pyro, I'm off to the history forum ;)
But before I go, I'm not criticising ANY of the aircraft additions in 1.08.
If I would suggest anything for the future, if would be for more PAC stuff for scernarios and events. The Euro planeset is better represented at the present. A PAC version of Hostile Shores and more such events in the future would provide good publicity for HTC. I'd like to think it would be good business as a result, but I don't know this for a fact.
And yes, I know this request of course includes US rides just like the F4U-1 :D
I think it's a nice addition from this PoV.
Vladd
-
Pyro my suggestion for good planes US or not are:
P39 a USA plane with interesting armament
P40 the type AVG flew or any model without the 6 50cal armament just to add some interest to USA planes
F4F the early types without wingfold
Lagg3
Re2005
Fiat G55
Also something for the spit guys that wont get perked 2 tours after introduction.
More bombers for the Axis, Sm79, Do217, He177, or some apporopriate Japanese twin.
A new earlier and less well armed Allied bomber, something like the Boston or Blenheim.
-
GRUNHERTZ,
I don't know why you, and others, are so focused on the fiction that the Blenheim is the representative early war RAF bomber. It seems that this started with the introduction of the Ju88A-4, and has continued as an attempt to get some Allied airforce the crappiest bomber possible.
I think you'd find that the Blenhiem with a 1,000lb bombload and the Boston with a 2,000lb bomb load would never be used, even if they were the only Allied bombers available.
A far more representative early war RAF bomber would be the Wellington MkIc. It is armed with 6 or 8 .303s and can carry a 4,000lb bomb load. This bomber is slow with a top speed of about 225mph. It would be canon fodder in any time period. A bomber has to be able to destry a hanger, anything less would be a joke.
-
Tell me what you'd do in my role and then I'll take your role as a customer.
As you I'd immediatly stick in a P51H, Mustang II & Mustang III, P47N, P38L, P40, B29 and B24J. To pacify the Luftwhiners I'd give em a Stuka and that rediculous three engine transport and maybe another useless FW or 109 variant. To make the IJN crowd happy I'd give em a Rufe and a Val. Maybe a Betty. Possibly a few battleships like Yammamoto. The brits I would give a Super Spit; the canadians a buncha plywood, glue and beer.
For the Italians.. a beautiful new building complex... Monte Cristo or maybe the Vatican.
As a customer, you could squeak and moan all yah want, and as you; I'd smile a lot, make regular trips to the bank, take a long vacation and give Yankee and Ronnie cruise tickets; and Supe and Nate a case of beer and a pat on the back.
But; that's just me. :)
-
:mad:
For people who are (I'm guessing) WWII enthusiasts, there are some pig ignorant statements on this BBS. Learn your history before making such BS statements as XXX single handidly won the war.
The wars in both Europe and the Far East were won by an allied coalition. The British/Commonwealth held back the Japanese from over running India. Had that happened then Japanese forces could have (in theory) linked up with German forces. Now that WOULD have changed the course of the war.
The Atom bomb was built by a group of British and American scientists. Read Oppenhighmers book for more on that.
Russia accounted for about 75% of all casualties suffered by the Germans in WWII
When the Allies invaded Okinowa, did you know there was a British battle ship, 2 cruisers, 5 destroyers etc..etc...
The Australians were very active in Burma and held back the Japanese. Troops that could have been moved to defend against the US had that front fallen.
By the same token, the British would have been starved out during the Battle of the Atlantic had it not been for US aid. And while it was Commenwealth not US troops who held back the Japanese tide, it was mainly US ground forces to did the recapturing (I said mainly but not all)
Could America alone have defeated the Germans and Japanese alone? No. In fact the only country that might have had a chance alone was Russia, but that's mainly due to the appaling winters and bad road networks.
And as a heads up. The most widly produced Allied plane wasnt British or American. It was Russian. The IL2.
Learn your history before posting ignorant sh*t. Or just get an education.
Thrax
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Thrax ]
-
Well said Thrax, a bit to harsh but desereved. I was browsing trough a ww2 american book and it said US produced fanastic number of planes and compares US number which is highest in the book to British, German and Japanese which are all lower than US. Hmmm the author seemed to forget about Russia producing any number of planes during ww2, yet alone higher than US.
Shock US is not the best Propaganda book, obvisously affecting people. Thrax your wrong tough, the IL-2 wasn't the most produced the Po-2/U-2 (no not the american spy plane) was. And we all know what that is don't we?
Next Post:
Whats a Po-2?
hehehe :)
-
Karnak I've been calling for a whimpy since The Afrika Korp Scenario.........
would be great addition to ah as well as a he-111.......................
I've read and seen pictures about wellingtons mostly in service in the med. Love to see it.
Were most wellingtons used in the med? If you have any good info on the whimpy please post.............. :)
ps in the correct forum if ya don't mind ;)
-
Thanks for the courtesy. Why's it so hard to take a heated topic and put it in it's own thread and place instead of having to hijack existing ones? Certainly topics drift, but we all clearly know when somethings getting hijacked.
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Pyro ]
-
Pyro
As far as a bomber is concerned for Japan or Italy you obviously waited till you had one for everbody else first, and the US got 2, not one each like Brition and Germany' I am asuming that Russia is indead geting the TU 2 (a realy cool medieum buff). Sombody had to be last, I know they take time to do the Buffs.
As far as Fighters are concerned Japan has only 3 fighters( Italy 2) 2 are very well suited to the MA the Ki 61 is a great plane but kinda lacking in performance for the 1944 MA, I know the CM's asked for it but hey I fly in the MA every day, why mot a Ki 84? or even a Ki 100?
You asked what ftrs should of been omited Well why add more planes for Brition whean Japan only has 3 flyable planes ( I am bunching variants in hear( 3 spits) the Tempest and the Typhoon. Why not do One for Italy and Japan Instead of the F4u-1 and the Huricane.
Also why do we have 3 varients of the P 47?
Why not say 2 varients of the P 47 and 2 of the Zero.
How about heavy fighters, everybody and His grandma want's one, any would be cool, heck even a German one, a Me 410, ki 102, mossie,..
Ground vehicals, I personaly like the AC idea it will be way fun, but why a US unit why not British, German? ( is it the AA gun.. PSW 234/1)
When I whine that their are too many US units I am refering to everything Planes,tanks, ships, ect. it is hard not to do the math and wonder why the lopsided modeling of US units in general, unless it is simply ethnocentricity on the part of the consumer that is driving us hear.
I would like to close by saying that I do lookforward to flying and or driving all our new toys the only "?" I have is why Has it been over a year and Japan and Italy have come out on the short end of the stick.
-
Karnak, very simple I think the Blenheim looks neat, especially the early ones with the cool all glass nose!
As for the Boston, I think it looks cool too.
Anyway allies have many bomber choices and adding those two certainly wont hurt that in any way.
As for the wellington add that too. All Im saying not all Allied bombers were of the B26/17/Lanc class with high speed/load/or firepower.
-
Brady,
If you are saying that each country should have an equal number of aircraft types, then you are irrational. In WWII countries did not build equal numbers of aircraft. Two US bombers v one British and one German probably reflects the numbers pretty well for late war.
The current planeset is biased toward late war, and almost all fighting is done in the MA. Adding, for example, a Ki-43 would help balance the numbers you are so concerned with, but the Ki-43 would stay parked in the hangar next to the C.202. The planeset is decently balanced for late war. The Russians could use a couple of planes and the Japanese need a bomber, but for this stage in the development of the game it ain't bad.
The vehicle imbalance favors the Germans, who have 2 tanks, including the Ostie of which something like 50 were built. Most of the US vehicles are geared toward field capture, not combat, and other countries have nothing at all. It is not a US imbalance.
With the addition of the Combat Theater and the Hurricane II it is clear that the planeset is ready to expand beyond late war.
You picked a strange point in time to become impatient.
ra
-
ra brady has been lobbying for more non-US aircraft longer than anyone in AH, well perhaps he and Karnak are pretty even.
He isn't suggesting that every country have an even # of units, he is asking why is it the US keeps getting more units, when some countries recieve units quite rarely. Japan recently got the Ki, Italy... (?) Japan had a ton of different airframes in the war. Granted many maybe difficult to get data on, but due to this fact, they should have better representation. Italy, well the 202, and 205 may have been the mainstay of the italian airforces, better aircraft were produced, probably not in large #'s but there are a couple that may fit into the current late war MA, better than the current selections.
Bombers, we have 2 US, 1 British and 1 German bomber.... I don't think it is out of line to think that each country should be represented as close to equally in bomber types as possible. Germany and US both have a medium, US and brits have a hvy. Brits should get a medium, Germany, well the heaviest thing they had that actually did see service, and maybe useable in a scenario. The italians P108? SM79 nuff said. The russians are getting a decent machine soon, I am unfamiliar with other russian buffs but I see no reason why they shouldn't be represented fairly equally either.
Japan!!! not one buff... Japan sorely needs, a dive bomber, a torpedo plane, a medium bomber, and like the gerries somethin heavy.
Come on... the pacific war was the US's war, yet AH can't do a scenario in that theater, due to some holes in the planeset.
The way some of you guys address this issue makes me wonder how happy you would be if someone tried to sell you a game with US planes only...
+)
cheers Pyro, i enjoy every addition you guys make to the game, yet I am always more excited by the foreign units. Keep at it!!
SKurj
-
Ok, I've had enough.
Add any plane, somebody WILL complain.
Don't add any plane, everbody WILL complain.
It's a pretty simple choice. Add more planes, who cares which ones. Personally, I vote for more planes [bold]that are usefull[/bold], not cultural. I don't want to see a Japanese plane that sits around unused, or a Russian one, or a USAAF one. It doesn't matter.
Right now, we need more light bombers and carrier planes. Those are the ones I would like.
-
LtHans,
HTC is running out of units that are "useful".
It is highly unlikely that future units will be more common than the N1K2-J, a Japanese aircraft BTW, is now.
There are several Japanese aircraft that would see good usage, the Ki84-Ia or Ib obviously would, it may be the only aircraft with a hope of unseating the N1K2-J while remaining unperked. The Ki61-II would probably see decent usage. The J2M3 might do Fw190D-9 or P-38L type of service.
The Yak-3 would be a reasonably common aircraft in MA usage. The Il-10 might be used with some regularity.
The Me410A-1 and Mosquito FB.VI would probably see usage at about the level of the B-26B.
The G.55 and Re.2005 might, while not being representative of Italian Aircraft in WWII, give the Italians some more common visability.
I guess the A-20 or A-26 would get quite a bit of use.
Most other aircraft that would see high usage, Spitfire F.MkXIV, F4U-4, P-47M, B-29, will have to be perked.
As you can see there isn't very much left in the high usage categories, even the moderate usage categories are getting thinner.
Because of that, usage isn't a very good arguement anymore. Your assumption that someting would be unused because it is Japanese is also demonstratably false. The N1K2-J Shiden-Kai does a good job of that, but the Ki61-I-KAIc Hien and A6M5b Zero-Sen also see decent usage.
BTW, Skurj,
Technically we have more than four bombers:
B-17G Flying Fortress
B-26B Maruader
TBM-3 Avenger
Ar234A
Ju88A-4
Lancaster Mk III
Il-2M Sturmovik
[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
mrfish... That lasz guy said pretty much what I did about the 190 looking like a delicate little perfume bottle... I also said that the 109 just looked...old. the canopy looked like the greenhouse my first wife cobbled up with grape stakes and visqueen. everything from the wind up starter to the guy wires on the stabs... finally building a plane whose engine was powerful enough to make the plane compress in the straight and level.
for lasz's benifet I would say blow me but you are LW so it might seem too much like an invitation to you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
The G.55 and Re.2005 might, while not being representative of Italian Aircraft in WWII, give the Italians some more common visability.
[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
Not representative of Italian aircraft?
Those are italian a/c, didn't serve with the Regia long, but with the ANR.
-
The only real solution is for HTC to shut down the game until they can model every fighter/bomber/ship/vehicle ever used in WW2.
That way we don't have to sit here and endure 75 posts arguing how unfairly represented certain planesets are.
Or.. how about being glad that there are already 4 russian fighters modeled. Being glad that 3 Japanese fighters are modeled. Of course, many here played WB... do you remember how long it took for that to occur there?
Sheesh.. there are 6 people working for HTC. They are pumping out planes at a remarkable rate for those numbers. We have a decent selection to chose from. Quit squeaking, be thankfull.
AKDejaVu
-
SKurj,
Everyone wants more planes but you and Brady only want more non-US planes. The planeset is under constant development and it is pretty well balanced by late war standards.
The Japanese may have produced many aircraft types but most of the fighters they produced were either Oscars or Zekes. The Oscar (6000 built) would be worthless in the MA so they got the N1K2 (450 built). There aren't many potent Japanese planes built in any numbers that are left to model.
Most Japanese bombers and all Italian bombers would be worthless in the current late war bias of the game, so I have no problem waiting for the planeset to fill in some more before we get an SM 79.
The A-26 would be nice though.
ra
-
Look, they've seen the multiple "what aircraft would you like to see modeled" threads.
Ever stop to think there may be other considerations in modeling than what a small percentage of AH players.. the BBS users.... have at the top of the "plane du jour" list?
Data availability?
Gameplay considerations?
Programming/Artwork labor availability?
They can't model them all at once. They will model them all eventually.
If your favorite is being overlooked, why not get off your duff and get some good RELIABLE, verifiable data and send it to them along with good pictures of the interior and exterior. That's work that someone has to do... so do it.
Otherwise, be at one with the AH cosmos my brothers. There is a plan... it's just not ours and we're not privy to it. :)
-
Since when is production number's a factor in deciding wheather or not to model a plane?
I never said I did not want any more US planes( I would love to see the A 26, PBY,P 40).
My olny point is that the Americans cup runith over, time to share the modeling time with the less favored countries this is not about what my favorate plane is, this about whats fair, I do not think 20 some odd US plane's to 3 Japanese and 2 Italian planes is fair.
ra, pick up a book man thier are tons of late war planes for Japan that would do nicely in the MA, Peggy, frances, and randy to name but 3.
-
Ok, look at what I specifically asked and look at the responses. Nobody seems to want to take an unpopular stance and come out and say something like "The Ki-84 should have been modeled instead of the P-47." Instead it's just "I'd do more of this and more of that." Well that's just preaching to the choir. We obviously agree as we do the more part with every version. I asked what U.S. planes should not have been done so that we instead could have some of these other planes. The closest answer to that was Zero variants instead of P-47 variants. Ironically, I don't see how that would be better without the addition of even MORE U.S. planes, namely F4Fs, P40s, P39s, etc.
Not all units are introduced just for the main arena. Not all units are introduced just for the immediate effect. Some units are introduced to fill a specific niche and won't have an immediate counterpart, e.g. the PT boat, LVTs, halftracks, etc. In time, they'll get their counterparts but for now they have to hold down that role by themselves. Why are so many of those units U.S.? Because I don't care what nationality is used to fill those roles, I just want the best choice for that role since most of them are in pretty vulnerable roles. In time, it won't matter anyway. What would have been better choices there?
Why the LVT? What are my choices? Why the C-47? Ju 52 has the popgun but the C-47 is faster and is also the easier model to make. Why the M3? Best combination of speed and firepower. Why the M8? See M3. Why the Panzer IV? I didn't think it'd be the only tank in the game still. Otherwise I probably would have opted for the Sherman because it's a little better armored against plane attacks and has better AA defense.
Don't like the Hurricane? Sorry but a lot of other people do. It gives us a couple of cool planes now and sets up future additions nicely. Add a 110 and a few variants and we have a decent BoB set.
I've made these choices over a 100 times and the one thing they all have in common is that you're guaranteed that some people won't like it. They won't see it as progress, they'll see it as sins of omission. The more you add, the more sins you make. Nothing I can do about that. There's no reason why we can't do just about everything, but we can't do it all at once.
-
There's no reason why we can't do just about everything, but we can't do it all at once.
1.08 will suffice.
-
One thing, if there is ever a BoB scenario those 20mm Hurri's gotta go :)
-
Originally posted by watjen:
Maybe because it was the United States which played the largest part in the defeat of the Axis?
LOL!!!! Oh, yeah, and there really is a Santa Claus too ;)
-
I create 3d models via Maya, and lightwave, perhaps I can aid in creation process by doing test projects. :D
-
Brady,
Maybe you would prefer it if the current planeset had 5 US, 5 German, 5 Italian, 5 Russian, 5 Japanese, and 5 British planes.
To me that seems way more unbalanced than what we have, and it would be impossible for HTC to continue that ratio for long, they would begin to run out of useful non-US planes to model.
Of the planes you listed probably only the Randy has MA potential. The Emily would be fun because you fly it off the water, but the 4.5K bombload would make it unattractive for heavy buffers. The Peggy could replace the Ju-88 as the torpedo/suicide CV killer, but as a level bomber the 3.5K bombload would also be insufficient.
There are lots of planes from every country which don't have much use in the MA and I'm waiting eagerly for each of them. But the MA planeset is not any more lopsided than the real late war planeset was.
ra
-
Well put Pyro < s >
-
Hmmm, lets look at it this way, how many airframes/hulls do we have as of 1.08?
USA
Single Engined: 5
Vehicle: 4
Twin Engined: 3
Three or more Engines: 1
Germany
Single Engined: 2
Vehicle: 1
Twin Engined: 3
Three or more Engines: 0
UK
Single Engined: 3
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 0
Three or more Engines: 1
USSR
Single Engined: 3
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 1
Three or more Engines: 0
Japan
Single Engined: 3
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 0
Three or more Engines: 0
Italy
Single Engined: 1
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 0
Three or more Engines: 0
I agree that the C-47 is better than the Ju52, I said as much to Staga and another guy when they were saying no one would use the unarmed C-47 if the Ju52 were added.
When AH launched it needed a basic set of useable bombers, a heavy and a medium. The only bombers that fit that bill are either American, have been added by 1.08 or were not major players in WWII.
There is a large fan base for the P-38. Witness the frequent calls to fix the P-38. It makes sense to spend the resources on an intersting aircraft with such a base.
It would seem that I agree with the inclusion of all of the US multi engined aircraft.
The P-51 is a classic and no WWII air combat sim can do without it (unless set in a specific place or time where it wouldn't exist). The P-51 is an absolute must.
The P-47 seems to have a very, very vocal group of supporters and is another WWII classic. However, I think that a Ki84 Hayate or J2M3 Raiden would have been better choice.
The F4U is, once again, a classic. The only difference I would have done is to have added an F4U-1 or F4U-1A varient instead of the F4U-1C varient.
The F6F, another classic. Distinctly different performance from the F4U, but its armament and ordinance make it fill the same role. I would have added the B6N2 or B7A2 in its place.
There isn't a lot of choice when looking for a carrier bomber with a bombsight. I agree that the TBM-3 fills that role well and would have added it as well.
I have no problem with any of the vehicles added so far. I would like to see a T-34 and a Sherman though.
For the Germans, there is little I would have done differently. I'm not overly fond of perks or late war, so I would have added the Me410A-1 instead of the Me262 and a Do217 instead of the Ar234, but the Perk system is a business decision that has not fully come into its own yet.
Given the amount of work required and the amount of work done so far, I have no issues with the rest of the planeset.
[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
LOL KARNAK!
Next time, seperate fighter frames from ground/sea vehicles. Of course, the numbers won't look nearly as impressive... but maybe that was the point?
AKDejaVu
-
Just a minor point Karnak. The Me-262 is a rather simple model, while the Me-410 would be a rather big project. Same for the Do-217. Both get rather complex in places since they're larger aircraft, bomb bays, and gunner positions. So you'd literally have to trade two new fighter slots to get the 410 or 217 thrown in based on man-hours put into each aircraft.
Pyro, I've got a few minor gripes about the current choices. Like others, I think that aircraft from later years should be put in to compete with the US 1944 stuff. Speed is increasing in the arena with each new addition. Now the 262 is a real kick in the pants to fly, but it's useless as a fighter due to the lack of maneuvering ability. A possible alternative for it? The Ta-152C3. Sure it would be perked, but so is the 262, and it can actually fight at speeds below 400mph. If the P-51H rumors are true, I would've done a P-40B or an N model instead of it. The 51H is a "what if?" aircraft really, and time could've been spent on something a bit more worthwhile.
As for future additions? I'd start slowing the arena speeds down some as well as throw in a few better aircraft. Fixing the current Spitfire Mk IX and adding a better Spit Mk IX are two things I'd do. A P-40 of some model isn't a bad idea either. A Ki-84, Ki-103, and A6M3 would all be fun to drive around along with the Me-410.
Troop transports are kind of a blank area to draw from. The US has the C-47, Germany has the Ju-52, Russia and Japan had their own too. But it doesn't give you many choices, or a large variety, so the C-47 was a good choice in my book.
US vehicles are a minor thing to me as eventually we'll see more of them from other places. Still, I think the Ostwind frackas would have been avoided if a Wirblewind was thrown in instead. Half-tracks abound in both US and German service, so variations of either work. And there were a load of variations.
To continue this "seat-swap" a tad further, in 1.09 I'd do the following. Forgive me if any of this is already in 1.08...
Fix the P-38, including:
Damage model problem with a glass tail
Fix single engine operation in multi-engine aircraft. Torque is FAR too high for single-engine taxiing in both the B-26 and P-38.
Fix trim bugs as B-17 and Lanc trim indicators work backwards.
Fix B-26 trim problem. Loaded takeoff with flaps causes a marked raising of the right wing.
Fix Ta-152H speed problem. It's currently 15-25mph too slow at altitude with WEP running.
Add:
P-40B and N
Me-410
Ki-103
Time permitting...
M26 Pershing
Panther
Manable anti-tank guns at field approaches
That's my take on things. If there's anything you agree or disagree with, please tell me what and why. If anything we'll know more about inclusion choices and such.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/lie.gif)
-
AKDejaVu,
Done.
My intention was to break it down by a rough guesstament of the effort needed to produce a new airframe/hull. I think that the single engined aircraft and vehicles are about the same on effort required.
I wasn't trying to make a statement about who has what. You'll note that I had very few differences in my list from what HTC actually did, and I specifically singled out vehicles as something that I had no problems with.
-
ra, LISTEN VERY CLOSLY, I never said every county should have an equal plane set in terms of numbers( at least not right away), I do howeaver think it is time to somthing for Japan and Italy, at least one apeace,at the very least one for Italy.
Pyro, with all do respect for you and the work you do, I ask simply that you consider other countries units for addation as apposed to US units to fill Nitches in the planeset(vehical set). Not permanatly not in exclushion of other US units just in part.
Once again I point to the add on rate for Japan and Italy, I have been playing for over a year almost contuniously, and only one plane has been added for those 2 countries.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
USSR
Single Engined: 3
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 1
Three or more Engines: 0
----------THIS IS NOT A NIT PICK :)-----------
you missed a single engined,ussr has 4 S E planes,yak-u,yak-t,la5,la7
-
BenDover,
I wasn't counting aircraft, I was counting airframes.
Russian Airframes as of 1.08:
La (La-5FN, La-7)
Yak (Yak-9U, Yak-9T)
Il-2 (Il-2M)
Tu-2 (Tu-2S)
Total:
Single Engined: 3
Twin Engined: 1
There are multiple variants of two of the airframes, the La and the Yak. The reason I was making this distiction is because we are discussing which aircraft we think should have been added, which means different airframes and those take far more work than making a variant of an existing airframe.
-
Karnak,
Not to nitpick but the Ta-152 should count as a separate 'airframe'.
But I don't understand what the relevance of 'airframe' types is. The US and USSR produced a lot of different aircraft designs in large numbers, Germany and Japan concentrated their resources by making modifications to relatively few existing designs. Comparing 2 or 3 German single engine fighter airframes in AH to 5 US single engine fighter airframes is misleading.
Brady,
Ok, you want aircraft from certain countries moved to the front of the list ahead of much more historically significant or useful aircraft from other countries. That way the hangars will be filled with unused planes with interesting insignia.
ra
-
Ra the deal with airframes is this. Each aircraft in AH is based off a single parent aircraft. Say you've got 6 models of Spitfire in here, as an example. Those 6 models are really just one model, that's been altered 6 different times to create 6 similar aircraft. What is faster: Making each aircraft model from scratch or modifying an existing one? Sure we may have 4 models of Bf-109, but those 4 models are actually one airframe Superfly and Nate modified or took parts from. Remember the speed which the Hurricane IID was shown? How about the fun shock when they stuck the P-47D25 in during a patch? That's because they took one airframe, or base model, and changed it enough to make another variant of that aircraft type.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think my maker wants to hear from me right now. I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
So would this be a bad time to ask for one of these:
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/NARG/images/wildcat6.jpg) ???????
-SW
[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
bf110!!!!!
oh please oh please!
-
Let me offer a picture of why there are so many US aircraft in this game, aside from the fact that a lot of us fliers are brainwashed Americans who demand nothing less:
http://homestead.juno.com/streakeagle/files/WWIIAircraftProduction.jpg (http://homestead.juno.com/streakeagle/files/WWIIAircraftProduction.jpg)
Note that in order to show the other countries production with reasonable detail, ours went way off the chart.
This also helps me stand by my statements regarding the off-topic "who really won the war". Reread my post, I may make some of the standard American egotistical remarks, but quite clearly I said:
1) No single country won it, nor could have won it against the combined might of Germany and Japan.
2) It would not would have been won without US production capability.
The British did not fly American planes or give us bases because they wanted to, the future of their country and the world depended on it.
Airpower has never won a war to this very day (even counting Desert Storm), but ask the Germans and Japanese about what it does to your chances of victory on the ground or sea when you had air superiority and then lost it. Many argure that the US/British bombing effort had little or no impact on the outcome of the war, that only the frontline fighting by the Russians had any real effect. Look at the German production numbers... only 2nd to the US. Imagine how many more planes and tanks they would have cranked out if their production had not been interrupted on a daily basis by heavy bomber raids. Also, while the peak production occurred late in the war, towards the end, they were so short of fuel and oil that operating all this equipment was becoming impossible. Score a late victory for the bombing effort! The Russians proved that fighting it out on the ground is way faster, but at the cost of more casualties than those of all other countries involved. While I respect all of those who fought and died in defense of their homes and their freedom, I don't think their sacrifice should belittle the American efforts which were at least an equal contribution and in my opinion an absolute necessity for the defeat of the Axis.
As long as I keep ranting and raving, might as well respond to one more criticism of the US: Pearl Harbor.
I may be laughed at or in the minority for believing this, but there are entire books devoted to the fact that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, but used it as a tool to motivate the American public. There must be some reason why Halsey was out with the Enterprise looking for a Japanese carrier fleet near Hawaii that no one knew was coming instead of being parked there to be bombed as originally scheduled (I am not sure, but I think one of his search planes may have come within 200 miles of the Japanese fleet). Funny how old men living in luxury get to make the decisions about who lives and who dies for the sake of political correctness. Though I believe he was right: Americans let the whole world collapse as long as they are not dying and the money keeps flowing, but let one foreign bullet hit one American and we bomb the crap out of you. Or if you really piss us off, we invent the nastiest weapon ever built and try it out on a couple of your cities.
Ugh... I need to stop rambling. Pyro slap me silly for joining the hijackers! But hey, it's still a free internet right? Besides, I am quite sure if I am badly in the wrong I will be banned like all the other abusive types on these bulletin boards.
-
Hmmm well saying we cant add that because we have no hard data is horse hockey if ya ask me ,
since the brains of the outfit was there during the inception of wb he should have some of this info already,
if not oh well it can be fund with a few clicks of a mouse .
:mad:
-
:rolleyes: HTC must be doing a good job if "Too Many US Planes vs others" is a big deal! Keep it up HTC! More planes Russian, German, Jap, US, Iranian "flying carpets", whatever!
-
Does this mean you all are strongly opposed to a F4F-3 Wildcat?
-SW
-
Was germany the supierior race/war machine back then? I know it sounds stupid.. but they seemed to be the best at what they did(be evil and deadly over powering warmonglers).
In no way do I respect or agree with anything they did, but I kinda think that they were stronger as a whole.. I mean it did take the entire combined forces of the rest of the world (allied) to put a stop to thier evil.
I dont care who did more to win AGAINST them... I just care that they lost.
If america and others did not aid in the process of stopping germany, we would all be either living under the swastika, or a strange red sun.
-
Originally posted by rickod:
if not oh well it can be fund with a few clicks of a mouse .
:mad:
Skrbrofr,
Please give Pyro a call at HTC and ask him what data (and pictures) he needs to model the plane you would most like to have.
Probably better have a good pen and lots of paper ready.
Anyway, when you have the list, start clicking.
I'll be happy to pay for the phone call to HTC... just send me a copy of the phone bill and I'll reimburse you. Because if it's long distance I think you're going to run up an impressive bill.
Anyway, it shouldn't take you long... and I'm sure it would be of help to Pyro if you get the EXACT information he asks for.
:)
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
I mean it did take the entire combined forces of the rest of the world (allied) to put a stop to thier evil.
And it took the combined forces of unprepared/undefended nations to allow the Blitzkrieg to happen.
Careful what you assume, Germany was in no way the most advanced nation at the onset of the war. The territory they gained was from attacking extremely weak nations using superior tactics and superior machinery (biplanes versus monoplanes and such).
-SW
-
It's amazing, with every post I get closer to the actual topic:
The deal with all of this US stuff is: it is what most customers want, or HTC would already be out of business. Look how many US planes we don't have yet (and don't get me wrong, I want them all!):
F2A Buffalo
F4F Wildcat
F7F Tigercat
F8F Bearcat
PBY Catalina
SBD Dauntless
SB2C Helldiver
TBD Devastator
A-20 Havoc
A-26 Invader
B-24 Liberator
B-25 Mitchell
B-29 Superfortress
P-39 Airacobra
P-40 Warhawk (though I prefer calling them Tigersharks)
P-59 Airacomet (hee hee!)
P-61 Black Widow
P-63 King Cobra
That list does not even include all of the variants of the aircraft we already have.
But, I also want realism: What good is having a P-40B or and F4F-3 if are no Ki-43s or A6M2s escorting Kates, Vals, and Bettys? Of course the Corsairs and Hellcats need more opponents such as Frank, Jack, and Tojo. What is the western front without Mosquitos, Beaufighters, Wellingtons, Bleinhems, Bf109Es, Ju87s, Bf110s, and He111s? How about Yak-3s, MiG-3s, and those little fat I-16s? The Me163 might even be useful in the MA for quick response to high altitude bombers. I have seen some of the other Italian planes which belong in this sim for sure, but again I must apologize for not bothering to have much knowledge about the Italian aspects of WWII.
You know HTC is really running out of ideas when they add the Boulton-Paul Defiant. I hope that day comes. I would love to see a sim that models nearly every WWII aircraft I can think of.
Pyro, I suggest you model them all super accurately and have them all ready for download by next week :D
While I have preferences, I really don't care what order you add aircraft, as long as they all get added before you guys get bored and move on to other things as all programmers/artists eventually do. I haven't been disappointed with a release yet (I more or less been around since the final weeks of 1.03).
-
SW... the blitzkrieg.. Did not succeed due to superior vehicles or manpower.
In the Air the Germans had an advantage. But on the ground it was the errrm French screwups combined with decent tactics and lots of luck that permitted the Blitz to succeed.
SKurj
-
ra, I do not want planes added that have no value in the MA , the ki 84 would be a sweat ride the Ki 102 would as well, the Peggy was very fast and had a good defensive aramenent,and a usefull bombload, not a huge one but one that could be used, certanialy it's torpedo load could be used, I am not asking for Betty bombers or jakes hear but planes that would add diversity and be abble aponets in the 44 MA,The same goes for Italy, if I had not heard that the TU 2 was being added I would of sugested it for the USSR.
What would my motavation for adding ireveralent planes to the MA be anyway?
-
Skurj, comparing what some of the forces were using as front line weapons.. the Germans were techinically superior. Russian Bi-planes, F2A Brewster Buffalos, etc, up against the faster and better climbing Bf-109E gives the Germans an upper hand.
The complete lack of front line defenses (sparsly populated defenses amongst the invaded countries) allowed the Germans to cake-walk right through all of them except France. But even that didn't take very long. It was the Channel that bought the English time to organize and prepare, this in turn led to the defeat of Germany.
They (Germany) were prepared to do a quick strike and take all countries by surprise, they were not there for the long haul as was proven in '45.
I never said Germany was superior, but the weapons the enemy(the over-run countries) was using against them at the time made the Germans seem technilogically superior.
Case in point: Both Britain and Germany had jets, Germany was put into a strangehold that required throwing every last ditch weapon into the air... Had roles been reversed I'm sure the Gloster Meteor would be the Me-262 that grabs so many people's attention today.
Just a lil' somein to think about.
-SW
-
Hmm well I was talking about the blitzkrieg. What happened later in the war is a different story. The Allies outgunned and out armored the German forces, they were just not utilized properly.
The French expected a trench war lol +)
And I did state that in the air the LW had the advantage.
Anyways and now back to our regularly scheduled program
SKurj
-
Hmmm have to step in briefly. One answer is that the Germans had been preparing for a war since 1933. The rest of the world naively had decided that WWI had indeed been the war to end all wars.
GB was desperately working to get its rearmament program up running full steam by the time Hitler attacked Poland, but Germany had had a 3-5 year start. That makes a huge difference. The US, of course, was still coming out of the Great Depression. My 2 cents.
Anyway, I would like to see more units from other nations as well, but I have no issue with the continued addition of US aircraft. I'm the first to admit that they are my first love, even if my favorite plane to fly and fight in isn't American - that honor goes to the Yak. All my preferences below the Yak go to American Iron, however. Bring 'em on!
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Does this mean you all are strongly opposed to a F4F-3 Wildcat?
-SW
Nah, but at the same time you need Zeke(Model 21), Kate and Val at least - don't you? :)
-
The war for the germans was lost at Dunkirk. If the 300,000 english and french troops had not escaped, who would defend england and who would fight in North Africa? Already fighting in North Africa, but there would be no build up. Ah but this is Off Topic anyways. Germans could have gotten arse kicking in France. The Arme Del air had more airplanes than the germans, alot more. But they screwed up.
THE FRENCH AIR FORCE IN 1940
Was It Defeated by the Luftwaffe or by Politics?
LIEUTENANT COLONEL FARIS R. KIRKLAND, USA(RET)
During the Battle of France in May-June 1940, French Army commanders complained that German aircraft attacked their troops without interference by the French Air Force. French generals and statesmen begged the British to send more Royal Air Force (RAF) fighter squadrons to France. Reporters on the scene confirmed the German domination of the skies, and the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Luftwaffe came to be accepted as one of the principal causes of the French collapse.1
The air force was a convenient scapegoat for the French Army generals who dominated the Vichy regime that ruled France under the Germans. By attributing the defeat of French forces to weakness in the air, the army officers diverted attention from their own failures. Moreover, the Vichy leaders were able to strengthen their claim to legitimacy by blaming the parliamentary regime they had supplanted for failing to provide a sufficient number of aircraft. The Vichy leaders also reproached the British for holding the bulk of their air force in the British Isles. Concurrently, the Vichy army officers used the defeat of the air force to justify abolishing the air ministry and the air force general staff, incorporating their functions into the war ministry and army general staff and returning the air force to its former status as a branch of the army. With the army controlling the postwar sources of information, for many years there was no voice to challenge the official position that France had lost the war because the prewar politicians had not equipped the air force adequately.
Since the mid-1960s, fragments of information--aviator's memoirs, production reports, aircraft inventories, and Anglo-French correspondence--have come to light. These sources reveal four new facts about the French Air Force.
The French aviation industry (with modest assistance--about 15 percent-from American and Dutch producers) had produced enough modern combat aircraft (4360) by May 1940 to defeat the Luftwaffe, which fielded a force of 3270.2
The French planes were comparable in combat capability and performance to the German aircraft.
The French had only about one-fourth of their modern combat aircraft in operational formations on the Western Front on 10 May 1940.3
The Royal Air Force stationed a larger proportion (30 percent) of its fighter force in France than the French committed from their own resources (25 percent).4
These data exculpate the prewar parliamentary regime and the British. They raise questions about the leadership of an air force that had parity in numbers of aircraft, the aid of a powerful ally, the latest radar, and the most advanced aviation technology in Europe, yet lost a defensive battle over its own territory.5
French Aviation Technology
between the Wars
The French aviation industry built more warplanes during the interwar period than any of its foreign competitors. The Breguet 19 bomber of 1922 (1500 built) and the Potez 25 army cooperation aircraft of 1925 (3500 built) were the most widely used military aircraft in the world. (No more than 700 examples of any other type of military aircraft were built in any country during the interwar period.) One Breguet 19 flew across the Atlantic in 1927; a group of thirty Potez 25s circumnavigated Africa in 1933.6
French bombers were consistently and technically excellent. The Lioré et Olivier 20 of 1924 was the fastest medium bomber in the world for three years, and it gave birth to a half -dozen derivative designs. The Potez 542 of 1934 was the fastest bomber in Europe until 1936. In 1935, the Amiot 143, which equipped eighteen squadrons, carried a two-ton bomb load at 190 mph at 25,920 feet. Its German contemporary, the Dornier Do 23G, carried half the bomb load thirty miles per hour slower at 13,780 feet. During the following year, the Bloch 210, with a service ceiling of 32,480 feet, began to equip what would ultimately be twenty-four squadrons. No foreign bomber built before 1939 reached 30,000 feet.
The Farman 222 of 1936 was the first modern four-engine heavy bomber. Production models reached operational units at the same time that the service test examples (Y1B-17) of the Boeing Flying Fortress were delivered and two years ahead of the production version (B-17B). Typical performance envelopes--5510 pounds of bombs, 1240 miles, at 174 mph for the Farman, versus 2400 pounds of bombs, 1500 miles, at 238 mph for the YIB-17--showed the designs to be technically comparable, with the French emphasizing loadcarrying and the Americans emphasizing speed. Design evolution of the two types tended to increase the speed of the Farman derivatives (to 239 mph for the model 223.4 of 1939) and the load-carrying capacity of the Boeing (to 4000 pounds of bombs, 1850 miles at 211 mph for the B-17G of 1943). Neither design was capable of long-range daylight bombing operations in its 1940 form. The Farman was used exclusively for night raids.
The Lioré et Olivier 451, at 307 mph, and the Amiot 354, at 298 mph, were the fastest medium bombers during the opening phases of World War II, outpacing the 1940 operational versions of the German Schnellbomber types--the Dornier Do 17K (255 mph), Heinkel He 111E (261 mph), and Junkers Ju 88A (292 mph). The Bloch 174 reconnaissance bomber of 1940 was, in operational configuration, the fastest multiengine aircraft in the world (329 mph).
French fighter aircraft held eleven out of the twenty-two world airspeed records set between the wars, and seven were held by one aircraft--the Nieuport-Delage 29 fighter of 1921. The Gourdou-Leseurre 32 monoplane fighter of 1924 was the world's fastest operational fighter until 1928, when the Nieuport-Delage 62 overtook it. In 1934, the Dewoitine 371 held the honor; and in 1936, the Dewoitine 510 was the first operational fighter to reach 250 mph.7 The Dewoitine 501 of 1935 was the first fighter to mount a cannon that would fire through the propeller hub. The French fighters in action during 1939-40 were extremely maneuverable, powerfully armed, and able to outfight the Messerschmitt Bf 109E and Bf 110C, as well as the German bombers.
Only in the summer of 1938 did the air ministry begin awarding contracts of sufficient size to warrant the construction of facilities for mass production of aircraft and engines. Concurrently, the French government began a program of funding the expansion of production facilities in the United States to produce Curtiss fighters, Douglas light bombers, Martin light bombers, Pratt and Whitney engines, and Allison engines. By May 1940, French manufacturers were producing 619 combat aircraft per month, American firms were adding 170 per month against French orders, and the British were producing 392 fighters per month. German production of combat aircraft, averaging 622 per month during 1940, was little more than half that of the industries supporting the Allies.8 The traditional explanation of the French defeat in terms of inadequate supplies of aircraft and aircraft that were inferior in quality does not stand up. The psychological and political milieu in which the air force evolved during the interwar years offers more substantive bases for understanding what happened to the French Air Force.
Interservice and
Civil-Military Political Issues
The French Air Force was born, grew, and went into combat in an atmosphere of political intrigue. Air force officers were embroiled in three internecine struggles concurrently throughout the interwar period: animosity between the political left and the regular army that had begun before 1800; bureaucratic strife between army officers and aviators about the control of aviation resources, which began during the First World War; and a pattern of coercion and deceit between leaders of the air force and politicians--who, in the late 1920s, began to use the service for political ends.
At the core of French civil-military relations for the past two centuries had been fear on the part of the political left of repression by the regular army. The regular army had repressed leftist uprisings in bloody confrontations in 1789-90, 1848, and 187 1. It had supported rightwing coups d'état in 1799 and 1851, and a possible coup by General Georges Boulanger had alarmed the politicians in 1889. One of the principal issues in the Dreyfus Affair of 1894-1906 was the claim by the army that the word of its officers was not subject to question by civilian authority. The politicians prevailed over the officers and seized every opportunity to weaken and humiliate them. The Combes and the Clemenceau governments in 1905-07 forced Catholic officers to supervise the seizure of church property, degraded them in the order of precedence, and appointed a Dreyfusard general as minister of war. A right-of-center government in 1910 used the regular army to crush striking railway workers, confirming the leftists' perceptions of the army as their enemy. In 1914, a central tenet of the Socialist program was replacement of the regular army with a popular militia. The left won the election of 1914 but could not enact its program because war began two months later. During the war, the generals assumed extraordinary power and robbed the left of its electoral victory. But in 1924, the left again won control of the government and moved swiftly against the regular army. A series of laws in 1927-28 reduced the army from a combat force to a training establishment, a 1931 law mandated laying off 20 percent of the regular officers, and two laws (1928 and 1933) amputated military aviation from the army and navy and set it up as a separate service. Though there were logical arguments favoring an independent air force, the move was primarily a demonstration of the politicians' power over the military leaders.
The aviators' welcomed the politicians' support because they had been struggling with officers of the ground arms since 1917 concerning the appropriate role for military aviation. The flyers saw aviation as most effective when employed in mass to strike at decisive points designated by the commander in chief, but each army general wanted a squadron under his direct orders. The aviators had achieved their objective, on paper, in the organization of the 1st Aviation Division in April 1918. The division was a powerful striking force of twenty-four fighter squadrons and fifteen bomber squadrons--585 combat aircraft. It could deploy rapidly to widely separated sectors and apply substantial combat power in support of the ground forces. However, the ground commanders in whose sector the 1st Aviation Division operated used the force primarily as a pool of extra fighter planes to protect their observation aircraft.9
The aviators' ability to influence the development and employment of their branch was limited by their junior status. The commanders of brigades, escadres (wings), and groups in the 1st Aviation Division were lieutenants or captains appointed as acting majors; and the divisional commander during the war was only a colonel. In the postwar army, major commands went to nonflying generals and colonels from the infantry, cavalry, or artillery. Having tasted senior command responsibility during the war with only eight to ten years of service, the leading aviators were impatient for promotion; but the structure of their branch under the army offered few positions for officers above the rank of captain (serving as commanders of squadrons, units comprising ten to twelve aircraft in peacetime).
The formation in 1928 of an air ministry independent of the ministry of war offered the aviators a separate promotion list, the opportunity to organize the air force as they saw fit, and an air force general staff to make policy. The aviators lost no time in reorganizing to create additional positions for field grade and general officers. Between 1926 and 1937, the number of squadrons rose from 124 to 134, while the number of grouses (commanded by majors) rose from 52 to 67. The fifteen aviation regiments, formations composed of several groups, were converted to thirty escadres, each having only two groups. The number of command positions for colonels was thereby doubled. The senior aviation commands-two air divisions in 1926-were changed to four air regions in 1932 and to two air corps and six air divisions in 1937. In addition, eight army aviation commands (headed by brigadier generals) and twenty-six corps aviation commands (headed by colonels or lieutenant colonels) would come into being upon mobilization. Having created an abundance of positions for senior officers, the air ministry accelerated the promotion process: In the army, the average time in service for fast-track officers to reach major was sixteen years; colonel, twenty-six years; and brigadier general, thirty years. In the air force after 1928, these averages fell to thirteen, nineteen, and twenty-two years.10
The question of aviation policy was not so easy to control. The army and the navy had fought the creation of the air ministry and the independent air force with sufficient vigor to retain operational control of 118 of the 134 combat squadrons. The air force officers were responsible for training, administering, and commanding the air force in time of peace; but in wartime, only sixteen squadrons of bombers would remain under the air force chain of command.
Many aviators saw the primary role of the air force as close support of the ground forces--observation, liaison, and attack of targets on the battlefield. The French had developed close support techniques during the First World War (1914-18) and had refined them during the war against the Rif rebellion in Morocco in 1925. In Morocco, aviators flying in support of mobile ground forces perfected the use of aviation for fire support, flank protection, pursuit of a beaten enemy, battlefield resupply, and aeromedical evacuation." But many air force officers sought a broader mission for their service.
Aviators who were impatient with the close support mission-because it enta, 'led the subordination of aviation to the army-gradually gained ascendancy on the air force general staff. In 1932, General Giulio Douhet's concepts of strategic aerial warfare were translated into French with a laudatory preface by Marshal Henri Petain.12To placate the politically powerful army general staff, air force doctrine prescribed that the entire air force should be capable of participating in the land battle. But the aircraft the air staff sought to procure were the type Douhet had described as battleplanes--large, heavily armed machines designed to be capable of bombing, reconnaissance, and aerial combat. These were clearly intended for longrange bombing, not close support. The air staff claimed that such aircraft could support the land battle, but the army staff was skeptical. The army had sufficient influence to continue to dictate air force procurement policy until the beginning of 1936. In January of that year, the air force had 2162 first-line aircraft. Of these, 1368 (63 percent) were observation and reconnaissance planes dedicated to the army, and 437 (20 percent) were fighters dedicated to protecting the observation planes.13
In 1934-36, the tension between the army and the air force surfaced in a series of incidents. During a command post exercise in 1934, the army called for attack of battlefield targets; the air force protested that technical problems and limited resources made it impossible to meet the army's demands. The army appealed to the Supreme War Committee, which ruled that the air force should be responsive to the ground commanders and that there was no need for a supreme air commander. In 1935 during joint army-navy maneuvers, the army called for an air attack on motorized columns. The air force responded after a long delay with a strike by heavy twin-engined Bloch 200 battleplanes flying at treetop level. The umpires declared the aircraft to have been wiped out.14 The air force had no aircraft suitable for the attack of battlefield targets, and the air staff on several occasions declined to consider proposals for dive bombers or assault aircraf t on the grounds that the attack of battlefield targets was contrary to air force policy.15
The strategic bombing enthusiasts found their advocate in Pierre Cot, air minister from June 1936 until January 1938. Cot tripled the bomber force by organizing five new bomber escadres, converting seven of the twelve observation and reconnaissance escadres to bomber escadres, and equipping four of the five remaining reconnaissance escadres with aircraft capable of long-range bombing. The observation mission, except in the colonies, was turned over to the air force reserve so that the maximum number of regular air force units could participate in the strategic bombing mission.16 (See Table I.)
Table I. Strength of the French Air Force by Branch and Year (squadrons fully organized and equipped)
May
Branch 1920 1926 1932 1938 1940
Fighter 83 32 37 42 67
Bomber 32 32 27 66 66
Observation and
Reconnaissance 145 60 46 26* 30 (plus 47
Reserve)
Totals 260 124 110 134 163 (plus 47
Reserve)**
*Sixteen reconnaissance squadrons were equipped with battleplanes to participate in the long-range bombing mission.
**Of these, twenty-one fighter, forty-four bomber, six reconnaissance, and eleven reserve observation squadrons were fully organized but were reequipping in May 1940.
Cot's all-out support of strategic bombing met some opposition in the Superior Air Council--the seven or eight senior generals in the air force. To facilitate acceptance of his program, Cot convinced the parliament to pass a law reducing the mandatory retirement age limits for each grade by five years. This move forced all of the members of the Superior Air Council into retirement and removed 40 percent of the other officers as well. Cot filled the vacancies by promoting NCOs and calling reserve officers to active duty--men he believed were more amenable to his new programs of political indoctrination.17 His purges and the sudden promotion of strategic bombing enthusiasts generated a crisis of morale in the officer corps. The crisis was exacerbated rather than alleviated when Guy La Chambre replaced Cot in 1938, because the new air minister conducted his own purge--of the men whom Cot had promoted. La Chambre denounced strategic bombing and directed the air force to prepare to provide close support to the army. Following these developments, the air force leaders perceived the government as an adversary, as well as the army. They began a practice of ignoring governmental policies and deceiving the air minister and the parliament while pursuing narrowly institutional interests.
The struggle for independence occupied the energies and attention of the air staff so completely that they neglected to develop fully the ground observer corps; command, control, and communications systems; and airfield facilities.19 Because they were preparing to wage a defensive aerial battle over their own territory, the French aviators could have prepared these elements in peacetime, but they were still in a rudimentary state in 1940. During the battle, the French had difficulty tracking and intercepting intruders, were unable to mass units and consequently suffered unduly heavy losses, and achieved an operational availability rate only one-fourth that of Luftwaffe units.
Possibly because of their disenchantment with the government for using their service as a political toy, the aviators were unable or unwilling to believe that they might be provided with more than a handful of additional aircraft. Thus, when the director of aircraft production advised General Vuillemin, the chief of the air force, in January 1939 that 370 to 600 aircraft per month would come from French factories in 1940, the general said the air force required only 40 to 60. There were not enough aircrews or ground crews for a larger number, and to expand the training program would require the efforts of the entire strength of the air force. In March, Vuillemin agreed to accept 330 aircraft per month. However, even by using forty- to forty-five-year-old reservists to fly in first-line combat units, he could not fully man his units after mobilization.20 The availability of aircrews became the limiting factor on the number of units that Vuillemin could field, and the physical capacities of his aging pilots became the limiting factor on how frequently the aircraft would fly.
To keep from being buried under the flood of aircraft pouring from the factories, the air staff imposed multiple requirements for modifications, conducted complex acceptance inspections, and kept key components (guns, propellers, and radios) separated from the aircraft on which they were to be installed. Aircraft newly arrived from America were let in their crates. Still the air force received many more aircraft than it could man, and the air staff had to conceal the surfeit from prying parliamentary eyes by dispersing brand-new, combat-ready planes to remote airfields far from the battle zone.21
As a consequence of the political struggles between the officer corps and the political left, between the army and the air force, and between the air force and the government, the French Air Force entered combat with an incomplete ground infrastructure, insufficient personnel to man its aircraft, and a doctrine so completely at variance with the army's doctrine that the two services were destined to fight largely independent wars.
The Battle of France:
10 May-25 June 1940
The French faced the German invasion with 4360 modern combat aircraft and with 790 new machines arriving from French and American factories each month. However, the air force was not organized for battle. The regular air force had only half again as many units as during its peacetime nadir in 1932. As the battle opened, 119 of 210 squadrons were ready for action on the decisive northeastern front. The others were reequipping or stationed in the colonies. The 119 squadrons could bring into action only one-fourth of the aircraft available. These circumstances put the Allied air forces in a position of severe numerical inferiority vis-à-vis the Luftwaffe. (See Table II.) Qualitatively, however, the French pilots and aircraft proved to be more effective than their adversaries.
Table II. Modern Combat Aircraft Deployed on the Western Front, 10 May 194022
Type French British
Belgian,
and Dutch Combined German
Fighters 583 197 780 1264
Bombers 84 192 276 1504
Reconnaissance
and Observation 458 96 554 502
Totals 1125 485 1610 3270
The fighter units on the northeastern front were equipped exclusively with machines built within the preceding eighteen months. The American-made Curtiss 75A fighter joined French squadrons beginning in March 1939. It was the most effective type in its class in combat over France until the Dewoitine D520 became operational in mid-May 1940. Eight squadrons equipped with the Curtiss 75A shot down 220 German aircraft (confirmed kills), losing only thirty-three pilots. In seven aerial battles in which the Curtiss fighters were engaged with Messerschmitts, the total score was twenty-seven Bf 109Es and six Bf 110Cs destroyed for three of the French aircraft.23
The Morane-Saulnier MS 406 equipped eighteen squadrons in France on 10 May 1940. The kill-loss ratio for units flying the MS 406 was 191 to 89. The shortcomings of the Morane fighter compared to the Bf 109E have been the topic of many memoirs, but in the reported battles in which Messerschmitts faced Moranes alone, the French posted a record of thirty-one kills and five losses. Both the Morane and the Messerschmitt were designed to met specifications issued in 1934, prototypes flew in 1935, and quantity production began in 1938. The Messerschmitt design was better suited for evolutionary development, and the Bf 109E-3 model of December 1939 was superior to the Morane. (See Table III.) During the Battle of France, the air staff converted twelve squadrons equipped with Moranes to other types as rapidly as training facilities permitted. This policy marginally increased the efficiency of the individual units, but it acted to decrease the effectiveness of the fighter force as a whole by taking combat-experienced squadrons out of the line at a critical time. Further, it failed to capitalize on new production to increase the size of the fighter force.
Table III. Comparative Characteristics of Fighter Aircraft in the Battle of France25
Country Type Horse
power Speed (mph) at
Best Altitude (ft) Service
Ceiling (ft) Armament
France Curtiss 75A-3 1200 311 at 10,000 33,700 six 7.5-mm
France Dewoitine 520 910 329 at 19,685 36,090 one 20-mm
four 7.5-mm
France Morane 406 860 302 at 16,400 30,840 one 20-mm
two 7.5-mm
France Bloch 152 1100 320 at 13,120 32,800 two 20-mm
two 7.5-mm
England Hawker Hurricane I 1030 324 at 16,250 34,200 eight 7.7-mm
Germany Messerschmitt 109E-3 1175 348 at 14,560 34,450 two 20-mm
two 7.9-mm
Another fighter designed to meet the same specification as the MS 406 was the Bloch MB 150. Though it lost out in the procurement competition to the Morane, the Bloch firm developed the basic design around a more powerful engine. The resulting Bloch MB 152 was faster and more powerfully armed than the MS 406. Twelve squadrons had Bloch fighters on 10 May 1940, and six more became operational with them during the battle. Units while equipped with Blochs shot down 156 German planes and lost 59 pilots.24
The first two squadrons equipped with the fast and agile Dewoitine 520 entered the battle on 13 May; eight others completed conversion training and became operational before the armistice. Between them, they shot down 175 enemy aircraft for a loss of 44 aviators. Polish pilots manned two squadrons of Caudron C 714 fighters. The ultralight Caudron (3086 pounds, empty) was capable of 302 mph with a 450-horsepower engine. Becoming operational on 2 June, the Poles shot down seventeen German aircraft and lost five pilots before their unit was disbanded on 17 June.
The French fighter force had available to it during the battle more than 2900 modern aircraft. At no time did it have more than one-fifth of these deployed against the Germans. The operational rate of the fighter force was 0.9 sorties per aircraft per day at the height of the battle. (German fighter units flew up to four sorties per aircraft per day.) Yet in spite of committing only a minor portion of its resources at a low usage rate, the fighter force accounted for between 600 and 1000 of the 1439 German aircraft destroyed during the battle.
The bulk of the published commentary on the French bomber force has focused on the fact that eight squadrons of Amiot 143M twin-engine medium bombers remained in the French order of battle. Designed in 1931 and manufactured between 1935 and 1937, the Amiot 143M by 1940 had been left behind by the rapid evolution of aviation technology. Critics of the prewar regime and apologists for the air force have drawn attention to this aircraft to highlight the poor quality of the equipment with which the French Air Force had to fight. Operationally, units equipped with the Amiot 143 performed with distinction. The eight squadrons flew 551 night bombing sorties between 10 May and 16 June and lost only twelve aircraft. In addition, six of the squadrons furnished thirteen aircraft for one desperate daylight mission on 14 June against German bridges and vehicular traffic approaching Sedan. A strong fighter escort kept the loss to three Amiots.26
The French long-range, four-engine heavy bomber, the Farman 222, equipped four squadrons. These squadrons flew seventy-one night bombing missions, striking targets such as Munich, Cologne, and Koblenz. They lost only two aircraft.
Modern French day bombers included the 307mph Lioré et Olivier LeO 451 (18 squadrons, 392 sorties, 98 losses), the 298-mph Amiot 354 (4 squadrons partially equipped, 48 losses), and the 304-mph Breguet 693 (10 squadrons, 484 sorties, 47 losses). The French machines were supplemented by shipments from America of the 288-mph Martin 167F (first of 8 squadrons into action 22 May, 385 sorties, 15 losses) and the 305-mph Douglas DB-7F (first of 6 squadrons into action 31 May, 69 sorties, 9 losses).
The effectiveness of the French bomber force was reduced by poor communications arrangements that made massing of bomber squadrons impossible and rendezvous with fighter-escort problematic. Attacking piecemeal, the two day-bomber wings operational on 10 May lost twenty-eight of their forty-two aircraft in the first week. RAF day-bomber units, operating in the same command/control/communications environment, lost 132 out of 192. Most of the surviving machines were in need of extensive repairs. Although new aircraft and units came into action, the low operational rate (.25 sorties per aircraft per day) of the bomber force degraded its ability to have a significant effect on the land battle.
French reconnaissance and observation units had the most powerful aircraft in these two categories in the world. The standard French strategic reconnaissance aircraft, the Bloch 174, was capable of 329 miles per hour and an altitude of 36,000 feet. First delivered to units in March 1940, the Bloch 174 was produced quickly enough to equip all of the strategic reconnaissance squadrons during the battle. The reconnaissance units obtained early, accurate, and detailed information on German concentrations and axes of advance. They continued to keep senior army headquarters informed, irrespective of weather and enemy opposition, throughout the battle. However, the tempo of activity in reconnaissance units was extraordinarily low--an average of one mission every three days for a squadron (.04 sorties per aircraft perday). At the peak of intensity--from 10 to 15 May--the most active squadron flew two missions per day.27
The observation branch, relegated to reserve status in 1936, was the stepchild of the air force. The air staff had no program to modernize its equipment--aircraft dating from 1925 to 1935. Guy La Chambre in June 1938 directed the air staff to reequip the observation squadrons. Pilots in operational units wanted an ultrafast singleseater for long-range reconnaissance and a light two-seater capable of landing on unimproved fields for short-range observation missions. The air staff, preoccupied with political issues and indifferent to the views of men on squadron duty, ordered the Potez 63.11, the fastest, heaviest, most complex observation plane in the world. With a top speed of 264 miles per hour, it was 40 miles per hour faster than its German counterpart (Henschel Hs 126 B) and 50 miles per hour faster than the British Lysander. With twelve machine guns, it was the most heavily armed machine in any air force. Too fast and heavy to land on improvised strips yet too slow to escape German fighters, it was an elegant and graceful coffin for its crews.
Observation squadrons trained and mobilized under the army commands they would support. Army corps commanders viewed their observation squadrons as their private air forces and often imposed unrealistic demands that led to heavy losses early in the war. The air force general staff made rules to protect observation aircraft that limited their utility--for example, they had to fly behind friendly artillery, no mission could exceed fifteen minutes, fighter escort was required, and only the most modern (Potez 63.1 1) aircraft could be used. Poor liaison between the army and air force, coupled with slow communications within the air force, led to many observation squadrons being kept on forward airfields until they were about to be overrun by German motorized units. As a result, more than half of the observation aircraft in units on 10 May were destroyed to prevent capture or simply abandoned by the end of the first week. When the front stabilized between 25 May and 5 June, the observation units performed effectively, but coordination between the air force and army was too threadbare to permit them to function in a war of movement.21
The ability of the air force to provide close combat support to the army had been fatally compromised by the aviators' struggle for independence. Senior army officers were ignorant of the capabilities and limitations of aviation, and the air force had done almost nothing to develop a capability to attack battlefield targets. Army generals declined strikes on appropriate targets. They demanded support without being able to describe the nature or location of the target or the plan and timing of the friendly maneuver to be supported. The air force organized maximum efforts to support French armored counterattacks. On 14 May, British and French bombers flew 138 sorties and lost 51 planes in support of General Charles Huntziger's counterattack at Sedan. He postponed the attack. The next day the air force mounted 175 sorties; the attack was canceled. The air force did its best to support Colonel Charles de Gaulle's armored thrusts toward Montcornet on 16 and 17 May. Night fighters received day ground assault missions, and the remains of the bomber units were committed. But Colonel de Gaulle failed to tell the air force the time and direction of his movements. As a result, 68 bomber sorties went in before de Gaulle moved and were of no assistance to him. A major breakout south by the encircled Army Group 1 was planned for 21 May. The air force received orders to support the attack but had no information on the time, place, or direction.29 (The mission was canceled.)
The air force general staff, dedicated to the strategic bombing mission, had quietly ignored Guy La Chambre's directive to prepare for the ground assault mission. La Chambre had forced the air staff to procure assault bombers in 1938, and the first aircraft arrived in units in October 1939. The instructional manual for assault bomber units did not appear until January 1940, and there never was a manual for the employment of fighters in the assault role. The air staff complied with the letter of ministerial and army demands for a ground assault capability but did not commit intellectual, developmental, or training resources to developing one.
With German armor overrunning France, the air force belatedly sought to improvise an antitank capability. More than 2300 of the 2900 French fighter planes and all of the 382 assault bombers available during the battle carried 20mm cannon capable of penetrating the topside armor of all of the German tanks. The air staff designated Fighter Group III/2 to carry out the first aerial antitank missions. Its MS 406 aircraft carried high-velocity, engine-mounted 20-mm guns, but no armor-piercing ammunition was available. On 23 and 24 May, the unit flew nine sorties, lost three aircraft, and destroyed no tanks. Two weeks later, several fighter units flew a total of forty-eight antitank sorties over a four-day period--again without armor-piercing shells. They lost ten aircraft and did inconsequential damage. Two attacks in mid-June cost an additional three aircraft without seriously damaging any tanks.30 The capability of the armament and the valor of the pilots were wasted because of the absence of intellectual and logistical preparation.
The story of the French Air Force is one of gallant and competent individual performances that made no perceptible difference in the outcome of the battle. A dozen years of political strife had unraveled the network of trust and confidence through which bravery and professional skill could have an effect. The army and the air force each fought its own battle, weakened by the lack of coordination. The air staff, with its eyes on Berlin, neglected the preparation of command/control/communications systems and thereby denied the French Air Force the ability to integrate the efforts of individual units. The air force was so bitterly alienated from the political leadership that it declined to expand its organization and thereby deprived France of the powerful air force that its industrial base had provided.
Could the French Air Force Have
Seized Command of the Air?
On 10 May 1940, the operational units of the French Air Force committed to the Western Front were heavily outnumbered. The low rate of operations in the French Air Force compared to that of the Germans increased by a factor of four the French inferiority in the air during the first month of the battle. By mid-June, however, the Luftwaffe was exhausted. It had lost 40 percent of its aircraft. Its flyers had been operating above hostile territory without navigational aids and with the certainty of capture in the event their aircraft were disabled. The air and ground crews were working from captured fields at the end of lengthening supply lines. The French, on the other hand, had conducted much less intensive flight operations, were able to recover the crews of disabled aircraft, were falling back on their logistical bases, and were bringing new units on line with brand new aircraft every day. By 15 June, the French and German air forces were at approximate parity with about 2400 aircraft each, but the French were operating from their own turf, and they had the support of the RAF. Mastery of the air was there for the seizing, but on 17 June the French air staff began to order its units to fly to North Africa. The justification put forth by the air staff was that the army was destroyed and could not protect the airfields.
An examination of which units were ordered to North Africa and which were left behind reveals much about the motivation behind the evacuation. The units flown to North Africa were those regular air force squadrons with the most modern and effective aircraft--all of the squadrons equipped with the Curtiss 75A (10), Dewoitine 520 (10), Amiot 354 (8), Bloch 174 (18), Farman 222 (4), Douglas DB-7 (8), and Martin 167 (10), plus most of those with the Lioré et Olivier 451 (12 of 18). Those left behind included all of the air force reserve units--47 observation squadrons and 12 fighter squadrons--and all of the units closely connected with the army (the observation squadrons, the 10 assault bomber squadrons, and 7 night fighter squadrons converted to the ground assault role).31
The behavior of the leaders of the French Air Force before and during the Battle of France suggests that their primary purposes were to protect the regular air force against its domestic adversaries and to ensure its survival after the battle and the expected defeat. Refusing to expand the regular air force, spinning off the dangerous and unglamorous observation mission to the reserves, maintaining a low operational rate, declining to seize command of the air when the Luftwaffe was weak, and selecting only regular air force units and those unconnected with direct support of the army to send to North Africa constitute a coherent pattern. The senior aviators kept their service small, protected the cadres from severe danger, and kept most of the regular air force together out of the Germans' reach. Such decisions suggest a preposterous misordering of priorities in a nation at war but do make psychological and institutional sense when one reflects on both the frustration the aviators had suffered in their struggle to achieve operational independence from the army and the cavalier and callous way in which parliamentary officials had played with their lives, careers, and values.
The relevance of the French experience for leaders of the United States Air Force lies in the fact that the institutional struggle for autonomy and the operational necessity for cooperation are permanent and uncongenial elements of every defense establishment. The U.S. Army Air Service (and Air Corps) endured as much destructive and capricious treatment by uniformed and civilian officials of the army and the navy during the interwar years as did the French Air Force.32 By facing the issue of institutional independence for aviation just after (rather than just before) a great war, American military leaders avoided an interservice confrontation on the battlefield. But the interservice struggle goes on: doctrinal divergence retains its potential to sabotage mutual support among the services in future wars. The French experience can be useful as a cautionary tale about the ease with which institutional loyalties can weaken a national defensive posture.
Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania
Notes
1. For a survey of French efforts to obtain more air support, see Patrick Fridenson and Jean Lecuir, La France et la Grande Bretagne face aux problèmes aériens (Vincennes: Service Historique de l' Armée, 1976), A sampling of army generals who complained about air support includes Lieutenant General René Prioux (Souvenirs de guerre 1939-1943. Paris: Flammarion, 1947); Lieutenant General Henri Aymes (Gembloux: succès français. Paris: BergerLevrault, 1948); Lieutenant General Benoît Fornel de la Laurencie (Les opérations du IIIe Corps d'Armée en 1939-40. Paris: Charles Lavauzelle, 1948); and General Alphonse Georges in preface to General Gaston Roton's Années cruciales (Paris: Charles Lavauzelle, 1947). Historians who accepted French aerial inferiority as a given include Alistair Horne (To Lose a Battle: France 1940. Boston: Little, Brown, 1969, pp. 184-85); Guy Chapman (Why France Fell: The Defeat of the French Army in 1940. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968, pp. 33-34, 69-72); William L. Shirer (The Collapse of the Third Republic. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969, pp. 611, 616-20); and Jeffrey A. Gunsburg (Divided and Conquered. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood, 1969, pp. 107-10).
2. Joseph Roos, "La bataille de la production aérienne," Icare, 59 (Autumn-Winter 1971), pp. 44-51; Jean Truelle, "La production aéronautique militaire jusqu'en 1940," Revue d'Historre de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale, 73 (January-March 1969), p. 103; Pierre Cot, "En 40, on étaient nos avions?" Icare, 57 (Spring-Summer l971), pp.36-57; Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Entscheidungsschlachten des Zweiten Weltkrieges (Frankfurt-am-Main: Verlag fur Wehrwesen Bernard und Graefe, 1960), p. 25.
3. For details and sources on combat performance and numbers of French Air Force units, see the discussion in this article on the Battle of France.
4. The Royal Air Force sent 12 of its 40 operational fighter squadrons to France--30 percent. The French committed 580 of their 2200 fighters--26 percent. RAF fighter losses were 227 of those based in France plus 219 from Fighter Command units based in England. Total--446. French fighter losses totaled 508. Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of France were: French--892, British--1029, German-1469. These figures were derived from data and discussion in Major L. F. Ellis, The War in France and Flanders (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1953), pp. 98, 309, 312, 372-73; Robert Jackson, Air War over France (London: Ian Allen, 1974), pp. 76-78, 136-37; Fridenson and Lecuir, pp. 184-85, 189, 198; Chapman, pp. 160-61, 225, 290; Gunsburg, pp. 111-12, 268; Shirer, pp. 700, 766, 767, 783; General Maurice Gamelin, Servir (Paris: Plon, 1946), vol. 1, p. 282; William Green, Warplanes of the Second World War, vol. 2, Fighters (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961), p. 61.
5. The French had developed radar on their own; the British provided the French Air Force with superior radar equipment in early 1940. Gunsburg, p. 107; Fridenson and Lecuir, pp. 167-70.
6. Breguet 19 ocean flight--Heiner Emde, Conquerors of the Air (New York: Viking, 1968), p. 79; Potez 25 African flight--André Van Haute, Pictorial History of the French Air Force (London: Ian Allen, 1974), pp. 97-103; production of Breguet 19 and Potez 25--EIke C. Weal et al., Combat Aircraft of World War Two (New York Macmillan, 1977), pp. 88, 97.
7. Performance data on interwar aircraft from Weal et al, C. G. Grey and L. Bridgman, Jane's All the World's Aircraft (London: Sampson Low Marston, 1919-1939); Martin C. Windrow and Charles W. Cain, editors, Aircraft in Profile, 14 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1967-1971); Kenneth Munson, Fighters between the Wars 1919-1939 (New York: Macmillan, 1970); and Bombers between the Wars 1919-1939 (New York: Macmillan, 1970); William Green, The Warplanes of the Third Reich (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1970), and James C. Fahey, U.S. Army Aircraft (New York: Ships and Aircraft, 1946). Data on 1939-40 aircraft from same sources and also from William Green, Warplanes of the Second World War, vols. 1-11, and Famous Bombers, vols. 1 and 2 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959-60). Speed records from Christopher Chant etal., The Encyclopedia of Air Warfare (NewYork: Crowell, 1975), p. 54,
8. German production--William Green, Warplanes of the Third Reich, pp. 296, 387, 433, 455, 543, 578; French production--William Green, Warplanes of the Second World War, vol. 1, pp. 21-22, 29-30, 32, 46; vol. 7, pp. 88, 110, 113,117,140,142-44; vol. 8, pp. 12,13,32; John McVickar Haight, Jr., American Aid to France, 1938-1940 (New York: Atheneum, 1970), pp. 139-40 (aircraft built in the United States); and British production--Derek Wood and Derek Dempster, The Narrow Margin (New York: Paperback Library, 1969), p. 453,
9. Van Haute, pp. 60-64; General André-Paul-Auguste Voisin, "La doctrine de l'aviation française de combat en 1918." Revue des Forces Aériennes, 3 (1931), pp. 885-90, 898-910, 1299-301.
10. Jane's All the World's Aircraft, 1927 , p. 57a; van Haute, pp. 66-70, 81-83, 89-92; Lieutenant General Jean Henri Jauneaud, De Verdun à Den Ben Phu (Paris: Editions du Scorpion, 1960), pp. 38-39; France, Ministère de la guerre, Annuaire officiel de l' armée française (Paris: Charles Lavauzelle, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1932, 1936).
11. Colonel Paul Armengaud, "Les enseignemenls de la guerre Marocaine (1925-1926) en matiere d'viation," Revue Militaire Francaise, 28 (January-March 1927), pp. 150-71, 340-56; 28 (April-June 1928), pp. 73-94, 151-64; editors of Revue des Forces Aériennes, "Aït Yacoub--le role de l'aviation dans les affaires de Guefifat, Tarda, et Aït Yacoub en Maroc," Revue des Forces Aériennes, 1 (August-December 1929), pp. 295-308.
12. General Giulio Douhet, La guerre de l'air, translated by J. Romeyer (Paris: Journal "Les Ailes," 1932).
13. Van Haute, p. 108.
14. Brigadier General Jean Hébrard, Vingt-cing années d'aviation militaire (1920-1945), 2 vols. (Paris: Editions Albin Michel, 1946), pp. 162-67, 170-75.
15. Brigadier General Fleury Seive, L'aviation d'assaut dans la bataille de 1940 (Paris: Editions Berger-Levrault, 1948). pp. 21, 50, 53-55; Hébrard, pp. 179.
16. Pierre Cot, The Defeat of the French Air Force," Foreign Affairs, 19 (October 1940-July 1941), pp. 790, 805; Jauneaud, pp. 46-47; Hébrard, p. 185; Robert W. Krauskopf, "French Air Power Policy 1919-1939" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, 1965), pp. 98-99, 122, 223-26; Robert J. Young, "The Strategic Dream: French Air Doctrine in the Inter-War Period, 1919-39," Journal of Contemporary History, 9 (October 1974), pp. 67-69.
17. Major General Paul Armengaud, Batailles politiques et militaires sur l'Europe. Témoignages (Paris: Editions du Myrte, 1948), pp. 37-40.
18, Krauskopf, pp. 254-56, 263; Young, pp. 72-73.
19. General Henri Hugo, " Une expérience inestimable, " Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), pp. 92-93; General Joel Pape, "Parfois, j'ai envie d'oublier," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), pp. 100-01; General Raymond Brohon, "Le groupement de bombardement No. 10," Icare, 57 (Spring-Summer 1971), p. 87; Lieutenant Colonel René Josselin, "Sept semaines sur la front de la Sarre," Icare, 59 (Fall-Winter 1971), pp. 163-64.
20. Lieutenant General Francois-Pierre-Raoul d'Astier de la Vigerie, Le ciel n'était pas vide (Paris: René Julliard, 1952), pp. 48, 53-54; Major Jean Fraissinet, "De la drôle de guerre à la vraie," Icare, 56 (Winter 1970), p. 123n; Pierre Jean Gisclon, "Maurice Arnoux est mort au combat," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 135; Pape, p. 99; Lieutenant Colonel Henri Dietrich, "Point de view d'un réserviste," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 118; Colonel Jacques Ballet, "A l'abordage sur Potez 63," Icare, 59 (Fall-Winter 1971), p. 118; Colonel Henri Moguez, "Histoire du groupe 501," Icare, 59 (Fall-Winter 1971), pp. 138-40; Major Jean Ridray, "Comme à la fête," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 128; Jacques Lecarme, "Triste campagne de France," Icare, 57 (Winter 1970), pp. 149-50; Roos, pp. 46-49; Gunsburg, p. 74.
21. Cot, pp. 799-800; Shirer, p. 618; Colonel Jean Louveau, "Jusqu' à l'abordage," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 110. Colonel Louveau in September 1939 saw 150 new fighters sitting at Chateauroux, and when he went to pick up replacement aircraft in May he was offered one without guns and one without sights. Colonel Dietrich of Fighter Group II/10 had a similar experience at Cazeaux--the missing parts were radios and firing pins (Dietrich, p. 122); General Paul Stehlin, "De la diplomatic au renseignements et à 1'escadrille," Icare, 55 (Fall-Winter 1970), p. 46; Pape, p. 105; Frank Fremond, "Le dernier vol du Colonel Dagnaux," Icare, 57 (Spring-Summer 1971), p. 136; Roos, pp. 46-49, 52; Haight, pp. 242-43.
22. The best sources on numbers of aircraft available on 10 May 1940 are the technical works by Green, Cain and Windrow, and Haight (see footnotes 7 and 8).
23. "Effectifs, pertes, palmares des 24 groupes à 2 escadrillcs et des 4 escadrilles de chasse de nuit dans la Bataille de France," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 72; Martin C. Windrow and Charles W. Cain, Aircraft in Profile, vol. 6, profile 135, p. 16; vol. 7, p. 24; vol, 9, p. 235; Lieutenant Colonel Salesse, L'aviation de chasse française en 1939-1940 (Paris: Berger-L,evrault, 1948), pp. 36, 40, 48, 54, 57, 61, 72, 83, 85, 175,
24. Salesse, pp. 72, 83, 85, 91, 94, 97, 102, 106, 110-11, 113-16, 118, 120, 130, 132-34, 136, 143, 145-46, 149, 151, 154, 158-59.
25. Green, Warplanes of the Second World War, vol. 1, pp, 30,40, 49, 57; vol. 2, p. 69; vol. 4, p. 44; Green, Warplanes of the Third Reich, p. 549.
26. For performance, see entries for particular aircraft in Weal et al., Windrow and Cain, and Green, Warplanes of the Second World War. For operational rate, see Jackson, pp. 60-70, and Colonel Pierre Paquier, L'aviation de bombardment française (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1948), pp. 208-49.
27. Lieutenant R. P. Guy Bougerol, Ceux qu'on n'a jamais vus... (Paris:; B Arthaud, 1943), and Lieutenant Colonel Pierre Paquier and Major Cretin, L'aviation de renseignement française en 1939-1940 (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1947), pp. 88-89, 92-93, 97, 99,102,106, 114, 116.
28. Paquier and Cretin, pp. 48, 57, 62-64, 67, 75.
29. Astier, p . 72 (General Corap says army is "betrayed" by the air force), p. 104 (General Huntziger declines bombing on massed German tank), p. 105 (General Bilotte declines bombing of crossing at Houx; General Corap asks for air strike but can't say where), pp. 110-14 (all-out effort to support Huntziger's Counterattack, subsequently postponed), p. 127 (General Corap calls for air strikes but cannot specify targets), p. 167 (Colonel de Gaulle declines to give air force his plan of maneuver), p. 238 (General Altmayer refuses air support for attack on Abbeville). Also, Salesse, p. 109 (de Gaulle calls for help too late); Paquier, pp. 200-01.
30. Astier, pp. 136, 150-51, 181; Salesse, pp. 103, 116, 118, 143, 146, 148, 161-62, 169.
31. Paquier, pp. 186-87; Salesse, pp. 166, 170, 187-88; Paquier and Cretin, p. 172; Jackson, pp. 134-35,
32. For an interesting summary of the American experience, see Dewitt S. Copp, A Few Great Captains (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1980).
Contributor
Lieutenant Colonel Faris R. Kirkland, USA (Ret) (A.B., Princeton University; M.A., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania), is a lecturer in history at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania. Formerly he was director of the Social Science Research Group at the University City Science Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In his initial assignment as a young Army officer, he served as an artillery forward observer in Korea; at the conclusion of his military career, he was operations officer, XXIV Corps Artillery, coordinating land-sea-air action in Hue, Khe Sanh, and Cap Mui Lai in Vietnam.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
airchronicles/air-chronicles.html
Aerospace Power Chronicles Home Page Feedback? Email to apj@maxwell.af.mil
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html)
-
OK, here's what I'd do:
Fixing rollrates (if they are wrong - I did some tests, please compare them to your sources) - should have more priority than any new plane.
Instead of adding Me 262, I'd add 109G-6 with MW 50 and fix the canopy struts in 109s.
Many moths ago art guys said it was low priority. I didn't believe it was *that* low on priority list. Afterall, 109 was most produced afighter in history. I think it deserves authentic front cockpit view.
I believe Spit XIV is in the new version. If it isn't, it should be - instead of that early F4u.
[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
watjen:
You should aim to get a little more informed
about the Red Army. In the early days (1941
to 1942) the Red Army was very poorly
equipped and led, and not all troops had
guns. By 1944, however, it was generally
fairly well led and had some excellent
equipment (e.g. T34, T44, JS tanks, etc).
There were still some pointless frontal
attacks, and more than necessary, but that
went for all sides in the war, unless you
think Cassino was an example of a perfect
attack!
The vast majority of the people the USSR
lost in WW2 were actually civilians through
direct and indirect effects of war (e.g.
the starvation in the siege of Leningrad).
Remember, though, that the Red Army was
more or less fighting the ground war alone
from mid 1941 until late 1942, and Western
forces were not committed on the ground in
great numbers until 1944. The USSR was
fighting about 80% of the German ground
forces at the time.
With respect to Japan, pdog_109 is wrong.
The USSR actually entered the war against
Japan before the atomic bombs were dropped
and proceeded to rapidly clear Manchuria.
There were probably a number of reasons for
not entering the war sooner, chiefly not
wishing to fight on two fronts, plus the
USSR had fought a number of small wars
against Japan early in the century. Even
the Western allies had a declared policy of
giving the war in Europe priority over
that in the Pacific.
By the way, I in no way endorse Communism,
and I personally think that Stalin was one
of the biggest murderers of the century.
(Up there with Hitler and Mao - I wouldn't
like to try to separate them).
With regard to the comparatively small
UK presence in the Pacific, that's largely
an issue of geography. The USA has a pacific
coast, the UK does not, and the population
of those Commonwealth areas no immediately
overrun by the Japanese was comparatively
small, and some Australian and Indian
troops were already fighting in Europe and
North Africa. It didn't make much logistic
sense for the UK to devote a huge number
of troops on the far side of the world on
the USA's doorstep when there was a war
nearer to home. The UK did, of course,
committ some troops, but then there were
longer foreign policy implications with
regard to protecting influence and assets.
With regard to the latter Roosevelt also
wanted to clip the wings of the commonwealth
and extend US power in South East Asia so
a smaller UK/Commonwealth presence worked
well for those foregin policy aims.
-
Jack55
An attack against US assets in the pacific
was pretty much expected in 1941/42. Actually
it was expected that the first part of the
attack was going to be against the
Philipines, so the attack on Pearl Harbour
wasn't totally expected. The USA had been
building up forces in the Philipines
throughout 1941, although MacArthur
stupidly said "no fine, that's enough
thanks" before the forces built up to the
level he'd asked for!
The USA had had military shipping sunk by
Japan prior to Pearl Harbour, and had
demurred from any further pressure as it
didn't feel it was in a position to
sufficiently project power, but saw cutting
off raw materials and seizing assets as a
way of weakening Japan, at the risk of
ultimately provoking a war, which is what
happened.
But the war with Japan wasn't a huge
surprise.
-
Charon you said
"Very likely, the U.S. would have seen an
influx of the British brain"
That is what happened anyway. The Manhattan
project was a joint project with a large
number of British and Canadian scientists
as well, working in the USA. According to the
agreement signed (Montreal?) there was a
three way decision required on use of the
atomic bomb in recognition of the
development.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
:)
-
Beaufighter RAAF, RCAF, USAF, RNZAF, RAF
SKurj
-
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?
-
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.
-
Well said Hazed.
-
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
-
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- ]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
It's a good thing this is just a silly sim...due to the look and feel of things in this thread, it's no wonder war has been around for such along time.
Rudes Theory? Human Nature....at the core, we got serious problems.
I think the next time the 13th is in the air, we will not shoot at anyone, rather just smile and wave alot to promote kindness and a spirit of cooperation in the arena.
:)
-
I understand fully that there was an isolationist veiw in America in 1939 and i can understand fully their reasons at the time for wanting to remain out of this war but im sorry as a human being i just dont agree with it.
My point was that in THIS day and age and yes, WITH hindsight i dont agree with those reasons for remaining out of the fight.Perhaps you do?
Whilst we(Britain) begged America for assistance members of my family were being killed by a fascist dictatorate.Moral and humanitarian issues aside? I think not.
You talk as though we Britains had a choice in this war.As if we dragged you into it and you saved our people at the expense of yours but you seem ignorent to the fact that had Hitler defeated Britain and then gone on to destroy Russia they would have turned on the USA directly after it unless you were willing to form a pact of peace with the Nazis.My family fought them as I think I would have done, as did many Americans who were not prepared to wait for the 'official/legal' response.I suggest you find one of these Americans and tell them they should have waited for a legal document to be drawn up.Why do you think those American pilots in the flying tigers in china fought with such a passion against Japan? I would suggest they did it on more humanitarian reasons than for the thrill or experience of fighting.Someone in power knew it was wrong to wait as did ,thank god, your president.
This was from the start a bid for world domination and genocide against many races and cultures.Im surprised at your response to what I said I must admit.From where i stand i do understand the 'feeling in America at the time' but I simply cant justify it morally.
Put it this way, if China invaded the US in say,Alaska I would not wait until they took 4 or 5 states (murdering and enslaving as it went)around it before I would be morally appalled and be willing to help.I agree that Britain did the same thing in the phoney war and agree it was indeed wrong.But we were in no position to stop what was considered an invinsible war machine.That is why we needed the Americans.
I wont go to the o'club with this as ive also said what i need to say on the subject.
If you really want to look at WW2 as the scummy warring Europeans drawing you into another needless conflict then so be it.
I say not only did you save our people but your own as well, we fought side by side for what was morally right.When you act as though we played little or no part in it you draw out our emotions and anger us.I dont see the point.
-
Call me weird, but i say perk the heavy bombers, medium perk the medium bombers (including arado) and then dont perk the light bombers, jap ones and stuff. Might seem strange to some, but it would stop the cases of 1 lanc capturing a field in the MA. Would also stop them suicide bombing runs on CVs too. Make them get a real altitude. We all love flying them big bombers, B17 is my fav plane of all time, but its a way to introduce the less effective bombers. (wellington or he111)
Just because a plane isnt a super performer in the MA it doesnt mean we shouldnt get it. We also have scenarios and TOD to fly for :) I and like many of you play this game for the love of these WW2 planes. Immagination is a large part of what makes us play AH, the environment, the atmosphere.
Germanys zerstorers (sp? dont speak German) were a big part of the luftwaffe, id like to see that in there. (Bf110 pweeease)
Forgive me if im wrong, but wasnt "Dive bomber" a class of plane during the war? I see fighter/attack, but no true attack/dive bomber planes. (Ju87 Dauntless a jap dive bomber)
Theres like 2 medium bombers, ju88 and b26, id like to see just 1 brit one (mossie), 1 jap one (...insert plane model/type here of jap med bomber...) a soviet one (...insert plane model/type of Soviet med bomber...) altleast 1 from each country then work on filling the others in. Just because its a taste of flying for each country during the war.
They are adding new planes so often, these threads will eventually disolve. And paint schemes will be the topic. :)
I like the idea of paint schemes for different air forces. That works for me. How about this, P39 aircobra in Soviet paint scheme?
I refuse to get into a conversation on who won the war, its pathetic, nuff said. Like all 4 members of athletics relay team saying, "no no i won the race". It wasnt the subject of this thread and shouldnt be continued here.
My facts are probably wrong, and forgive me for being ignorant to japanese and italian, russian etc airforces, i jsut about manage british us and german as it is.
-
rude... perhaps you could just film and not fire. personally.... i like to see the pieces come off.
hazed... grow up. Britan has a prety good history of aggression against other countries.. should we have "morally" come to their aid? Things were different then. It was a much bigger world than it is now.
lazs
-
laz you are a moron.
the whole point is looking at history as it was and recognising what we did right/wrong etc.you say the world has changed and that was my point.what was acceptable then isnt today is it? seems to me you fail to see the point at all.
ps im just as fed up with it as you are i just couldnt let dumb comments go.
-
sheesh hazed... you wouldn't wait till china took 4 or five states to join in? when has anyone taken any states? What could britan do to help in any case? I would be grateful for any supplies or brainpower that britan could offer in such a case tho.
When in WWII was any land on your island taken? some of your own people felt (and quite late) that hitler was not out for "world domination" and "genocide".. Hitler never was the boogie man to us that he was to you. Didn't the Irish (of which we have a huge community in the U.S.) side with Hitler?
You want me to say we were wrong? That we should have jumped into your war with hitler in 39? Maybe... if it were today.. On CNN every day to stir up the people... Pictures of little blond british babies splattered all over the bombed out streets of london on the news every night might work but.... Here we had pictures of WWI veterans (what was that war all about anyway? people would ask) being fired on by the government and shots of long soup lines and dust bowls to look at. Much more interesting for our people. Kinda takes your mind off of whatever is happening to a bunch of furriners that are allways killing each other anyway. today, any sentiment could be whipped up by the media... one way or the other.
I don't believe that germany could have taken on the U.S. even if britan had fallen. That's all fairy tale "what if" crap. As for the Brave americans who fought before the U.S. entered the war... Well.... I don't know if they were right or wrong or more or less moral than anyone else but I do know... that they were soldiers. They were soldiers that were missing out on a darn good shooting match. something they were, after all, trained for. some just couldn't stand that.
allso... we lost one hell of a lot of merchant marines and ships keeping ur butt in the goods needed to survive.
I'm not saying your an idiot, just naive and perhaps ungrateful with a touch of pomposity thrown in. I will say tho that..... the regimes of the germans and japs in WWII were so evil that I could never be in a "historical" jap or LW squad. I could fly the planes.... I know about machines they aren't inherently evil, I would fly one from any country but... To join a "staffesucken" and call myself "hupmanfurerknobengoblin" or whatever... is distasteful. and to be lectured about morality by someone who does is even more distasteful. especially someone who appears to know so little about my country.
Oh yeah... we need more american planes because many important (to every country) U.S. planes are not yet modeled. It is just that simple.
lazs
-
allso... we lost one hell of a lot of merchant marines and ships keeping ur butt in the goods needed to survive.
Before US entry into the war the number of ships, tonnage and lives lost to the US merchant fleet was miniscule
-
lazs:
The states in the USA are often fairly new
which is why territory has not technically
been occupied. If Alaska had been a state
in 1942 then technically it would have been
partially occupied by the Japanese as the
Aleutians are part of Alaska.
In 1812 there were at least large incursions
into US states by the British.
In terms of UK territory being occupied
by Germany during WW2 technically this did
not happen. The Germans did occupy the
channel islands, though, but these are
technically part of the Duchy of Normandy,
and owned by the King (at the time) and not
part of the UK.
-
Watjen,
Go and read some history books you ignorant salamander.
Sleeper,
-
aaron... you are proving my point. We didn't ask Britan for help with alaska even tho japan was clearly out for pacific domination and "genocide". "morality" asside..We fought the axis power that threatened us just as Britan fought the axis power that threatened them. japan was at least as evil as germany. Germany declared war on us and we gave it everything we had. i don't think anyone can say that the U.S. contribution, overall, to winning WWII was not greater than even britans or that the sacrafice in population of the russians was not greater than anyones.
None of this really matters. We kept britan alive in WWII and we also used british brainpower and... we used it well. We took rolls royce's excellent merlin for instance and made it in huge numbers with improvements that mad it possible to do so... Packard Merlins were probably the best example of what could be accomplished with cooperation.
we need more american fighters because they were the most important fighters that are still not modeled. A spit one, 109e and A6m2 are variations and should be added but P40's, P39's F4f's etc are all new planes that are very important to early war.
lazs
-
Originally posted by 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
\
Good idea 99.
Actually the RNZAF flew large numbers of P-40's (K's,E's and N's) in the pacific, equipping 5 Squadrons from '42-43 and destroying 99 Japanese a/c. It was then replaced by the F4U in 1944 where the RNZAF operated 424 F4U-1's in the pacific, losing 17 to enemy action.
Many countries operated a variety of a/c:
eg. the RNZAF flew operationaly: the SBD,TBM,P-40,Catalina,F4U-1A in the pacific alone.
The RAAF: P-40,Spitfire MkVC/MkVIII/MkIX,B-24,Beaufighter,Mossie, Mustang III/IV(P-51C-B/D)etc
I think a lot of problems would be helped by replacing the stars n' bars of a few new a/c and replaced by another nationality.
Tronsky
486 Sqn (NZ),"Hiwa hau Maka"
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Skyrats/files/f4u.jpg)
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Skyrats/files/P-40RAAF.gif)
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Skyrats/files/RAAFP-51.gif)
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: -tronski- ]
-
lazs:
The UK didn't help out the USA in Alaska
for the following reasons:
1. There was no UK economic interest in
Alaska itself.
2. It wasn't asked to help.
3. It wasn't in a position to help.
With regard to the US help for the UK
1. The USA did have an economic interest
2. It was asked to help
3. It was in a position to help.
So the situations really aren't comparable.
As to keeping the UK going as has been
pointed out after September 1940 there
was no danger in losing the physical
territory of mainland UK to Germany, although
the usefullness of the UK as a military power
in the medium term was compromised. However
lend lease didn't really get going until the
following year anyway.
Anyway, to reiterate:
1. The USA had legitimate reaasons for
joining the war in Europe beyond any
sense of justice, humantarian concerns,
or treaty obligations (all of which I am
sure also played a part in the decision
process since politics is rarely about
single issues, but the meeting of various
interests).
2. The USA specified a policy of defeating
Germany before Japan, although arguably
the US and UK made a bit of a hash of it
and it took longer than necessary. The
physical problems of a war against Japan
were greater due to the distance between
the last allied outpost and the homeland.
-
I tried to avoid answering on this thread purely because laz FAILED to see my point.
In a typical Americanised type reply , instead of listening to what i was saying, (ie if America was invaded by a foreign aggressor that blatently murdered innocent civilians I would be morally appalled and want to help), he turns it into 'America was never invaded,UK couldnt help us!,
Jesus is laz 5 years old ?
Laz LISTEN,READ what i said, Just as i am ashamed of what my country has done in the past, and just as im proud of some things the UK has done, I remain AWARE of right and wrong.All i was asking was whether on a moral standpoint you thought the US should have got involved earlier and for you to admit that without ALL the nations helping in WW2 things would/could have been very different.
from your replies it seems obvious you took this as some sort of attack on the US.
Do you not realise that when british people learn of such things as American airmen flying combat missions for the British during the period before the US officially joined the war, they are deeply appreciative?
The reason my friend is we are much more aware it seems, that the Nazis were winning.
When on the rare occations my grandparents spoke of the war I realised that they truelly feared the Germans might.We watch those old films with the firm knowledge that we were the better side and we were capable of stopping them.My grandparents had NO such knowledge at the time.They were on an island watching Europe fall and were unsure of their very future.What would you think if you were them in 1940 laz? if you knew the americans could help but were refusing, and to use your words, thought 'europe was a cesspool of inhumanity before WWI and it was still a cesspool after we left in WWI'?
A human being is a human being.I would not want to stand back in any situation and allow others to be murdered if i was able to do something about it.
Laz this isnt supposed to be an attack, I just think you missed my point.Perhaps you understand it better now?
Please in future dont dismiss any countries involvement.Theres nothing worse than a fighter who wants all the laurels for himself.Even a boxer who seemingly fights alone appreciates his coaches help :)
[ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
hmm... but if alaska is a part of the U.S.... but you are right. we didn't ask. Why bother? england had huge econamic interests in the pacific yet their contribution was miniscule compared to ours.... As for humanitarian.. there was no differece in the inhumanity of either the japs or the nazis... And... We had huge distances to overcome in both cases. I don't know about there never being a threat of germany invading england... I tend to agree but.. they certainly could have made it tougher without lend lease or U.S. supplies.
But here's the point. What would you have had us done and at what point? Keeping in mind that we were not ready for any war and the large distances involved. I'd say that things worked out about as well as they could have.
Hey.. I don't begrudge englands foot dragging and miniscule effort late in the war. If we would have followed englands late war plans we would still be fighting. I think most euro countries are sure glad that the U.S. was the supreme command and not england. And so far as "humanity" goes.... Where was all the british help for the russians? certainly they met your criteria for deserving help and... they were relatively... next door and... they were doing all the fighting and dying.
Look.... send over some more 55 Healeys. AC Bristols and merlin engines... we will remake em right and everyone will be happy doing what they do best. or.. we could go over there and fix em before you send em like.... jaguar say.
lazs
-
hazed... u are the one who dioesn't listen. You are tied up in a very childish morality.... apparently you expect every U.S. citizen to have looked at the facts (even tho they were mostly unavailable) and demand the army (all couple thousand of em) do something.... or... maybe everyone just volunteer? To do what? March on the coast with you guys carrying broomsticks? Well... it wouldn't have been quite that bad since we didn't have silly gun control laws and everyone coulda brought their own private gun... No... things worked out how they had to. The time the U.S. spent gearing up was not wasted.
As for the reverse... If the U.S. were invaded in the 40's.... England wouldn't have helped any more, and certainly a great deal less than we did them. england was in an even worse spot than us. Yes.... We would have "appreciated" hazed coming over on a volunteer basis but I'm sure we woulda got plenty of canadians. They are right next door ya know and they speak american and everything. Even drive on the correct side of the road in real cars and go to the dentist regularly.
I'm saying that things worked out about as well as they could have and that by waiting we were able to field an army and material contribution that dwarfed yours when it really mattered. Thaks for the scientists... thanks for the merlin. you can keep joe lucas and the 303 tho.
But... we need some of those planes. I don't care who's insignia is on the side. I can never see the insignia while I'm fighting anyway.
So... P40, F4f, P39... put whatever insignia soothes ya.
oh.. hazed... I recently visited your country and I went to duxford and I drove around (on the frigging left side of the road) for 1200 miles. I am well aware of your countries appreciation of our effort and how friendly the people are. I still find your government repressive and anal but the people are great they would make great U.S. citizens (and do) if they were not allowed to vote for about the first ten years or so till they got used to freedom. That huge effort you see being comemerated at duxford might not have happened if we had gotten in too early.
lazs
[ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: lazs1 ]
-
OK, class. Your assignment is to study (via the Internet) International Law/The Law of War, then study "Just War". Lastly, study the state of the US military and military industry in 1939. Pay particular attention to force sizes and equipment available. Do some research into Congressional budgetary authorizations for the military in the 19-38-1940 period. Finally, research the makeup of the US population around 1939 with respect to "ethnic" origins, ie: what percentage of Germans, Irish, Italians, English, etc., etc., made up the population. Determine if this mix of groups constituted an overwhelming majority with respect to going to war against any particular nation in Europe.
Then, let's meet in 2 weeks in the O'Club and start this discussion over again. '
0
-
Our units are bigger than your units... they penetrate farther, they carry a bigger load and have more endurance too!
;)
CJ
-
lazs:
Last time I did any sort of calculations
the distance from the continental USA to
Japan was less than that from the UK.
Yes the UK did have large economic interests
in the Pacific, but the UK is rather smaller
in population than the USA, so it isn't a
great surprise that the contribution in
forces was smaller given the relative
difference in size of population and the
relative differences in distances. Also the
UK had been fighting a war of possible
national survival for more than two years
before the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour,
the Philipines, and places such as Singapore,
so the UK was already somewhat battle weary.
Never mind the difference in the economic
cycle the USA and the UK were in.
-
Lazs writes:
"Hey.. I don't begrudge englands foot dragging and miniscule effort late in the war."
It wasn't any later than that of the USA
in the pacific. The attacks came in late
1941/early 1942 for all concerned. The UK
gave a smaller contribution that the USA
which is fair enough given a smaller
population, but it was pretty reasonable
given the size of the population and the
fact that the UK had been fighting a rather
more urgent war for 2 1/2 years. In
Europe it wasn't until later in 1944 that
the US forces eclipsed those of the commonwealth in numbers as commonwealth
troops were more easily deployed close to
home.
-
lazs writes:
"Where was all the british help for the russians?"
I presume you mean the thousands that died
on the Arctic convoys from the UK to the USSR?
-
aaron....Ah... so convoys are enough help if they are brit but not if they are U.S.?
Are you sure that the total U.S. forces against the axis did not exceed those of the british until '44? I don't believe that is correct.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
But here's the point. What would you have had us done and at what point? Keeping in mind that we were not ready for any war and the large distances involved. I'd say that things worked out about as well as they could have.
lazs
Laz this was never a discussion on whether it was possible at hte time it was me asking you whether you agreed with what happened.
Laz im JUST talking about my moral standpoint on the start of the war.So many killed, so much evil that we cant fail to see with ourpresent hindsight, that the Nazis were evil beyond belief.Of course the war happened the way it did.It was never going to be any different but that doesnt change the fact that it was so wrong not to act against the Nazis.If hitler had ENOUGH oppersition WHO knows what could have been avoided? who knows how long he would have remained in power? I know it had to be done legally you dumb yanks! ( :)) but IF ONLY we had stopped him in those early years YOU SEE????????????
Im no politition and i dont have the answers for stopping the largest war the world has ever known! and its a bit of a piss take that you ask me to come up with one
but what if America had clearly stated in the period of the phoney war that they would back england/france/holland with all its military might if germany invaded any of its neighbours? would hitler have done it? or would he have turned his attentions east? who knows? maybe we would have got rid of hitler and stalin in one bloody stroke.I Was angered by your dismissal of my countries contribution to the war.I was angered by your talk of how because you wanted isolation at the time it wasnt your war.You again angered me when you talk of britain dragging its feet in the pacific.Tell that to the men of the japanese POW camps.
I was hoping to see a better answer from americas new generation.Perhaps an admission that YOU think it would have been better for history if you had helped sooner or that you thought moraly that you wished something more had been done earlier at least.Instead you speal off what we are all aware of IE the reasons you didnt get involved.and then something i wasnt aware of,that you consider Europe a cesspool of warmongers.You mention why havent Britain done anything about the wars/murders today? Id like to know too.I suspect money mate!! LIKE I STATED RIGHT AT THE START.OIL.Im not saying anyone had or has the right policy toward war.And i dont know how to change it for the better.ill say it again READ what i was saying to you.You go on to insult what we accomplished and sacrificed, you dismiss what they(MY grandparents included) did for us(all people in the world) and try to take the credit for the US alone.You insult every non US soldier and civilian that died.
you say i am talking from a childish moral standpoint? I look at you in disgust mate.
[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
GOD at the pearly gates:
ok toad you've performed a few sins in yer time havent you? well whats your excuse?
Toad: fumbleing for his legal document
'erm they were not sins, they were not even morally wrong god!, I have this document that states quite clearly i was in no position to do it differently and therefore taking the moral high ground is according to my mate laz childish.'
GOD: <hits the trap door button>
_____________________________ ________________
lets hope he does the same for the 'causus belli' author :)
[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Hazed,
You continually state that you understand why the United States had an isolationist viewpoint during the 30s-early 40s. Good, then understand it is pointless and futile to look back and say "Gee, you guys are acting like self-interested fools who don't care that many innocents were dying at the hands of an evil empire." Should we have become embroiled in a foreign war, one that was similar to one that cost many Americans their lives for what what reason nobody at the time could really understand? Maybe, hell even probably, on purely moralistic grounds. The thing is, wars are fought because of national interests by every country taking part in the fighting. Yes, the US had economic interests in Europe. The issue is did those interests outweigh those that were taking place at home? No, they did not. Whether you, with your 20/20 hindight and superior moral views, can understand that, is what the problem is. Yes, many innocents were dying. Would more have survived if the US had become involved earlier than 1941-42? There is absolutely nobody in the world, alive or dead, that can give an answer to that. Who knows what cities would have been bombed, how many more or less civilians would have died, or how many more or less soldiers, from both sides, would not have lost their lives? You can't say, and neither can I.
The only thing that you can possibly say is that if the US had vowed to enter the war if Poland was invaded, maybe Hitler would have not started the war in 39. Maybe he would have waited until 45, when they had a working A-Bomb and a long range bomber to deliver it, to start the shooting. Maybe he would have just given up his quest for a Nazi controlled Europe. You seem to be bright enough to understand that a megalomaniac like Hitler would NOT have done that.
How about I pose a question or two to you concerning the UK and their action, or lack thereof, with respect to Hitler and Germany. I may be mistaken, but didn't England have a similar pact with Czechoslovakia that it had with Poland? Why didn't they help out the Czechs when Hitler took their country? Also, I seem to recall that there was some agreement with Hitler that some PM from England made in Munich? Chamberlin or something like that? Hmmm, seems to me that England made some bad choices, immoral ones even, just like the US did.
Oh well, no matter what I, or anyone else says, your moral high ground can't be budged. Good for you, hope your glass house doesn't have to last through a big hail storm. I would hate to see it come crashing down around you.
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
If the U.S. were invaded in the 40's.... Invaded by who? Mexico? Heehee Yes.... We would have "appreciated" hazed coming over on a volunteer basis but I'm sure we woulda got plenty of canadians. They are right next door ya know and they speak american and everything. I think you'll find that the language Canadians speak is either French or English
I still find your government repressive and anal LMAO! This coming from a guy who's countrymen are so worried about government oppression that they feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth! hehe but the people are great they would make great U.S. citizens (and do) if they were not allowed to vote for about the first ten years or so till they got used to freedom. This guy has got to be joking right? Jeez! That huge effort you see being comemerated at duxford might not have happened if we had gotten in too early. Err, OK mate, like US was in any postion to do anything militarily in 1939? Hehehe :D
I suggest you finish grade school Lazs1 before attempting to engage in any kind of historical debate. Your ignorance of history and the world outside of the the USA is apparent to anyone with half a brain cell. Furthermore, your jingoistic comments about Europe/Uk make your more educated and mature
countrymen look bad by association.
Have a nice day :p
[ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: Sleeper ]
-
lazs:
yes, the US ground forces did not exceed the COMMONWEALTH (not BRITISH but COMMONWEALTH)
forces in Europe until D-Day or shortly
thereafter.
With regard to the Russian convoys (a)
I don't really understand what you mean and
(b) it seems offensive to the memory of the
members of the British Merchant Navy who died
in terrible conditions in the Arctic running
what supplies could be spared to the USSR.
-
Lazs, the difference with the convoys is that Britain started aid to Russia immediately Gemany attacked them. US didn't get involved in supporting the UK with convoys or even credit until early-mid 41.
-
Well Hazed, you can't rewrite history by second guessing what each nation did back then.
Sure it's easy to tell what to do now that we have 60 years worth of reading about it from all sides, back then though air war was a completely new idea (one world war fought with it in it, the second one almost revolved around it) and all of the new technologies.
We can second guess all we want, but I find it ironic you attack the USA for not entering the war earlier (we had no reason- thus we could not join it without being guilty of breaking acts of war) yet you fly here with this moniker:
"Hazed
9./JG54"
Don't get mad at the US for not joining early, be mad at the Japanese for attacking us late.
-SW
-
Nashwan:
The difference in the convoys is that the US helped the British 6 months BEFORE the US was a combatant, as opposed to the British convoys which only started after Britain had been in the war 2 years :).
Hooligan
-
so... hazed thinks we should have all revolted and declared war or that the government shulda forced us to go to war even tho we had nothing to go to war with?
You dismiss your dismal performance in the pacific with the excuse that it was so far away yet blame the U.S for not doing more when both fronts were thousands of miles away across oceans?
you praise the effort of british merchant seamen supplying russia yet dismiss the larger effort (with larger losses) of U.S. seamen in WWII who were not even involved in a declared war?
Morality? what a pompous hypocrite.. Japan was every bit as evil as germany and maybe even more so.... Didn't see the brits dropping everything to help the koreans and chinnese... if i were in the armed forces in WWII, especially in the air core, I would most likely volunteer for the action but.... if I were trying to feed my half starved family after a long hard depression or driving my worn out model T out of the southwest dust bowl..... I might not be quite so interested in jumping right into another european cesspool of sensless slaughter like we had seen in WWI... And what of the "phony war"? 6-8 months of foot dragging to gear up for a fite that was next door??? And we are blamed becaus it took us a couple of years to mount a much greater and meaningful effort thousands of miles away?
disgust, no respect? who gives a toejam. I sure don't want to hear about it tho from a guy playing at being a little LW nazi boy.
lazs
-
laz you are a F&*king arse hole.
I cant even be bothered any more trying to get through to your retarded brain.You just dont listen to what i have said.
Jesus christ i didnt realise just how stupid you were until now.I couldnt give a flying f*ck what you think either.
I never mentioned the convoys, never claimed the british government did anything better morally so where am i standing on my moral high horse?,never claimed distance had any bearing on the war in the pacific for the british,never claimed that british inaction in the wars with china or korea was any less morally apalling to me,never claimed that your country didnt give enough, in fact quite the oppersite.I praised those that saw what was happening and entered the war earlier than the official start for the US.Your so caught up with your bigoted brainless babble you have failed to conceive the whole discussion.
stunninghunk plain and simple.
mathman whilst i can understand you not reading all my replies in this post...its the longest pile of toejame ive had to wade through since ive been on these boards.most of the points you speak of i have almost said exactly the same myself.Dont defend laz's inane childish conception of history until you read just how misguided his obviously underdeveloped brain is.
I at no point abused the little toejam until he started calling me stupid names.
I dont agree with any of you that America won the war alone.I dont consider the contribution our soldiers gave and suffered for in the pacific a 'dismal performance'.
jesus i cant be bothered to go on theres so many points to explain.Im happy to consider your answers are what you believe and im glad i know what you are like.now i dont have to attempt any dialog.
as for me flying LW planes in a game? its a game.My political views have nothing to do with a game.Nazi? you f*cking child.