Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary, Part 173 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Both the US and the UK had naval aviation, which was used to a large extent in the Med, but not on the Eastern Front.

 

 

In 1942 HMS Avenger became the first fleet aircraft carrier to join a Arctic convoy bound for Russia, deploying Hurricane and Swordfish flights. ;)  

 

Tell all those seamen and airmen they played no part in the war in the east.

 

 

Pity we do not yet have the Murmansk map as it might have been a better testing ground than Kuban for naval tech prior to the move to the Pacific.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Eastern Front now covers Iceland to Barents Sea? Maybe Iraq to Egypt, too, then? And what about Halifax to Liverpool? Well, might be a matter of taste, but to me the Eastern Front ends where the supply convoys start to be their own front. I don't see where and when the Avenger air group fought against the Luftwaffe inside of Soviet territory/air space, making PQ18 an Arctic battle, not an Eastern Front battle.

 

But thanks for the reminder. :)

 

HMS Avenger was participating in Operation Torch and eventually sunk off Gibraltar later that year. Clearly the Med. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention... the Royal Navy was heavily involved in the war on the Eastern Front, via their defence of the Arctic Convoys, without which there would have been far fewer tanks, vehicles, ammunition, fuel, other war material and much less in the way of lend-lease aircraft.

 

And while we're thinking about the RN, in terms of variety of aircraft types they contributed enough for a whole BoX plane set on their own in the Med:

Sea Hurricane, Sea Gladiator, Seafire, Fulmar, Martlet and Hellcat fighters, Swordfish and Albacore torpedo-bomber/reconnaissance, and the fairly inauspicious early-war Skua and Roc combination which both saw use in the theatre.

 

Not to forget that the FAA in the Med carried out an audacious attack on the Italian fleet in Taranto, which became the model for the Pearl Harbour attack the following year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Eastern Front now covers Iceland to Barents Sea? Maybe Iraq to Egypt, too, then? And what about Halifax to Liverpool? Well, might be a matter of taste, but to me the Eastern Front ends where the supply convoys start to be their own front. I don't see where and when the Avenger air group fought against the Luftwaffe inside of Soviet territory/air space, making PQ18 an Arctic battle, not an Eastern Front battle.

 

But thanks for the reminder. :)

 

HMS Avenger was participating in Operation Torch and eventually sunk off Gibraltar later that year. Clearly the Med. :P

 

 

https://everipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Avenger_%28D14%29/

 

Just one of many references.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also this large object called "land" between Berlin and Moscow.

 

 

 

 

The Soviets bombed Berlin as early at August 1941 with their Pe-8s, as well as with their Il-4s. 

You of course missed the point, the biggest obstacle the Russian's faced was incompetent leadership, poor logistics ,unpreparedness and the same mistake the Germans repeatly made . In particular the individuals who made the engineering decisions and battle strategies i.e Stalin and Hitler were not qualified to do either. Neither the Russians nor the Germans had the competence nor the weapons to wage a strategic war, all the could mange was a tactical land battle. So- WW I.

The Pe-8 The Russians did have a long range bomber until the reverse engineered  the US B-29. It would have mattered they had no high altitude fighters to escort a strategic bombing effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? You mean hundreds of miles of freezing, tank infested land is hard to cross?

I don't buy it.

 

I suppose next you'll tell me that aircraft supporting the army and it's movement somehow played a huge part?

Nonsense!

 

 

 

I think FF found Raaid's random sentence generator.

 

Made even more difficult  when you can't fly over it. Exacerbated by the fact that your primary logistical support is a horse or lend lease equipment . Again, poor planning and incompetent leadership. Please continue to exhibit your brilliant and broad expansive pedantic knowledge always enlightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swore I wouldn't reply any further FrequentFlyer, but you're forcing my hand (plus the thread has been un-pinned now)

 

It took the USSR 6 years to get to Berlin??? Wrong sir, just wrong! The entire war between Germany and its allies vs. the Soviet Union lasted less than 4 years. The Red Army was pushed back all the way to Moscow and the Caucasus and fought its way back a couple thousands kilometers to Berlin in shorter time than it took the British Army to find its way back across the English Channel.

 

And no, the Soviet Union didn't focus on strategic bombing, because it was kinda busy fighting 3/4 of the entire German Army and its allies. The VVS was an integral part of that effort and for you to disparage that struggle and call it insignificant is more than just a little insulting.

 

You are incorrect, the soviet union attacked/invaded Poland in September of 1939. Instead of trying to make up facts to fit your narrative about the "Russian version " of WW II expand and open up your mind to other theaters of operation. This was the point of this thread. No matter what map we get in the Easter front it is the same old tired mission a small group of aircraft at low altitude attack an insignificant target. - a convoy or maybe a train. Most would welcome a change in venue.

New aircraft , and many more nations participating can only drive sales. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked Berlin was the capital of Germany, not of Poland. So what exactly has the occupation of Poland to do with defeating Germany within a four year time span?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pe-8 The Russians did have a long range bomber until the reverse engineered  the US B-29. It would have mattered they had no high altitude fighters to escort a strategic bombing effort.

 

 

You point is somewhat unclear here. Are you suggesting that the Pe-8 was not capable of bombing at long range?

 

The Pe-8 could haul more weight further than the B-17, and was the B-17 not a long range bomber?

 

Sorry you make no sense. But it matters little as the other allies were bombing Germany anyhow and the results were far from clear cut and have been argued over ever since.

 

One thing about the strategic bombing of Germany is sure, their arms production increased during the bombing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked Berlin was the capital of Germany, not of Poland. So what exactly has the occupation of Poland to do with defeating Germany within a four year time span?

 

It was six years from 1939-45. Russia invaded Poland in 39  and was pushed/retreated until Stalingrad. Eventually ending up in Berlin in May 1945 I can send you a link ?

You point is somewhat unclear here. Are you suggesting that the Pe-8 was not capable of bombing at long range?

 

The Pe-8 could haul more weight further than the B-17, and was the B-17 not a long range bomber?

 

Sorry you make no sense. But it matters little as the other allies were bombing Germany anyhow and the results were far from clear cut and have been argued over ever since.

 

One thing about the strategic bombing of Germany is sure, their arms production increased during the bombing

However, since the VVs had no long range escorts they were infrequently and ineffectually used . They function as weapon systems. Review the number of B-17 manufactured and tons of ordnance dropped vs. Pe-8 you will have a better understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia invaded Poland in 39 and was pushed/retreated until Stalingrad.

So the Soviets were pushed back by the Polish all the way to Stalingrad. Interesting.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the soviet union attacked/invaded Poland in September of 1939.

 

Most would welcome a change in venue.

 

New aircraft , and many more nations participating can only drive sales.

All correct :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you guys even bother to engage Frequent_Troller. He's been on my ignore list for years. It's pretty obvious he's clinging hard to cold war era propaganda thinking the USA singlehandedly saved the world from the Nazis (who are to be more respected than those evil communists) in spite of the annoyance of letting the other allies in on all the fun.

 

This is just how Americans are taught as children. It's up to us to find out the truth on our own. A lot of people just aren't having anything to do with truth though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was six years from 1939-45. Russia invaded Poland in 39  and was pushed/retreated until Stalingrad. Eventually ending up in Berlin in May 1945 I can send you a link ?

...

 

Yes, Russia invaded Poland in September 1939, but fighting on the same side as Germany. The campaign lasted until October 1939. There was no further conflict between Russia/Germany until Barbarossa in June 1941.

 

You can't seriously argue for six years. It's ridiculous.

Edited by kendo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red Army was pushed back all the way to Moscow and the Caucasus and fought its way back a couple thousands kilometers to Berlin in shorter time than it took the British Army to find its way back across the English Channel.

I feel like I have to point out why this is... the UK joined the war on day three and by the time of Stalingrad had been fighting for four years - twice as long as the Soviets had been by that point. In the time in between the British Army had been engaged in Norway and France (defeats), the Far East and India (not great successes either), Greece and Crete (a bit of a mini-Dunkirk), as well as the Middle East (moderate successes) and North Africa (great successes) and already had a successful amphibious landing under their belt (Operation Torch) to make up for the unsuccessful one they also had conducted (the Dieppe Raid).

 

During this time alone they had fought against the Germans, Italians, Japanese, French a number of times (Britain hasn't lost a war to France since 1453, incidentally) and alongside most of Western Europe including France again as well as most notably Norway and the Netherlands, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia, India, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and Czechoslovakia amongst others, as well as the Soviet Union and perennially late-to-the-party USA.

 

Between Stalingrad and D-Day in Normandy the British Army also found time to invade first Sicily and then the whole of Italy in addition to running an asymmetric campaign against the Japanese in Burma, forcing the Imperial Japanese Army to tie down resources and reorganise towards a defensive stance, stopping their expansion, before invading that too.

Then D-Day which everyone knows about, following which the British Army charged all up and down Western Europe with a short delay over winter 44-45 at the Battle of the Bulge before retaking the Low Countries and then Germany itself. Meanwhile Burma was also retaken and despite the surrender of Japan concluding the Second World War they decided to invade Malaya anyway as plans were already in place and by that point they might as well.

 

Not to mention that the RAF were fighting the first battle entirely won through air power (Battle of Britain), neutralising the German U-boat threat in the Atlantic and conducting a nighttime war of attrition via the bomber campaign, pioneering a new style of close-air support and merrily establishing air superiority in effectively every theatre in which they operated, and the Royal Navy were ruling the waves as they do best, winning the Battle of the Atlantic, overcoming setbacks in the Far East, holding Malta against overwhelming odds and keeping the Soviets supplied via arctic convoys, as well as supporting every other theatre.

 

 

This wall of text is not meant to disparage or disrespect the efforts and sacrifices of those who fought on the Eastern Front, far from it.

But, it only took four years to cross the Channel between Dunkirk and Normandy because there were a few other things that needed seeing to as well.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree completely. My remark was not meant to disparage the British war effort in any way, but simply to underline the ridiculousness of suggesting, that the Red Army took unnecessarilly long to push back the Wehrmacht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has become a steaming pile of nationalism by pretty much everyone arguing here now. America apparently contributed nothing, not even in the Pacific, if I were to take some statements at face value. Never mind the war was won by an Allied effort and would have been lost by any single entity fighting on their own. It's a simple as that.

 

Rediculous

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where the nationalism is hidden in my posts? Where exactly do I talk about how Denmark actually won the war? (by laying flat on its back and willingly cooporating with the German occupying force for over 3 years)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perennially late-to-the-party USA.

 

USA, which at that time heavily favored isolationism and had passed several neutrality acts during a few years earlier, joined the party actually quite fast in these circumstances. Already during Battle of Britain, USA gave 50 destroyers to Britain and started to aid Britain, despite being officially neutral. Lend-lease program was also started already half a year before USA officially entered war.

 

The rest of your post, how Britain invaded Italy, stopped the Japanese, provided for Soviet Union, landed on Normandy beaches, won Battle of the Bulge etc (while Americans were still sleeping?) trumps even Frequent_Flyer on the nonsense level.

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point was to show on which fronts the UK was engaged, not that it fought every battle alone.

 

Britain hasn't lost a war to France since 1453, incidentally

1783. Among other things, it cost the British empire 13 colonies in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I enjoy watching the Russian video of them detonating the bullet-ridden Reichstag in May 1945 every once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point was to show on which fronts the UK was engaged, not that it fought every battle alone.

 

1783. Among other things, it cost the British empire 13 colonies in America.

Wouldn't say that was a loss to France per se, more that they supported the opposing side in that one.

But plenty of things happened in the 17th and 18th centuries that it's hard to be proud of so I don't mind conceding the point.

 

Not that I have anything against the French either, they've been worthy rivals for a long time.

 

The rest of your post, how Britain invaded Italy, stopped the Japanese, provided for Soviet Union, landed on Normandy beaches, won Battle of the Bulge etc (while Americans were still sleeping?) trumps even Frequent_Flyer on the nonsense level.

Alright, you got me there, I was just trying to pull a fast one by pretending that the UK and Commonwealth had a part to play in World War Two.

 

As we all know, after the Battle of Britain the UK/Commonwealth contributed by sitting around drinking tea while the P-51 won the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, you got me there, I was just trying to pull a fast one by pretending that the UK and Commonwealth had a part to play in World War Two.

 

As we all know, after the Battle of Britain the UK/Commonwealth contributed by sitting around drinking tea while the P-51 won the war.

No need to twist my words and claim that I said something like that. But you better read again your previous post, where "Britain won, Britain stopped and Britain invaded". The only American contribution to the war, based on that post, was just barely making it to the victory parade. Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twisting words like the implication that I believed the US to be sleeping at the Battle of the Bulge?

Or the suggestion that a list of theatres contested by UK and Commonwealth forces was somehow nonsense?

 

The whole post was a tongue-in-cheek response to a similarly tongue-in-cheek line about how it took the British Army four years to cross 26 miles of water.

So, a lighthearted and bombastic response to that point. Obviously satire is hard to spot online.

 

I went out of my way to mention the huge variety of allies who fought alongside the UK/Commonwealth as WWII wasn't 'the British Empire vs the rest of the world' any more than it was 'America saves the day' or indeed 'the Soviets defeat fascism'.

 

You're complaining about the US not getting a mention.

Great.

So I'll say 'Britain and the US fought in x theatre' and an Australian appears and says 'oh, looks like you're saying Australia wasn't involved at all'.

So we say 'UK/US/Aus did x' and a Pole says 'what about Poland's contribution?' etc etc

Finkeren has already provided an insight into Denmark's war effort (sorry Fink, only a joke) so we have that covered, but I also forgot to mention that which was remiss of me.

 

I'm obviously not trying to write a definitive history of the whole war, if so I'd be missing a few details.

But I'd say it'll do for a late-night forum post on the internet about one single country, yeah?

 

To paraphrase Finkeren:

"My remark was not meant to disparage the US war effort in any way, but simply to underline the ridiculousness of suggesting, that the British Army took unnecessarilly long to push back the Wehrmacht."

 

Feel free to add your own nationalism to this steaming pile.

And editing your post so 'the US is late to the party' becomes 'the US is late to the victory parade'...

In a post about twisting words.

 

Now is the implication that I'm claiming the US was barely present at the end, rather than I'm claiming that the US was barely present at the start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read your previous post?

Quote: "British Army charged all up and down Western Europe with a short delay over winter 44-45 at the Battle of the Bulge before retaking the Low Countries and then Germany itself."

British Army. Not only did it take care of Western Europe, it even "retook Germany itself". So am I twisting your words or are you twisting reality?

 

I am not complaining that US did not get a mention, just you are giving twisted perception on real happenings. I don't really like when people lie about historical facts or deliberately select facts to present a twisted image of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're reaching into personal attacks now then?

I'm lying about historical facts?

 

Unless you think that I actually believe the Second Workd War was a case of the British Empire taking on all comers by itself (in which case why would I bother mentioning any allied nations at all, including the US as has already been pointed out to you) or that I was using this as an excuse to boast about British achievements (in which case why would I bring up the defeats), then I would have thought it was obvious what the point of my post was.

 

If you really think I'm 'twisting reality' by providing an accurate, if very brief overview of what the UK and Commonwealth were getting up to then I'm not sure what we can do to fix this.

 

Although I can see where your issue of reading comprehension has entered - when I say "retaking the Low Countries and then Germany itself", 'itself" in this case is referring to Germany and not Britain. No commas.

 

Rather than 'Britain alone was retaking these places' ('then Germany, itself') it is 'Britain retook German-occupied areas, and then the actual Germany" (then Germany itself').

 

To give you the benefit of the doubt, that's the only way I can see that you can have misinterpreted what I have said at any point.

Otherwise it seems to be a sense of hurt national pride coming from me talking about a country that is not the US, and not putting the US front-and-centre in a context (what the British Army was doing) where it doesn't require more than a passing mention and no more or less than all the other allied countries who were also involved.

 

I hope that is clear enough...

to paraphrase yourself I don't really like when people act deliberately obtuse to drive home a point that doesn't need making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, no need to carry on about the topic.

Words and sentences can be understood differently, with perception that was not intended originally. For example if a kid told that "After school I went to confront my bully and shouted at him until he started to cry" could be interpreted that the bully started to cry because the kid shouted at him, but possibly the kid just meant to tell what he was doing after school and thus did not mention that he had his big brother with him, holding the bully's throat, while he was shouting.

So, no hard feelings, I just happened to read your sentences from a different angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

If you want to keep it up with the hsitory discussion you should do it over at PM.

 

Next off-topic post will be deleted without any notice.

 

Haash

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the American perspective, those are the theatres you can relate to :)

 

Their biggest markets are Russia and Germany. Enthusiasm for the Pacific in those areas is generally low, comparable to the American one for the Soviet front.

 

I'm confident that once both theatres have three or so expansions we'll see the liberation of Europe in 1944 modelled, and probably alternated releases.

[Edited]

Edited by Bearcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a "liberation of Europe"-scenario the Luftwaffleswill be impressively f..ked up!

Not necessarily. What were decisive factors in RL play no role in a simulation: aircraft production and maintenance quality, pilot training quality, lack of fuel and the general supply situation, leadership, fatigue and morale of personnel, and finally -- numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. What were decisive factors in RL play no role in a simulation: aircraft production and maintenance quality, pilot training quality, lack of fuel and the general supply situation, leadership, fatigue and morale of personnel, and finally -- numbers

Exactly - our scope/world is extremely small, and during any given mission the player can be successful - which is all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...