Jump to content
Atomeur

Are French planes coming a day ?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 4/9/2019 at 12:06 PM, unreasonable said:

 I would also like, but as it holds no appeal for [most of] our American or Russian friends I doubt that this will ever be done.

 

I'm American and trust me, I've had my fill of P-51s, P-47s, and P-38s. 😄

 

The Battle of France would be awesome.

 

b6d687c8a54f5371c7865e44be74bbbb.thumb.png.3b02d3c8a8131997e0116bf9d5c2e024.png

 

EADS1-D520-750x350.jpg.e395b8a5800f88fdb8b2a3918eb3e21b.jpg

 

leo45-4.jpg.0eff699bb18de3f2a8bbdc53258e9398.jpg

 

Sadly a lot of these planes are super obscure and not of info probably exists on them anymore.

 

The LeO 451 is a sweet looking airplane. Let me see if I can put together a quick French plane set...

Edited by Motherbrain
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here is a hypothetical plane set for the Battle of France expansion.

 

battleoffrance.thumb.jpg.3e865f7db14149fb27e2904c5d51392a.jpg

 

Maybe throw in a Hurricane or Spitfire Mk.I for another collector plane.

Edited by Motherbrain
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll pre order it as soon as it would be announced.

 

Be sure.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Sublime said:

If youre relying on French pilots kill claims you can divide that figure in half or into a third.  Thats generally about the real amount of kills to claims for all WW2 air forces. 

The more important for me is not the number of ennemy aircrafts who were destroyed. The important for me is the conditions of the differnts dogfights (fighter VS fighter, Bonber VS fighter)

What I want to tell here is that the conditions in which the french were fighting were very more harder than American conditions in a lot of aspects.

They fight like all of the other countries but they are forgottent (not totally because I think to them) because everyone developp the same aircrafts on the same period.

 

I prefer to put  D520 in collector and H.75 in the serie.

5 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'll pre order it as soon as it would be announced.

 

Be sure.

I am going to pre order too

Edited by Atomeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Atomeur said:

The more important for me is not the number of ennemy aircrafts who were destroyed. The important for me is the conditions of the differnts dogfights (fighter VS fighter, Bonber VS fighter)

What I want to tell here is that the conditions in which the french were fighting were very more harder than American conditions in a lot of aspects.

They fight like all of the other countries but they are forgottent (not totally because I think to them) because everyone developp the same aircrafts on the same period.

 

I would've loved to seen you said that to Don Blakeslee or Hub Zemke.

Edited by Rjel
spelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Atomeur said:

The more important for me is not the number of ennemy aircrafts who were destroyed. The important for me is the conditions of the differnts dogfights (fighter VS fighter, Bonber VS fighter)

What I want to tell here is that the conditions in which the french were fighting were very more harder than American conditions in a lot of aspects.

They fight like all of the other countries but they are forgottent (not totally because I think to them) because everyone developp the same aircrafts on the same period.

 

I prefer to put  D520 in collector and H.75 in the serie.

I am going to pre order too

I dont think its fair to say the French fought harder than the Americans or the Poles or Russians or anyone. Come on now.  Courage and cowardice isnt a national trait.  Im all for Battle of France and am interested in any realistic combat simulation really.

However I think youre actually hurting your argument and losing support by being so blatantly anti American for no real clear reason.  If you have an actual anti American argument lets hear it - but saying "the French fought harder" is simply an opinion and IMO a laughably biased and wrong one at that.  You yourself said after WW1 naturallt France had many pacifists - wouldnt that line of thought mean on average Americans fought harder? Regardless its silly - it all dependend on the situation.  Just as with the US in the air war - sure by early 1945 its a done deal in the big picture.  It was hardly so clear in 1942/43 ober France and Germany, let alone Italy or N Africa.  And there was literally every kind of aerial mission possible with the US. The US was THE most aircraft oriented military of the war. It is what it is.

That said of course Id love a Battle of France.  The battles and situations are interesting, the planes are interesting, some in bad ways (Bolt Paul Defiant..)

Commercially its less viable for them and Id argue we.ll probably see a N Africa before Battle of France.  Do I want it to be that way? No.  As someone else said I fear Francophiles are going to have to be satisfied for now with WW1.

Again to sum up - Im interested in every theater and type of combat in WW2. I support any simulation of WW2 thats realistic. Everyone else isnt me though. Yeah I have favorite theaters (everyone knows the chosen front is the Ost Front..) But theyre all fascinating and much deeper than mainstream history portrays.  Unfortunately for you mainstream history has condemned the Battle of France as the Nazis steamrolling the retreating French and its looked at really as a prelude to the BoB. Of course at the time it was an earth shattering event but hindsight is funny that way.  This of course isnt the truth at all, and the French troops acquitted themselves very well outside Dunkirk and in many many other battles - but most 'average knowledge of history' people and not just Americans - arent going to know details about the battle of France beyond there was a Maginot Line the Germans went around and Dunkirk.  If that.  This is just reality. Another reality is if you look at video games they tend to NOT be about battles the Axis won.  Yes there are exveptions but look at it - almost any game centered around a battle its almost always one the Allies won.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PatCartier said:

Ok, I retry to explain my thoughts.

I think that physical border made a difference because many cities have been destroyed, villages completly destroyed, industries dismantled, many refugees.

 

 



 

 

Understood Pat, i get what you are saying about physical land borders.

 

Mike.

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'll pre order it as soon as it would be announced.

 

Be sure.

 

Me too, deffo.

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be an instant buy from me as well, the battle of France can even lead into a BoB expansion thus flushing out the western front a bit more.

 

I know Clod exists but if we are being honest here I don't think anybody would rather fly in that engine anymore if they didn't have too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would order it within minutes from the moment that "Order Now" button is added to the website. As with any other expansion.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Motherbrain said:

Here is a hypothetical plane set for the Battle of France expansion.

 

battleoffrance.thumb.jpg.3e865f7db14149fb27e2904c5d51392a.jpg

 

Maybe throw in a Hurricane or Spitfire Mk.I for another collector plane.

 

You did forget the Bloch MB 152....no Bloch, no instant buy 😉

5138.jpg

Edited by Semor76
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Semor76 said:

Bloch MB 152

Yeah, that one has to be included as well

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want the Paul Defiant. Since everyones always on my tail online anyways ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rjel said:

I would've loved to seen you said that to Don Blakeslee or Hub Zemke.

I take the example of the bombers : American are not impressive in bombing cities in the optimal conditions of their aircrafts.

 

For the American bombers :

-they were powerfull at a high altitude

-they were used at a high altitude

-ennemy fighters are less powerfull at high altitude

   -the guys inside did one mission per day

       -they were in big groups of aircrafts to defend each others

       -they were covered by friendly fighters

          -they have speed

             -the AA is more effective at a low and medium altitude than at a high altitude

             -they were used at a high altitude

 

For the French :

-they were powerfull at a high altitude

-they were used at a low altitude

-ennemy fighters are more powerfull at low altitude

   -the guys inside did 2 or 3 missions per day every day without pause

     -they were in groups of 3/4 (2 or 1 in some missions) to defend themselves

     -they weren't covered (or in some rare missions)

        -some have speed (LeO451) some have no speed (Amiot 143)

          -the AA is more effective at a low and medium altitude than at a high altitude

          -they were used at a low and medium altitude

 

And this for every French, Belgian and Poland Pilots (British bombers were used at a high altitude)

 

You want more? I have a very long list to continue.

It is rubbish to continue a debate like this one. Each other defend his cause and mine in this topic isn't this one.

 

Edited by Atomeur
I forget a detail at the end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small niche market us combat flight simmers. Regardless of how you feel about Wings Over ... and OBD (I support both them and the IL2GBS, btw - both great in their own ways ), I don't think it would be sound judgement to produce a Battle Of France scenario at this point in time if it is already in development by OBD. That would hurt both companies in the end. 1C/777 Studios I am sure realize this. I wouldn't expect a BOF from them anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Sublime said:

However I think youre actually hurting your argument and losing support by being so blatantly anti American for no real clear reason.

I am not anti-American (my maneer to explain can show to you the contrary maybe), I understand and like that there are some games on this period and on this types of aircrafts. There are a lot of games on it and it is good. But I want to defend and present at all people who said "French were beaten in 2 months, ha ha" that they skip history too quickly.

I didn't say "french fought harder" NO.

I said Frenchs had harder conditions, make the difference.

All of the following arumentation is based on a thing that I never say.

 

I do the comparison with the USA because it was a good and clear example that anyone can know. I could do the comparison with Russia or Germany.

What we have to look here is that it isn't the same period, the same preparation, the same maneer to think. There are a lot of differences between both periods and it is difficul to have a debate with all the elents because they are too much.

4 hours ago, Sublime said:

almost any game centered around a battle its almost always one the Allies won. 

Yes, because they all are on the period of 1942/43/44/45.

And the sentiment is consolidated because all games deal with the same period ; it is the most popular (of ww2) and because it is popular, a lot of games are coming on it, and it becomes a chain.

But at least, we can play American, German and Russian aircrafts in very good conditions ;D

Edited by Atomeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Semor76 said:

You did forget the Bloch MB 152....no Bloch, no instant buy

Yes, the Bloch 152 is also an important plane and he is knowed to be particularly resistant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Atomeur said:

I take the example of the bombers : American are not impressive in bombing cities in the optimal conditions of their aircrafts.

 

For the American bombers :

-they were powerfull at a high altitude

-they were used at a high altitude

-ennemy fighters are less powerfull at high altitude

   -the guys inside did one mission per day

       -they were in big groups of aircrafts to defend each others

       -they were covered by friendly fighters

          -they have speed

             -the AA is more effective at a low and medium altitude than at a high altitude

             -they were used at a high altitude

 

For the French :

-they were powerfull at a high altitude

-they were used at a low altitude

-ennemy fighters are more powerfull at low altitude

   -the guys inside did 2 or 3 missions per day every day without pause

     -they were in groups of 3/4 (2 or 1 in some missions) to defend themselves

     -they weren't covered (or in some rare missions)

        -some have speed (LeO451) some have no speed (Amiot 143)

          -the AA is more effective at a low and medium altitude than at a high altitude

          -they were used at a low and medium altitude

 

And this for every French, Belgian and Poland Pilots (British bombers were used at a high altitude)

 

You want more? I have a very long list to continue.

It is rubbish to continue a debate like this one. Each other defend his cause and mine in this topic isn't this one.

 

Maybe it's a language thing but honestly I don't think you know the subject matter nearly as well as you think you do. Comparing a battle that lasted weeks as opposed to an airwar that lasted years is fruitless. The U.S.A.A.F. fought on three major fronts (ETO, PTO and MTO) thousands of miles from its homeland as opposed to the French fighting over their own homeland is like comparing apples and oranges. If you want to argue the French fliers were gallant, I'm not going to disagree. What I do disagree with you on is your slanderous comments aimed at U.S. fliers. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to their sacrifice to help free your homeland in WWII. When I see half baked comments like yours, it makes me think what so many allied aircrew, soldiers and sailors sacrificed was wasted on people like you.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rjel said:

Maybe it's a language thing but honestly I don't think you know the subject matter nearly as well as you think you do. Comparing a battle that lasted weeks as opposed to an airwar that lasted years is fruitless. The U.S.A.A.F. fought on three major fronts (ETO, PTO and MTO) thousands of miles from its homeland as opposed to the French fighting over their own homeland is like comparing apples and oranges. If you want to argue the French fliers were gallant, I'm not going to disagree. What I do disagree with you on is your slanderous comments aimed at U.S. fliers. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to their sacrifice to help free your homeland in WWII. When I see half baked comments like yours, it makes me think what so many allied aircrew, soldiers and sailors sacrificed was wasted on people like you. 

I really want to continue the discition of this with you but it isn't the topic here. I am not here to discuss about who did what and when, i am here to discuss about a possibly BOF or BOB or something else (with some french aircrafts like in the title). So it is my last message here on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Atomeur said:

I really want to continue the discition of this with you but it isn't the topic here. I am not here to discuss about who did what and when, i am here to discuss about a possibly BOF or BOB or something else (with some french aircrafts like in the title). So it is my last message here on this.

Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rjel said:

Maybe it's a language thing but honestly I don't think you know the subject matter nearly as well as you think you do. 

 

Alas it’s not a language thing.

Charitable of you to throw that in there however.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

i don't understand

 

 

 

What I can resume here about the idea is (correct me if I am false) :

Some people are interrested about a possibly BOF (Battle Of France) precisely and some people are interrested about just playing French's aircrafts but in both cases, French's aircrfts are present.

It is on the point of view of the money who is the main problem. Of the point of view of the community, maybe doing a game like this isn't profitable to the developpers ?

I saw here that there are a lot of people who are interrested about this (and some no...) and more people interrested are not on this topic.

Some people (me inside) are going to instant buy this X)

There are also some problems about the documents of the aircrafts. But we can find some documents or informations in different places.

 

 

Edited by Atomeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sublime said:

I dont think its fair to say the French fought harder than the Americans or the Poles or Russians or anyone. Come on now.

You don't know how to read, I never say this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would like to have BoF, but apart from BoF (which lasted only for 45 days), there's very little place for French air equipment in the history of WWII. Sad as it is, but later Vichy didn't fight much, and the Free French mostly fought using American equipment. It would be nice to have BoF and/or the Syria-Lebanon conflict, but these are marginal, I'm sorry to say, to the struggles of the Russian, of the British, of the German, of the American, or even of the Romanian or the Finnish. As long as BoX is a historical combat simulation, France is not a primary candidate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No ones posted their picks for the other team. Assuming it would be 5 + 5 like it's been from day one. And from a marketing standpoint maybe not all AC already in the game - what's your list? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

This would be nice to have,

 

amiot_143_sor.jpg

 

Damn that's an ugly plane.

 

Those interwar planes that never saw action are all very interesting, but the "great battles" franchise kinda need planes that, well, participated in "grand battles". Lest we risk inspiring a "not-in-battles" franchise!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the Armistice, the Amiot 143M had dropped a total of 474 tonnes (523 tons) of bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would like to see a 3rd Sept 1939 - Nov 1940 release.

 

Featuring both BoF & BoB aircraft on a map covering both battles.

 

Probably never going to happen, but i can dream.  ;)

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 8:20 AM, Atomeur said:

i can't let you say that.

I am not agree with you. French's pilot fight at 1 against 6 or 7 and they have shot down more than 1000 german aircrafts who were more powerfull. At their side, there were 300 or 400 French's aircrafts shot down, so it is a good ratio.

At their side, the american are not very impressive : they fought with equal or more powerfull aircrafts than their ennemies, they were a lot of pilots, they were in good conditions and had a good administration.

1.

On 4/10/2019 at 8:28 AM, Atomeur said:

All of the people who said " the French's were smashed in less than 2 months, they were irrelevant on my opinion" never read French's fighting in the air beacause is is very more interresting than American histories.

You have to know that the tactics of the germans were "blitzkrieg", so very rapid.  In the Pacific, it wasn't the same tactic : the speed wasn't the main element.

2

8 hours ago, Atomeur said:

The more important for me is not the number of ennemy aircrafts who were destroyed. The important for me is the conditions of the differnts dogfights (fighter VS fighter, Bonber VS fighter)

What I want to tell here is that the conditions in which the french were fighting were very more harder than American conditions in a lot of aspects.

......

3

6 hours ago, Atomeur said:

I take the example of the bombers : American are not impressive in bombing cities in the optimal conditions of their aircrafts.

 

For the American bombers :

-they were powerfull at a high altitude

-they were used at a high altitude

-ennemy fighters are less powerfull at high altitude

   -the guys inside did one mission per day

       -they were in big groups of aircrafts to defend each others

       -they were covered by friendly fighters

          -they have speed

             -the AA is more effective at a low and medium altitude than at a high altitude

             -they were used at a high altitude

 

For the French :

-they were powerfull at a high altitude

-they were used at a low altitude

-ennemy fighters are more powerfull at low altitude

   -the guys inside did 2 or 3 missions per day every day without pause

     -they were in groups of 3/4 (2 or 1 in some missions) to defend themselves

     -they weren't covered (or in some rare missions)

        -some have speed (LeO451) some have no speed (Amiot 143)

          -the AA is more effective at a low and medium altitude than at a high altitude

          -they were used at a low and medium altitude

 

And this for every French, Belgian and Poland Pilots (British bombers were used at a high altitude)

 

...

6 hours ago, Atomeur said:

 

4

 

Low altitude? Google Op Tidal Wave. Ir B26s. Or the somewhat unpopular order for escorts to shoot anything moving in Germany in early 45.

Honestly its semantics. Perhaps you edited it out - I swear I saw you write it as the French fought harder but all of your posts have from the beginnijg brought up America and Russia negatively unsolicited and repeatedly. Its like you need a target or an argument when there hadnt been one.

If youre trying to say I need to read then you need to learn better english - all 4 posts you post opinions like facts and all do border on slanderous of the US especially in favor of the French AF. Its a disservice to everyone involved honestly.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sublime said:

Low altitude? Google Op Tidal Wave. Ir B26s. Or the somewhat unpopular order for escorts to shoot anything moving in Germany in early 45.

Honestly its semantics. Perhaps you edited it out - I swear I saw you write it as the French fought harder but all of your posts have from the beginnijg brought up America and Russia negatively unsolicited and repeatedly. Its like you need a target or an argument when there hadnt been one.

If youre trying to say I need to read then you need to learn better english - all 4 posts you post opinions like facts and all do border on slanderous of the US especially in favor of the French AF. Its a disservice to everyone involved honestly. 

Firstly, yes, I maintain low altitude, you just have to write on Google "aviation ww2" and you see a lot of American photography of aircrafts in high altitude. You can also see that they were in high altitude in the lot of films and documentaries about this period. (If you say no, you're a liar).

Of course, there were some missions of american bombers in low altitude but they weren't the most realized. For example, B17 were used at a high altitude and very rarely at low altitude.

Secondly, you can search on all the topic, you can never find "Atomeur said : French pilots fought harder the American pilots" because I never said it. And even if I said it (never) it isn't my opinion because we can't compare at this lever of point of view. It is how my comments are writing who giving the impression of this.

i am not trying to defend AF. I defend the early (1940/1941) aviation of different countries : Belgium, Britain, Finlandia,...

I present the most popular types of missions during this war (in bomber because I take this example), and It is the most popular because of the films about this period, beacause of the texts, because of the documents.

Of course, there are some exceptions, like everwhere but I said the principal.

And I repeat : French never fought harder the Britain or any other countries and american never fought harder than French or any other countries, they just fought against the same ennemy in some cases in different various conditions.

Now, stop trying to make me say things that i never say because it is annoying. All of your argue is based on the fact that I said "American never did anything" or "French fought harder" or something in this idea. And after, you going to say "they did sacrifice" (I agree), "they fought to defend allies"( agree too) and finally "It is a shame for those who fights" (I see it coming) and this.. about something that nobody never said here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Atomeur said:

Firstly, yes, I maintain low altitude, you just have to write on Google "aviation ww2" and you see a lot of American photography of aircrafts in high altitude. You can also see that they were in high altitude in the lot of films and documentaries about this period. (If you say no, you're a liar).

Of course, there were some missions of american bombers in low altitude but they weren't the most realized. For example, B17 were used at a high altitude and very rarely at low altitude.

Secondly, you can search on all the topic, you can never find "Atomeur said : French pilots fought harder the American pilots" because I never said it. And even if I said it (never) it isn't my opinion because we can't compare at this lever of point of view. It is how my comments are writing who giving the impression of this.

i am not trying to defend AF. I defend the early (1940/1941) aviation of different countries : Belgium, Britain, Finlandia,...

I present the most popular types of missions during this war (in bomber because I take this example), and It is the most popular because of the films about this period, beacause of the texts, because of the documents.

Of course, there are some exceptions, like everwhere but I said the principal.

And I repeat : French never fought harder the Britain or any other countries and american never fought harder than French or any other countries, they just fought against the same ennemy in some cases in different various conditions.

Now, stop trying to make me say things that i never say because it is annoying. All of your argue is based on the fact that I said "American never did anything" or "French fought harder" or something in this idea. And after, you going to say "they did sacrifice" (I agree), "they fought to defend allies"( agree too) and finally "It is a shame for those who fights" (I see it coming) and this.. about something that nobody never said here.

Im not saying there wasnt low altitude. Im saying you seem to forget tens of thousands of other planes. Yes they used heavy planes on high altitude raids.

Mosquitos were used at both. B26s were. Many many many planes were.

Op Tidal Wave was a MASS low level B24 raid on Ploesti.  Google it sometime.  You dont seem to know much of what youre talking about.  No air war war is SOLELY high altitude.  It happened a lot more in the west for various reasons but that doesnt mean at all it didnt extend downwards and also lots of planes were flying lower.  I wont call you a liar on this - I WILL call you ignorant on the subject.

You know whats REALLY annoying? Seeing someone trash your home nation for no reason except seeming to need to down one nation to amp his preferred.  Worse than that? Engaging them in pilot discourse and being insulted - told you need to learn to read,  "if you do youre a liar", etc etc.  I responded in kind but you took this from intellectual debate to arguing in a seedy bar with some guy.

So lets do this. How about YOU refrain from posting these assertions like facts or Ill ask for citations? Want some from me? Ive got them.  Im on a subway but I can do this with books and MLA format.  (Ps you simply could have editted your statement and a search wouldnt reveal.  Im not high I saw the post.  Even with out it look at the rest.  Youd prolly fart a snail if I talked about France like that.  How about this.  I find the French performance "less than impressive" compared to tue US. We won.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IX_Fighter_Command

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tidal_Wave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15th_Expeditionary_Mobility_Task_Force

I trust wikipedia will suffice for now. After all you havent provided F All for an argument besides opinion and numbers that are totally unsubstantiated.  For example your casualty figures. Lets see your figures and how they staxk up to US aerial losses. Never mind US AND British.  Im that light the French AF effort seems... Unimpressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command

(US casualties can be found above. I recommend you read the S Bombing Survey as it covers the entire air war not just "only high altitude bombing" (my god those P47 and P51 pilots must have beem SUPERMEN to strafe trains and everything from 25k feet!  And jeez what a bunch of ninnies the Wehrmacht were! I mean sure they crushed France but theyre always on about "Jabos" when obviously according to you the West never flew low level except take off and landings. LOL)

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea do something with it as productive discussions over now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

u  think move this french plane set addon to suggestions?

 

:)

Add Breguet 693 before (I am a mudmover :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The D. 520 were hardly used due to the few numbers build, and therefore shouldn't be in a BoF. 

More correct would be the M. S. 410 which was used by many squadrons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Axis

 

BF109E3

 

Ju87B1

 

BF110C2

 

He111P

 

Collector plane: Do17Z

 

 

 

Allies

 

Hawker Hurricane Mk I

 

Fokker D. XXI

 

M. S. 406

 

Breguet 693

 

Collector plane: Blenheim Mk IV

 

 

 

Map

 

Maybe 2, one for Fall Gelb and one for Fall Rot. 

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...