Jump to content


world of warplanes interview with GDN


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
86 replies to this topic

LostSpider #61 Posted 21 August 2011 - 11:45 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 24760 battles
  • 1,150
  • Member since:
    07-26-2010
will there be invisible airplanes?, just like in world of tanks were tanks desapair 30 mts from you

PanzerKnacker #62 Posted 21 August 2011 - 12:54 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 5654 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
Hmmm the smell of patriotism in the morning.


What I meant to say, people, in the post before, is that... oh ok nvm. God damned nationalism. UK FTW. Happy now?

Someone just give me the numbers of British fighters/Fighter-bombers/Ground attack planes built during the war and the same for German, Soviet, Japanese and American

Then take the 3 nations with the highest numbers and put them first, we're not counting bombers as we're not having World of Strategic Bombardment.


OK with everyone?

BishBoshBash #63 Posted 21 August 2011 - 05:22 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8113 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View Posttvih, on 21 August 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

And none of your posts give any credibility to your claim that they didn't do anything. And if 4 years of fighting the Luftwaffe, in the process depleting it into uselessness is "doing nothing", then I don't know what "doing something" is. You're just being purposefully ignorant. You honestly think 125 000 combat planes did nothing to affect the outcome of the war? Soviets also had the highest-scoring fighter aces from the Allied side of the war, not your precious Brits or even the Yanks.

Not to mention the "ussr didnt even have enough planes to make a tech tree" comment in your original post not only being blatantly false, but it also demonstrates your level of knowledge on the subject (i.e: zero).

I could look up a wide variety of credible sources for proof, but it'd be a waste of my time and it's not like someone who is purposefully dense would be swayed by facts anyway.
Ilmari JuutilainenFinlandFinnish Air Force 94 kills had the most out of all the allied airforce, then Hans WindFinlandFinnish Air Force 75 kills, so please if your going to try claim how smart you are by just using google at least do it right, your even more of a fail by claiming how smart you are by using goolge and getting it wrong

PanzerKnacker #64 Posted 21 August 2011 - 07:16 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 5654 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostB4U2, on 21 August 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

Ilmari Juutilainen Finland Finnish Air Force 94 kills had the most out of all the allied airforce, then Hans Wind Finland Finnish Air Force 75 kills, so please if your going to try claim how smart you are by just using google at least do it right, your even more of a fail by claiming how smart you are by using goolge and getting it wrong



Brm brm brm last time I checked, Finland was Axis...?

BishBoshBash #65 Posted 21 August 2011 - 08:46 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8113 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View PostPanzerKnacker, on 21 August 2011 - 07:16 PM, said:

Brm brm brm last time I checked, Finland was Axis...?

FinlandMain article: Military history of Finland during World War IIRepublic of Finland Although Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact and legally (de jure) was not a part of the Axis

from wiki

Dr_Nooooo #66 Posted 21 August 2011 - 08:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 13211 battles
  • 1,415
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010
...and yet finnish  soldiers fought side by side with german soldiers against the soviet union...

BishBoshBash #67 Posted 21 August 2011 - 09:48 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8113 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View PostDr_Nooooo, on 21 August 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

...and yet finnish  soldiers fought side by side with german soldiers against the soviet union...


still they are not part of axis like the other person said

Dr_Nooooo #68 Posted 21 August 2011 - 10:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 13211 battles
  • 1,415
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010
But of the allied while fighting allied soviet soldiers?

PanzerKnacker #69 Posted 21 August 2011 - 10:50 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 5654 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
But they were still shooting at Soviets and receiving german help, until what, late 1944?

Listy #70 Posted 21 August 2011 - 11:07 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostPanzerKnacker, on 21 August 2011 - 10:50 PM, said:

But they were still shooting at Soviets and receiving german help, until what, late 1944?

Then started shooting at German forces...

Dr_Nooooo #71 Posted 21 August 2011 - 11:20 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 13211 battles
  • 1,415
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010
Same way as Italy did, once the tide turns betray and backstab your friend

Listy #72 Posted 22 August 2011 - 12:36 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostDr_Nooooo, on 21 August 2011 - 11:20 PM, said:

Same way as Italy did, once the tide turns betray and backstab your friend

That's not entirely fair now, is it. Finland allied itself to Germany after Russia jumped on her with both feet in a war of aggression, trying to wipe the country out and take over. Some one does that, then sure you'll ally with them to get your stuff back. After beating the Russians both sides were exhausted, and the Soviets realised they needed to concentrate on Germany. So signed a peace deal.
The Germans fighting in Finland didn't want to leave (as per the peace treaty) and wanted to carry on fighting so the Finns had to evict them to protect herself.

Equally one might want to look at how much material was supplied to Finland from the allied nations in the first part of the war.

But anyway, we're getting away from the subject about why the British are too awesome to include in WG.Net games. I will however enjoy reading the logic that excludes the British from World of Battleships...

:)

PS: I thought the earlier idea of Less vehicles but more nations was a stunning one.

tvih #73 Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:52 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 10131 battles
  • 397
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    09-30-2010

View PostB4U2, on 21 August 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

Ilmari Juutilainen Finland Finnish Air Force 94 kills had the most out of all the allied airforce, then Hans Wind Finland Finnish Air Force 75 kills, so please if your going to try claim how smart you are by just using google at least do it right, your even more of a fail by claiming how smart you are by using goolge and getting it wrong
I'm Finnish, so yes, I know about the Finnish pilots and have read probably at least ten books about them specifically. But they weren't Allied, therefore your point is once again moot. So how "smart" is it not even knowing Finland wasn't one of the Allies while claiming them to be so? Seriously, how can anyone who knows anything about anything think Finland was Allied when they fought the Soviets for about 3,5 years? :blink: What little credibility you might've had (not that you did have any) just got divebombed.

And yes I used Google, big frelling deal. I've read enough books on war history, but as I don't happen to have any about Soviet air forces in my bookshelf I had to look up the numbers from the Internet. At least I am looking up numbers and other such facts instead of talking out of my rear end all the time.

Tuccy #74 Posted 22 August 2011 - 10:21 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14479 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View PostListy, on 20 August 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:

Really?
Care to support that with those pesky things called "facts"?

Lets review a few shall we:
The Luftwaffe at maximum effort managed to knock out two of 11 Groups airfields. That just left 10, 12 and 13 groups untouched. The attacks on 12 group resulted in a total rout. SO the RAF was never anywhere near destroyed. In fact if those squadrons in 11 Group got destroyed that still leaves 13 group untouched, and 10 and 12 groups with light casualties.
This. Result of 11 Group withdhrawing completely from SE England would be only that the beaches would become contested airspace with both sides having to fly a long way (relatively), still the Brits would have benefits of shorter distance and home turf. Moreover it may actually increase effectiveness of RAF - one of problems 11 Group faced was short notice and thus necessity to deploy squadrons piecemeal and little time to climb. 12G, when getting to reinforce 11G, had time to prepare massed formations (the "Big Wing/Small Wing" conflict).
Not to mention that at the latest the moment invasion begins, LW has to shift aim from neutralising airfields to tactical targets. With a bit o' planning, RAF would have bases prepared to operations the moment LW did this.

Quote

Sealion was a total disaster from start to finish. The German's invasion fleet was out numbered 10-1 in warships. The Germans also planned to land more troops along a wider front than on D-day. However they planned this with less warships and logistical planning.

The invasion would be won in 12 hours, although mopping up might take a couple of days.
And i hardly think U-boats and minefields would have such an effect Germans hoped for in keeping the Brits away - though even if they kept Home Fleet at bay, it would not stop light forces in the Channel proper and cruiser fleets... And RN had some rather gutsy DD/CL/CA commanders.
Generally it would end up in a series of isolated beachheads and an utter defeat, unless Brits panicked. While there was a critical situation re. heavy weapons/ammunition for some time, still it was far less critical than the invading troops would witness.

Listy #75 Posted 22 August 2011 - 10:52 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View Posttuccy, on 22 August 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:

And i hardly think U-boats and minefields would have such an effect Germans hoped for in keeping the Brits away - though even if they kept Home Fleet at bay, it would not stop light forces in the Channel proper and cruiser fleets... And RN had some rather gutsy DD/CL/CA commanders.
Generally it would end up in a series of isolated beachheads and an utter defeat, unless Brits panicked. While there was a critical situation re. heavy weapons/ammunition for some time, still it was far less critical than the invading troops would witness.

What U-boats and Mine barriers? ;) But your point is valid.

Due to the barges being collected to sail the Invasion force, the German Economy was overheating. They were due to run out of Torpedo's about a week before Sealion was due to be launched. Equally the British had more, and better, Subs in the channel than the Germans had available.
Mine barrier wise, adding together every single mine the Germans could get their hands on and produce (this includes all allied and captured stocks) they only had enough for one side of the barrier (if that). Add in the RN could sweep mines faster than the Germans had the capacity to lay them.

To give those who don't know the numbers some Idea. In British home waters alone, on the most likely Sealion date, the British had a 104 Destroyers. 40 of which were stationed in the two commands that would be covered by the invasion. The Germans could field 10 Destroyers. Small ships wise (Everything bellow a CT) the Germans were outnumbered by a factor of 10-1, by the forces in the Invasion area.

The RN had a codeword similar to the Armies famous "Cromwell". The RN version was "Blackbird". Which translated as "Invasion: Channel, All ships best possible speed!". So over the following days the RN would get more and more ships, while the Germans wouldn't.

Edit: Oh on the "critical situation" you mentioned with Equipment and ammunition, if you look at British production figures, pretty much all of those problems were solved within a Month of Dunkirk.

BishBoshBash #76 Posted 22 August 2011 - 11:27 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8113 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View Posttvih, on 22 August 2011 - 05:52 AM, said:

I'm Finnish, so yes, I know about the Finnish pilots and have read probably at least ten books about them specifically. But they weren't Allied, therefore your point is once again moot. So how "smart" is it not even knowing Finland wasn't one of the Allies while claiming them to be so? Seriously, how can anyone who knows anything about anything think Finland was Allied when they fought the Soviets for about 3,5 years? :blink: What little credibility you might've had (not that you did have any) just got divebombed.

And yes I used Google, big frelling deal. I've read enough books on war history, but as I don't happen to have any about Soviet air forces in my bookshelf I had to look up the numbers from the Internet. At least I am looking up numbers and other such facts instead of talking out of my rear end all the time.

hahahahaha do i make you mad, are you angry :P just cos your finish doesnt mean to say you know all about what they did in the war, and for some part of the war finland was an allie  so at the end of the war our allies with the best fighter ace was finland since at the end of the was finland was our allie

tvih #77 Posted 22 August 2011 - 11:48 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 10131 battles
  • 397
  • [ASEET] ASEET
  • Member since:
    09-30-2010

View PostB4U2, on 22 August 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

hahahahaha do i make you mad, are you angry :P just cos your finish doesnt mean to say you know all about what they did in the war, and for some part of the war finland was an allie  so at the end of the war our allies with the best fighter ace was finland since at the end of the was finland was our allie
No, you don't make me angry, but you do make me :facepalmic: a lot. And I can guarantee I know more about Finnish war history than you will ever know of it. I've read Finnish war history about WW2 on and off since I was literally 10 years old. Finland was not Allied at the end of the war, period. We made peace, which is not the same thing as joining them. We weren't Allied prior to the Continuation War either, since we were effectively "neutral" if anything. During the continuation war we were working with the Germans (even though not in the same way as the "actual" Axis nations), and then as we made peace with the Soviets we had to drive the Germans out since they did not want to leave peacefully. That we had to force the Germans out does not make us Allied.

The overall message here... how about you stop pretending you know something when you in fact know nothing about it and make it more and more clear with each post. Including USSR in the initial tech trees is hardly unfair because your stated reasons for not including them are bogus, plain and simple.

BishBoshBash #78 Posted 22 August 2011 - 12:26 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8113 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011
ok ok you win lol but still to use spitfires under the russian flag is wrong and should not be in game unless its under the british flag

Dr_Nooooo #79 Posted 22 August 2011 - 12:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 13211 battles
  • 1,415
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010
No it's not wrong because there were Spitfires under the soviet flag.

BishBoshBash #80 Posted 22 August 2011 - 12:36 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8113 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View PostDr_Nooooo, on 22 August 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

No it's not wrong because there were Spitfires under the soviet flag.

lol and they was made by brits and used 80% of the time by brits, the russians as you all seem to think have enough of there own planes to make there own tech tree without stealing tech from other countries to make up there numbers




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users