Jump to content


The Non Historic Element Option Is Not Working


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

Fanste94 #1 Posted 07 August 2019 - 04:42 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3930 battles
  • 357
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013
shot_035.jpg      shot_036.jpg

Desyatnik_Pansy #2 Posted 07 August 2019 - 04:44 PM

    Bartender

  • Player
  • 17936 battles
  • 26,461
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013
Am I blind? I see nothing wrong with the screenshot of the Churchill III.

8126Jakobsson #3 Posted 07 August 2019 - 04:48 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 77179 battles
  • 4,772
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
Fjords is a made up place? 

Balc0ra #4 Posted 07 August 2019 - 04:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 71518 battles
  • 19,995
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Not working? I see two images suggesting it works. Because you have it on to hide them.

Fanste94 #5 Posted 07 August 2019 - 05:00 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3930 battles
  • 357
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013
Churchill doesn't really have the Russian emblems

XxKuzkina_MatxX #6 Posted 07 August 2019 - 05:03 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,608
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016
The Churchill III is a soviet tier 5 heavy hence the red star. It's historical if that's what's bothering you.

Fanste94 #7 Posted 07 August 2019 - 05:08 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3930 battles
  • 357
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013
Ok sorry my mistake, I thought that only Britain has Churchill

XxKuzkina_MatxX #8 Posted 07 August 2019 - 05:11 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,608
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

No problem. The soviet tech tree also got Matilda IVs a tier 5 medium, Valentine IIs a tier 4 light and even the premium medium Loza's Sherman at tier 6.



Bulldog_Drummond #9 Posted 07 August 2019 - 09:55 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32681 battles
  • 10,168
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostFanste94, on 07 August 2019 - 04:08 PM, said:

Ok sorry my mistake, I thought that only Britain has Churchill

 

In total, the U.S. WW2 deliveries through Lend-Lease to the USSR amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras) and 1.75 million tons of food.  It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.

The British shipped in 3,000+ Hurricane aircraft, 4,000+ other aircraft, 27 naval vessels, 5,218 tanks (including 1,380 Valentines from Canada), 5,000+ anti-tank guns. 4,020 ambulances and trucks


Edited by Bulldog_Drummond, 07 August 2019 - 09:57 PM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #10 Posted 07 August 2019 - 10:20 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,608
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Well if you're going to go there i'll have to add some numbers too...

 

  • The USSR production of oil in 1939 was 29,000,000 tons compared to 2,599,000 tons delivered from the USA and the UK throughout the war.
  • Artillery pieces, the USSR produced 489,900 while receiving 9,600 from the lend-lease throughout the war.
  • Aircraft, the USSR produced 136,800 while receiving 18,700 from the lend-lease throughout the war.
  • Tanks, the USSR produced 102,500 while receiving 10,800 from the lend-lease throughout the war.
  • By the end of the 1st year of the war, the USSR lost 3200 tanks while receiving 259 Valentines and 187 Matildas.
  • The lend-lease from the USA didn't start until late 1942 or early 1943.
  • The UK also received from the USA the disproportionate amount of 31bn USD compared to 10.2bn USD for the USSR!!!

 

You're welcome by the way!


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 07 August 2019 - 10:35 PM.


StronkiTonki #11 Posted 08 August 2019 - 05:37 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 33716 battles
  • 937
  • [T0AST] T0AST
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

This is what I do not get about people who "care about historical accuracy".
How can you CARE about historical accuracy if you don't even KNOW what is historically accurate yourself? This makes me facepalm so hard.

The fact the Churchill had a soviet star bothered you so hard, but someone else had to tell you that it is historically accurate and now it's fine?

Doesn't that prove how you actually don't really care about the historical accuracy, and how meaningless it is?



Bulldog_Drummond #12 Posted 08 August 2019 - 10:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32681 battles
  • 10,168
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 07 August 2019 - 09:20 PM, said:

Well if you're going to go there i'll have to add some numbers too...

 

  • The USSR production of oil in 1939 was 29,000,000 tons compared to 2,599,000 tons delivered from the USA and the UK throughout the war.
  • Artillery pieces, the USSR produced 489,900 while receiving 9,600 from the lend-lease throughout the war.
  • Aircraft, the USSR produced 136,800 while receiving 18,700 from the lend-lease throughout the war.
  • Tanks, the USSR produced 102,500 while receiving 10,800 from the lend-lease throughout the war.
  • By the end of the 1st year of the war, the USSR lost 3200 tanks while receiving 259 Valentines and 187 Matildas.
  • The lend-lease from the USA didn't start until late 1942 or early 1943.
  • The UK also received from the USA the disproportionate amount of 31bn USD compared to 10.2bn USD for the USSR!!!

 

You're welcome by the way!

 

  • The most important lend-lease contribution to the USSR was, I always thought, trucks, not something on your list.
  • It seems a bit hard to blame the UK for the inept Soviet performance in 1941.  Those 3200 lost tanks didn't put up much of a fight, for various reasons.
  • Remarkably generous of the US to give the USSR $10 bn.  I imagine most of it went into Politburo Swiss bank accounts.
  • Why, given the massive Soviet oil wells, would the Allies have made oil delivery a priority?
  • The UK and US were also kind enough to send over troops to assist in 1918-19.


Fanste94 #13 Posted 08 August 2019 - 10:53 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3930 battles
  • 357
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013

View PostStronkiTonki, on 08 August 2019 - 04:37 AM, said:

This is what I do not get about people who "care about historical accuracy".
How can you CARE about historical accuracy if you don't even KNOW what is historically accurate yourself? This makes me facepalm so hard.

The fact the Churchill had a soviet star bothered you so hard, but someone else had to tell you that it is historically accurate and now it's fine?

Doesn't that prove how you actually don't really care about the historical accuracy, and how meaningless it is?

I know the normal tanks in the game but not the premium ones



XxKuzkina_MatxX #14 Posted 08 August 2019 - 11:02 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,608
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 09 August 2019 - 01:34 AM, said:

  • The most important lend-lease contribution to the USSR was, I always thought, trucks, not something on your list.

 

Because you already mentioned it in your post. The most important factor is the russian people who fought and won this war not trucks and jeeps. Comparing these numbers shows that the lend lease was a minor addition to the USSR war effort.

 

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 09 August 2019 - 01:34 AM, said:

  • It seems a bit hard to blame the UK for the inept Soviet performance in 1941.  Those 3200 lost tanks didn't put up much of a fight, for various reasons.

 

Did i blame someone for anything? I clearly stated that by 31 December 1941, the USSR received this amount of tanks through the lend lease act and still defeated the Nazis in the battle of Moscow.

 

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 09 August 2019 - 01:34 AM, said:

  • Remarkably generous of the US to give the USSR $10 bn.  I imagine most of it went into Politburo Swiss bank accounts.

 

Most of it was weapons, trucks, locomotives, raw materials, food, etc. There were also shipments of gold, platinum and industrial diamonds from the USSR as a partial payment for that. So no, no swiss bank accounts were needed. I could also say that they lacked the men or the will to fight or that they were better at posing for photos and giving speeches than firing a gun but that would be too harsh.

 

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 09 August 2019 - 01:34 AM, said:

  • Why, given the massive Soviet oil wells, would the Allies have made oil delivery a priority?

 

Because a lot of the production areas were in occupied or contested territories like the Caucasus.

 

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 09 August 2019 - 01:34 AM, said:

  • The UK and US were also kind enough to send over troops to assist in 1918-19.

 

LOL.

 

Don't do that Bulldog, you're better than that and i believe i deserve better too.


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 08 August 2019 - 11:08 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users