Rename allies fighter

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Rename allies fighter

      As it stands currently, the allies fighter research tree is as follows:

      1. Boeing P-26

      2. Seversky P-35

      3. Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

      4. P-51 Mustang

      5. Grumman F6F Hellcat

      6. Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star

      Elite. North American F-86 Sabre


      While the placement of most of these aircraft makes sense, there is one that does not: the F6F Hellcat.
      Although this aircraft did get used extensively throughout the war, it was not the go-to fighter for the american armed forces in 1944. That title belongs to the P-51 Mustang that is, somehow, ranked at a lower level than the F6F, which wasn't even an army fighter but a navy fighter.

      My suggestion is therefore to remove the F6F, move the P-51 up to level 6, and add in the P-47 Thunderbolt, an aircraft that was used extensively as a fighter escort, fighter/bomber patrol, air raids and more. What is more, during the war this aircraft was also the direct predecessor to the P-51 and the main fighter used during the D-Day landings at Normandy!

      The new tree would look like this:

      1. Boeing P-26

      2. Seversky P-35

      3. Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

      4. P-47 Thunderbolt

      5. P-51 Mustang

      6. Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star

      Elite. North American F-86 Sabre


      Addendum: The F6F was actually a naval fighter/bomber that was used by the american navy to fight the japanese. It was the successor to the F4U corsair and was able to carry a torpedo for naval warfare, so maybe add it as a naval bomber instead.
    • The only thing I disagree with here is the Addendum. Though, true, F6Fs fought the Japanese and had torpedoes, but they normally have missions to shoot down Zeros rather than torp bombing. They also did not replace the F4U, as they had extensive modifications until the F2H Banshee had arrived. All in all, everything else seems good.
      Ciro702

      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Any problems or bugs found? Submit a ticket here! :P


      "Having an army is good. Having the insight of an enemy's is better"
    • The F4U was still in service and used, yes, but not by the navy, they switched to the f6f as soon as they could and gave the F4U's to the Marines who would continue to use them extensively, hence the modifications.

      (They switched because of how challenging the f4u was to land on an aircraft carrier compared to the f6f)
    • Skygry wrote:

      it was not the go-to fighter for the american armed forces
      Thought this was a list of the Allied technology not just American

      On that point i think it mad that the Spitfire doesn't get a look in on the fighter front = it had a higher ceiling. climb rate, was faster, more agile. had twice the carry load 1000 vs 500, and recognised as having harder hitting guns using 20mm rounds compared to the 12.7mm on the mustang. the only real benefit of the Mustang is it better range. but it should be remembered that the spitfire first arrived on the scene a decade before the mustang, so its not suprising the mustang has some advantages

      Am not saying the mustang shouldnt be listed - both were awesome fighters - BUT the Spitfire should have at least one entry on allied tech
    • Don't give the "U.S. came in late" hogwash. I'm sure the Czechs and Poles are abundantly pleased with the timely manner with which the British got involved. You know, the Poles? The guys who the British and French had a sworn treaty to protect? But, instead, left them high and dry with nary a single word spoken on their behalf, while proceeding to treat Polish refugees fighting for the allied cause like human garbage?

      Also, no one says anything about the Soviets not getting involved until they were directly threatened, either. The United States was involved in the war for more than half of its duration in Europe and Africa. Revisionists can put a sock in it, already.

      Otherwise, I agree. The allied tree needs to be split into a Commonwealth and "American" tree, with units and characteristics specific to them.
    • Iirc there used to be separate tech trees but it got too complicated so they cut it down to the 4 there are now. Also BladeFisher can go sod off for all I care. The Americans carried half of the Allies with Cash&Carry and Lend Lease years before they even joined the war.
    • Ah the revisionists! People who had no direct experience of WWII. The US, was, as was repeated under Trump isolationist. Luckily Churchill had a good rapport with Roosevelt and that personal relationship helped when times were tough. But if it wasn't for UK, America would have had its own little war with Japan. It didn't want to know about Europe.

      Oh and for the record UK declared war on Germany and came to Poland's aid. Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around.

      mewbgamer can stick that where the sun doesn't shine. Some of us had first hand suffering, Mr Arrogant. Remember that when posting such sh*t. And as for not coming to Poland's aid ffs are these guys getting their history from twitter? Those of us who have direct experience of that conflict have a right to defend the truth not put up with absolute tripe posted by some twelve year old.

      It was and always will be about politics. The US are always arrogant and over confident, the Brits always underprepared and too liberal, The French shout a lot but have no guts - all about bluster. And the Germans had grievances from WWI quasi rectified by an anti-semitic megalomaniac responsible for tens of millions of deaths mostly eastern Europeans and Jewish to boot. If you want a good read, then read Alicia. A superb book about a Polish Jewish girl and her fight for survival.

      Still doesn't alter the fact that an all American plane type list is unrepresentative. The Spitfire and Lancaster should be in there. Indeed I would like to have seen some Italian planes in there too under the axis doctrine e.g. Folgore and the SM torpedo bomber.
    • Yeah and the US at the time couldn't give a damn. Are you not aware of the treaties in place. Clearly not.

      The whole WWII thing was a mess because so much was based on the experience of WWI (oh yes another US we'll take part when we know who is winning scenario).

      In essence Germany did get an awful deal out of WWI. It is a bit ironic that whilst Europe and the Far East had all the suffering the US experienced none of this. No wonder it still perpetuates the middle east conflict to this day. When it gets something on home soil, it starts to wake up.

      It is very easy to understand why so much of the world hates the US.

      However Daniel, as the saying goes, you cant debate with an idiot.
    • None of what you're saying has anything to do with British defense of Poland (which never happened in any form.) You criticize the French as do-nothing cowards, but at least they committed the Saar offensive, even if they abandoned it. Britain didn't do anything until German offensives turned westward. Basically, Britain didn't do anything until they faced a very real, very physical threat.

      Just like the Soviet Union didn't do anything until they faced a very real, very physical threat.

      Just like the United States didn't do anything until it faced a very real, very physical threat -- except the U.S. was making hostile moves in the Atlantic against Germany since before it formally entered the war, in direct support of Britain. Which is more than the British did for the Poles.

      So, all I'm saying boils down to: Shut up with this 'America did nothing until it was directly threatened' whine. Britain was literally breaking treaties and dooming its allies to conquest and annexation by Germany to keep itself from getting involved. If you're going to criticize the United States for not becoming directly involved until it was immediately threatened, then the English need to fess up to the fact that they sold out the Poles. That their complete inaction and unwillingness to honor their treaties directly resulted in the massacres and years of wholesale slaughter that the Polish people endured under Nazi occupation.
    • To say that claiming the US only focused on their own interests during WWII is revisionist, is in itself false and revisionist. It it were the case, the US wouldn't have committed the majority of its focus on the war in Europe before fully committing to Japan. It wouldnt have loaned out so much equipment and materials to the Allied countries before it even joined the war. Nor would it have forgiven the loans that the countries owed after the war. The only country to pay the US back in full was France (not Great Britain).

      On the note of WWI, the US had no reason to be involved. Unlike WWII, WWI was entirely imperialist bickering. If you understood the history behind it (besides some guy shot an archduke) you would understand why the US had no reason to get involved. But their direct involvement in the war in and of itself ended the war. German was willing to hold out and fight a war of attrition with the Entente, but once the US committed their manpower to the war Germany knew there would be no way to win. And the US did stuff during the war too. It's the reason the trench shotgun is such a meme.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by newbgamer101 ().

    • Oh dear Daniel, take those rose tinted spectacles off.

      The US did nothing until 1941. There were political arguments in the US Government over not getting involved. And as for your lease argument, I seemed to recall we finally paid it off in 2006. As for France it was part invaded part allied to Germany so dont know what they 'leased'. Indeed Churchill considered part annexing France at the time. So the US involvement was lend lease (and some subtle and not so subtle under the table help too). But overtly bugger all hence the slogan about not getting involved in no foreign wars. Now I can see that argument, but the reality is that the US at the time didn't want to help and Churchill had a hell of a lot of trouble trying to get the US involved. A lot of it goes back to US's resentment of Empire.

      Yeah Admiral King really helped the Brits - not. It was really only Franklin D that supported us. Left to that a*se hole Joe Kennedy we would have got nowt. At the end of the day we gave the US a lot including a massive amount regarding the A-bomb. Indeed so 'wonderful' was the US they nearly had to use a Lancaster to drop the thing! As usual with the US its all about bulshit, arrogance and baffling brains. The truth is that underneath, a lot of US kit wasn't that good.

      The war was great for the US and bad for Britain. I dont see America standing alone against Nazi Germany for two years like Britain did. Indeed I would argue that if the US was Britain it would have been invaded by Germany. I mean when the US landed in operation Torch their forces initially got hammered by the Afrika Corps' the same Afrika Corps that we had just turned over at El Alamein.

      The US's advantage was its considerable production capacity and it effectively out produced anyone else though the Soviets did a fine job with cheap ultra mass produced kit aided by Stalin's ingenious move of the factories to east of the Urals.

      After WWII the relationship I feel has been good and there is a hell of a lot of co-operation between the two countries and that is good for both parties. But for two years Britain stood alone, and as a Brit am tremendously proud of that. Probably why as a German company Bytro doesn't seem to recognise much British kit! Or perhaps that's being too cynical, but I don't think so.
    • Ah yes, nearly 75 years after the fall of the Nazi German and a German-based game company carries on the spirit of the Reich by... simplifying the game and excluding British tech. That makes perfect sense.

      Second, regarding what you implied to be an inferior military, US troops were relatively green at the point of Torch, but regardless every army has had their wins and losses. That's how war is.

      Additionally, the fact that you think the US would have ever chosen a British bomber over an indigenous design is ludicrous. Not to mention that the B-29 had been in service for quite some time before it was tasked with bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And if it hadn't been put into production, the B-32 would have taken up the role. And if by some act of god, neither of those designs had been created, the B-17 was capable of dropping a nuclear bomb, though it would have complicated matters as it was less capable than the 2 aforementioned aircraft.

      Also, the war was for Europe, Africa, and Asia. Excluding the USA's possessions in the Pacific, there was no reason to get into another world war. No one knew about the Holocaust until at least far into the war. It was purely a country making territorial gains at that point. Yes, France and Britain were our allies (loosely), but the US was in the middle of a depression (one might call it a Great Depression). Why should we have helped at all before we were directly attacked?

      Perhaps you should take your imperialist-tinted spectacles off, dear Blade...
    • whowh wrote:

      And the rest of the world wasn't?
      And interestingly enough, they exited it first because they had all entered a war (one might call it a world war)
      I'm glad you have a sense of humor. I'm well aware of all the ways the US benefited from the war, however considering that the vast majority of the US did not realize or did not care about the potential benefits, that doesn't meaningfully contribute to the conversation on hand. And yes, I'm aware that most if not all of the major nations around the world were suffering from significant economic depressions too, but again, that has nothing to do with the US not wanting to join a war they had no business in. They could have entirely focused on internal problems.
    • Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      None of what you're saying has anything to do with British defense of Poland (which never happened in any form.) You criticize the French as do-nothing cowards, but at least they committed the Saar offensive, even if they abandoned it. Britain didn't do anything until German offensives turned westward. Basically, Britain didn't do anything until they faced a very real, very physical threat.

      Just like the Soviet Union didn't do anything until they faced a very real, very physical threat.

      Just like the United States didn't do anything until it faced a very real, very physical threat -- except the U.S. was making hostile moves in the Atlantic against Germany since before it formally entered the war, in direct support of Britain. Which is more than the British did for the Poles.

      So, all I'm saying boils down to: Shut up with this 'America did nothing until it was directly threatened' whine. Britain was literally breaking treaties and dooming its allies to conquest and annexation by Germany to keep itself from getting involved. If you're going to criticize the United States for not becoming directly involved until it was immediately threatened, then the English need to fess up to the fact that they sold out the Poles. That their complete inaction and unwillingness to honor their treaties directly resulted in the massacres and years of wholesale slaughter that the Polish people endured under Nazi occupation.
      Britain sent 8 million pounds (the poles asked for 60 million) with 111 british and 100 french airplane in aid to poland. By the time , of the saar offensive poland was dead so the offensive achieved nothing due to german a counter-attack ( if france attacked earlier it might be successful as they had double the amount of units) The british sent 13 divs (max) to france but they were poorly equipped as majority of military spending went to the navy and airforce. Also, the war for poland was lost from the start , if they had pulled back from their initial line of defence to the second line of defence. They would have lasted longer but their hc didn’t want to abandon the western part of their country. Also, britain could do nothing to help poland except blockade them . The point is britain was not ready for war when the invasion of poland came( and was in no position to aid poland ). Their land units wasn’t properly equipped. Why the defence of britain was successful because they could use their aircraft and navy which they invested a lot into.
    • BladeFisher wrote:

      Oh dear Daniel, take those rose tinted spectacles off.

      The US did nothing until 1941.
      I never said that the United States did anything in an official military capacity until 1941. Feel free to come back to me when you have an actual argument, and not a strawman.

      And as for your lease argument, I seemed to recall we finally paid it off in 2006.
      Not an argument I ever made. Again, feel free to come back to me when you have an actual argument against anything I said, and not just a strawman. You literally cannot copy/paste a single instance of me claiming that lend-lease was never paid off. I dare you to try. Do it right now.

      As for France it was part invaded part allied to Germany so dont know what they 'leased'.
      Never claimed that France leased anything. Holy smokes, talk about making things up.