SIEGE of narvik

Second World War: Norwegian campaign. Battles of Narvik, 1940 Stock ...
undefined


Second World War: Norwegian campaign. Battles of Narvik, 1940 Stock ...
Battle of Narvik, 1940
https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/polish-armed-forces-west-polskie-si-y-zbrojne-na-zachodzie-1939-1947/narvik-1940-a-659863/

The Battles of Narvik & The Norwegian Campaign - Warfare History Network
A battle far overshadowed by the fall of France and the retreat from Dunkirk. Far more known for the naval battle which saw both size loose destroyers and cruisers. Fought by the French, Poles, Norwegians and Germans. Thousands died in over two months of fighting that ultimately saw the Nords overseeing yet another allied retreat. A good early battle that shows how ill-prepared everyone was for a second world war.

10 Likes

I would like to see the 1940 campaigns but first they would have to make Britain independent

2 Likes

Yes because we have never scene a faction fight in a battle they did not belong in , Chinese being able to be used in any battle cough French and Moroccan units cough cough, independent brit faction never happening subfaction at best

1 Like

Those are one off squads. You can’t compare those to full on nation factions. America and Britain, well not so much Britain atm, have a full arsenal of weapons, vehicles, and planes. Britain could have so much more

Honestly I don’t know why people think Britain can’t stand as an independent faction. I’m sure they have and can have everything needed

It would break my already thin immersion more to see Americans fighting a whole year before they joined the war than some Moroccan and Chinese squad. Heck the Chinese squad was subordinated under America, and the Free French primarily served under Britain so a French Moroccan squad attached to Britain isn’t that bad

I do agree that for the foreseeable future Britain should stay a sub faction but even then it should be better expanded with so much weapons, vehicles, planes, even its own independent RT line. They literally made TWO British tank destroyers that would’ve been perfect for high BR PREMIUMS!!!

But one day maybe………

it not that they cant it that we dont want them to, more factions longer q time. if it was added as a option but not a choice id vote for it Tomorow. 380+ Square Peg In A Round Hole Stock Photos, Pictures & Royalty-Free Images - iStock | Square peg round hole, Doesn't fit, Round
join any faction limits choices without limiting options, adding another faction increase choices and options thus q time, i am pro option con choice i dont want to wait five to ten minutes to get into a game, nor increase my wait time because you do

Honestly I’ve always found the ā€œq timeā€ argument to be ridiculous

I don’t think the addition of at the very least 1 more faction would drastically increase wait time. Plus some of the maps already in game would be in Britain’s court. Burma definitely, some of the Normandy maps are based on the British sectors

I think ultimately it’s just that America has always stolen show of WW2 so pretty much no one cares about Britain. The ā€œAlliesā€ faction is literally called USA

if its a faction always tied to us then 0% added q time
if its a full br1-5 faction that can play without the us its 1 33% increase in q time by itself
add in italy and it goes from 100% to 166% wait times
why you add a q for every br setup so we have 3 faction set ups
us/ger
germ/sov
us/jap
actually it could be worse
uk/ger
uk/japan
italy/sov
that 200% q times
sov/jap
233%
br+0-0
270%
also call them eastern allies/axis
and western allies/axis
if it means so much
why its us faction
us uk/commonwealth europe africa (partners)
us uk pacific (us show)
so it all comes down to what importance you put on the pacific, if ww2 is a european feature with a pacific side show us uk deserve equal billing if pacific is closer to equal importance, ?