Sorry did not include more minor battles or ones that did not involve the us but. I never said the UK/Commonwealth did was not a major contributor of the war. they were just a lesser contributor compared to the USSR and US. The us contributed more men, fought in more battles and destroyed more of the enemy than the uk. This is to say nothing of the war material donated to other allied countries such as UK and USSR. The UK was a crucial ally but its biggest asset was a place to stand on dry land. Of course also war fighting experience the US lacked at its entry into the war. I only bring up American muscle when other countries bring up bruises.
In Europe the firefly, daylight bombing raids, superior engines that made the p51 the long range escort it was meant to be. Contributing greatly does not equate to equality of outcome. Second hand waving the lack of br5 GEAR for the UK/Commonwealth.
Or the amount of copy paste addition of content needed to allow a player a full line up of not just the Commonwealth but an individual commonwealth nation such as the Aussies. Saying UK/Commonwealth was one of three equal allied powers is like saying the US was a major power in WW1. and not a minor contributing belligerent power that barley saw action.
Well, I think your narrative is distorted and wrong, but at least I somewhat understand your position even if I disagree with it.
But well, your stance in the end isn’t just distorted, but also contradictory, I thought numbers were just a distraction? Oh but if they support your point of view they’re good numbers?
What matters is not how big it is, it matters what you do with it! And no one in of fair conscience can claim that the British, fighting every major war throughout history as the island underdog, didn’t do a terrific job at it. They’re small because they’ve always been small, were Britain not a major party in the Napoleonic war because there were German states with larger armies? Preposterous! Downright mad if you think for more than five seconds. Otherwise the Soviets would be the lone powerhosue of the war and all factions in the game should be subsumed into it?
Remember that the US massively expanded their military DURING the war, eventually surpassing the British, the US was not the biggest dog in the ring until at the earliest late 1942, meaning the essentially the entierty of the North African campaign and a large portion of the Burma capaign took place when the British called the shots. Should the game not include both perspectives, both being senior in different ares and of course equal partners i Europe?
The Brits sacrificed their empire for European freedom, and the US then took their place as world hegemon, constant rise and fall of Empires throughout history, you’re letting the present shape your views of the past because no one at the time was arguing that Britain was anything less than an equal partner. Why can’t you bring yourself to honour all the people of the past, including the ones who recognized the Brits? Your stance is worse than the Soviet propaganda!
That’s my point the UK Commonwealth was not in the same weight class as the US. So was UK best in its weight class hell yeah, a world class navy and air force with an army that needed to not skip leg day. Navy excellent ships of all classes including one of only three nations with active carriers. Air Force all classes including excellent night bombers. Army, an army trying to make it’s own armor and guns that needed a little help. Empire way ahead of the US and only approached by empires like the French, Spanish. The UK only loosing out for the fact that unlike persia, China,r rome India it only lasted a few centuries. Yes the UK was the power in WW1 and is the major reason for the allies pulling the win. Without France the US would still be part of the empire. 1812 nearly won a war on foreign soil that it never wanted to fight. Started the industrial revolution and laid the bedrock for the American government. So yes I honor the UK but boxing has weight lasses for a reason
I mean the Battle of the Atlantic alone justifies that position, completely ignoring the NA campaign, Italy, very large sections of northern Europe, Burma, Indonesia and etc.
The combined bomber offensive was held up at least 50% by the British, aerial supremacy was also held up by the RAF in a large part as well, the work of the artic convoys was entirely due to the British, well worth noting without the artic convoys, the soviet union would have fallen.
I wont even touch on the fact that a significant portion, far more than their own fair share that is, of technological advances were made due to Britain in WW2.
To say that Britain was not a major power during WW2 is egregious and disingenuous to the extreme.
First, I’ve reached my daily limmit of likes but I would like this post if I could.
Different weight class? Sure, maybe Britain is engaging in a whole different martial art in it’s entierty! What matters is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog!
And as @Admiral_Wenli just expanded upon, Britain was by no means small, the foruth power of the war in its entierty , way bigger and more capable than Japan ever was. (I’d like your comment too Wenli, same issue sadly).
Your position, whilst understandable, I belive to be deeply flawed, and also detromentory to the cause of greater subfaction content. Could you at least bring yourself to understand our views as well? We’re not asking for anything big, just proper representation and the ability to field your preffered army of choice. It’s not much is it?
Fine the the US and USSR were super mega powers. The point is not did the UK contribute but was it equal to the USSR and US. No I don’t call them major because it would mean the US would need a new term. Example tanks you have light medium and heavy. Apply this to WW2 and make UK a heavy and US needs to be made a super heavym
But why? What’s the problem with changing the name for the US faction? “Western Allies” is a way better name for the faction if it’s supposed to represent more than the US, especially if the US itself recognized one of the partners as equals!
My point is the amount of work to polish and refine the Commonwealth and Italy into playable subfactions. That is enough squads and weapons not to have to touch any American gear. You did not read it well I said they should change the name of every power but Japan. Western allie and eastern allies western Axis and Japan. Cause let’s be honest Japan fought the war by itself.
Thats the thing though, each of those nations contributed equally in their own way,
The US was ultimately the finishing blow in both the pacfic and european theatres,
The soviets ensured that the western allies could fight a war on two front effectively and efficiently by eating up german attention,
The british ensured everyone got the supplies they needed, to where they needed to go, to do their own jobs,
Just because they didnt do the same jobs exactly, doesnt mean they werent equal, if anyone of them werent there, the allied war effort would have collapsed in different ways.
If modders can do it, I have no doubt the devs can,
They have all the models already, they have most of the weapons, they have everything coded already, its all about compiling it all into one focus now.
Side note, 100% you could have Thai, Manchurian and Korean troops under the Japanese faction.
Also, you agree that Japan is good faction because of what it did rather than how much they did it with? Sounds like my thoughts on the British…
Also, great point @Admiral_Wenli , things can be done, they have been done, and more things could be done! Game companies biggest flaw is red-tape, some games have accepted custom content as part of regular updates. Modders save games on the daily!
That’s not equally, contributing as best you can does not mean you contributing an equal amount. Effort is not out come, Jordan was not equal to every other bulls player. Now if the statement was not on contribution but in effort UK brats the US. But stop bringing the US late entry into the war. The war started before UK as well when Russia invaded Finland When Germany and USSR invaded Poland. Germany expansion into the suudatan tatin land and Austria hungry. Italians war in Ethiopian and Japan in Manchuria.
Yes modders who do it on free time and do not expect a salary or benefits. 500 000 of 8 million who served or one in 26 or 5 percent more then enough for squads but not enough to rename Japan to the eastern Axis
The UK was at war within 3 days of the invasion of Poland, so idk why you used that, not to mention, the winter war didnt start till after the invasion of Poland. So no absolutely the US was late to the war, still at least they didnt try to ally with the germans, but thats another discussion. Though I dont know how this is related to the conversation here?
But actually on topic, I dont know how your getting confused here, idk why your confusing effort and tangible contribution, because no the UK 100% was equal in terms of tangible contribution, certainly so if you consider the united efforts of the commonwealth. If you wanna argue that the UK wasnt essential for the allied war effort, please do, because I think your very wrong.
So you mean the in house devs who do get paid, do get benefits and can spend their free time however they wish, would unable to do their own work? This is all the more confusing with 99% of the hard work is done already, at this point its more just compiling the spread out effort into one solid tree.
Didnt say it should either, but it is also just undeniably untrue to say the Japanese fought on their own. If you were going to rename the faction, The Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere seems more thematically on point instead of calling it the eastern Axis.
The largest contributors amounted to 200k each of infantry without armor please tell me the countries that contributed millions of men hundred of tanks and aircraft each.
Secondly show your battle won, enemy men and weapons destroyed. equipment produced men in uniform on the front line. its not of measure of how much you have that you give. its a measure of how much it took to win that you contributed.
compare and contrast commonwealth (UK, Australia, NZ, Canada) to the US. Production of war materials planes, vehicles, guns. Battles fought and how many men participated. Cold hard facts yes UK had some big wins but not enough. The battle of Britian is famous even in the us. But the fact that the Commonwealth was pushed around the desert for the first couple years.
I showed it a lot of battles in the pacific that outnumbered example of commonwealth. as for free time they can and if they want to do that fine. if the work is almost ready i would welcome. more content is always welcome, i just don’t want them spending the next two years rolling out the commonwealth countries as a sub-faction.
So to make it clear if they can do all you want without making it everything we get for the next year or two. Go ahead i would love to see the allies get more weapons. I love uk weapons they are great weapons. You keep acting like I am saying the US won the war by itself. I find that insulting as I have never said that
Saying worth less does not mean saying worthless or without value silver is worth less then gold it does not mean it has no value. So you are saying the UK fought and killed as many soldiers sank as many ships dropped as many bombs ect ect as the US. It’s not about how much effort you ut in its about the results of those efforts. Sigh you know what I won’t back down and 90% you won’t even provide evidence so it’s over.
Bro, choose your side, either numbers matter or they don’t, you can’t have it both ways. Either accept the sacrifices of the UK and the Commonwealth, which were in fact equal or greater to the US, and therefor accept their equal particiation in the war or they were a second rate power that could never compare to the others.
Sounds like exactly my point. Look, I think the problem here is that you’re taking the post-war world order into WW2. Britain was by all means the equal in standing during the war, no one at the time disputed it. The Commonwealth damn well contributed pleanty enough to be a equal partners, their eventual fall of status after the war does not belong inside a WW2 game.
Yes they all had their own strenghts and weaknesses, Soviets had more men than they know what to do with, US had more industrial capacity than they knew what to do with, and the UK the experience of a grizzled old veteran for having been the ones slugging it out the longest. Imagine all the blunders the US would have done if they didn’t have the UK to guide them (you don’t need to, just look at all the cases where they ignored their advice, the US early involvement in the battle of the Atlantic was an absolute joke because one man refused to listen, Churchill eventually had to literally beg Roosevelt to intervene so that Admiral King would actually listen to reason).
The UK broke enigma (something everyone thought was impossible at the time),
They seeded resistance across the entierty of Europe via the BBC and SOE (massive contribution, you can’t deny it, the US only involvement was with the Free French leadership, but not on the ground, and manufacture of a portion of airdroped weaponry, training and organizing was entierly a British operation),
They got stuck in with every oppertunity they got (even if they sometimes expected to loose), Norway, Greece, where was the US when the Westfold fell?
The Commonwealth forces took on the role of the Soviets in the Pacific theatre, they tied down Japanese forces in major land commitments in places like Burma, New Guinea and the rest of Indonesia so that the US could preform the Island Hopping campaigns.
They invaded places like Iraq, Italian East Africa, Madagascar and Syria on their own (some Free French in the last one). They also invaded and jontly occupied Iran together with the Soviets, splitting the occupation 50/50, would they have done so if they weren’t seen as equals?
That the British were “pushed around the desert” is a false narrative, it was a constant back and forth with both great wins and losses. The British inevitably won lets not forget, sure the Moroccan invasion eased things but they were advancing before then, and the British were part of that invasion too whilst they were on their own in Libya.
You try to keep with with the US industrial output with only half the population, 1 40th of the land whilst under constant air raids and material shortages due to disrupted supply-lines. Of course they’ll struggle in that department, Germany did even worse in this department their saving grace was only captured weaponry and factories, but that doesn’t solve the resource problems.
The Lend-Lease weapons only got to where they needed due to the Royal Navy, the US weren’t that involved in the War for the Atlantic (and often made a mess of it when they did), the Arctic Convoys was entierly a British operation, as was the southern supply-route through Iran. The Soviets may have gotten mostly American equipment (the British contributed roughly a third of all tanks and aircraft, despite them being crucial to their own war effort), but they only got there due to British efforts. What good are 13 000 tanks if they’re not where they need to be?
You said it yourself, the Battle of Britain was legendary, and also never something the US mainland had to deal with.
The UK and the rest of the Commonwealth mastered small scale operations, commando warfare (they practicly invented the modern Special Forces system) and theathre operations. Do you know who are the undisputed jungle-warfare master experts to this day, whose experience other countries call upon for training? That’s right, it’s the UK. The SAS and Royal Marines still exist, and the Commando formations eventually turned into Royal Marine Commandos and Army Commandos. The UK has always, always done more with less, that’s their style even before WW2.
Look, we can both nitpick facts back and forth to support either side, but I think in totale your position lacks perspective. Without either one of the three cogs, US, UK and USSR, the war would have been lost. Size in the end does not matter, wars are won as much by overwhelming numbers as much as by tactical mastery and strategic brilliance. The UK being a different weight class? Maybe, but no one can honestly argue that they could not confidently punch above their weight, thats what warfare is all about for the British and it’s sad you can’t see that.
As usual you dont read, let alone comprehend the significance of such actions. But to go back over a few of the big ones,
Battle of the Atlantic - By winning this battle the UK simultaneously neutered the Kriegsmarine so as to completely win naval supremacy throughout the Atlantic and arguably just as import, the artic. This allowed the entire allied side to actually function and commit to the actions they did, the importance of this battle alone cannot be understated.
The Artic Convoys - The lead lease convoys that kept the soviets supplied and able to fight, again it cannot be understated just how important this was, without this, the soviets would have fallen, and unlike the battle of the Atlantic in which the US did not play a non insignificant part, the artic convoys can almost entirely pinned on the actions of effort of the British.
The Mediterranean naval campaigns and the siege of Malta - A often forgotten conflict that many people fail to realise the significance of, ignoring the material loses inflicted upon the Italians and Germans, these actions massively hampered supply to the DAK and more importantly kept the SEA fronts supplied.
The North African Campaign - I need not explain how the British carried the campaign here, and Im sure such a talented, intelligent and thoughtful person such as yourself can understand the implications had Britain and its commonwealth allies fallen here.
The Combined Bomber Offensive - While a joint effort with the US, it was still the British who arguably inflicted the most damage (since thats what your concerned with, despite that very line of thought being, what is claimed to have cost the US the war in Vietnam.)
The Burma Campaigns - This is a simple one, after the chinese, commonwealth forces tied up the majority of japanese forces here inflicting massive casualties in the process.
The Pacfic in general - Almost every engagement saw commonwealth forces acting at the thick of it. Even if overshadowed by US counterparts in some battles, they still were there fighting.
Honestly I could go and on here, I havent even begun to talk about technological advances, the entire European Theatre, the fact the SOE and the various other espionage groups laid the groundwork for victory, etc. This list can be considered very non exhaustive as well, but Im sure you get my point by now. @OggeKing made some very fine points too as well.
1944-06-19 – 1944-06-20 Battle of the Philippine Sea
