the really sad thing is ITALY was closer to a jet fighter on its own than the US.

I'd say the United States had the best air force of ww2, bar none, but that is more because of bombing capacity than fighters (I'd say best aircraft would be the me 262 for fighters and the b 29 for bombers.)

Canada provided major contributions, especially for things like the battle of britain and the battle of the north atlantic. Additionally, the naval contributions both in material, ships, and escorts was enormous (ports were important too).

Even a nation like Iceland played an important role in the war.

I'm just waiting for a fps type game to feature the italians (which would be the horribly gimpy side) or the French (free french were okay, but the regular french army was truth be told pretty bad).

What I'd really want to do is play an 88mm flak gunner against tanks and infantry, that weapon pawned

Mind explaining how the Arrow would have maintained Canadian air superiority when the Russians had already built aircraft with similar capabilities a few years before, and both Russia and the U.S. developed aircraft that went way beyond the capabilities of the Arrow a few years afterward?

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

Battlefield 1942: Road to Rome

------------------
Happy "Diseased" dud: You said I'd be like this guy. Boycotting everything..
Happy "Diseased" dud: ted kazcnisky. That's who it was.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wait, That's the unibomer.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wrong guy.

At it's time, The Avro Arrow was the fastest and most manuverable jet in the major nations. It's irrelivent that other countries had the same basic plane designed and built years afterwards, we were first and many of the officials fired when the project was canceled moved to the states to persue jobs their.

------------------
Inter arma silent leges

Except for the fact that the MiG-21 was faster and more agile than the Arrow, used only one engine while the Canadians were having difficulty getting the Iroquois engine to even function properly, and was older than the Arrow. And I didn't say the Russians and the U.S. built the same basic plane, I said they built better aircraft that shattered the Arrow's performance records.

[edit-One favor, could you post some source that discusses how maneuverable the Arrow was, I can't find anything that says it was anything but a freight train with wings.]

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

[This message has been edited by Roach (edited February 11, 2004).]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Arrow

Roach: The Avro Arrow was designed to be an interceptor. Very fast and very maneuverable. If you think it's a "freight train with wings" you just don't know what you're talking about.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited February 11, 2004).]

Interceptor does not mean it's maneuverable, the MiG-25, F-14, and YF-12 come to mind. In fact, the only thing I can find on there is that the Arrow was capable of 2g turns, that's not very agile at all.


------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

Read. Comprehend. Post.

In that order.

I did, it also states that once it loses speed it creates horrible drag, ergo the 2g turn would be about the limit, it's still not that impressive.

[edit-especially considering the performance of the MiG-21, which was in service when the Arrow's first test flight took place...Though, obviously I can't read nor comprehend, so, Jon'C, would you please point out to me where in that link it states just how agile the Arrow was?]

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.


[This message has been edited by Roach (edited February 11, 2004).]

It's funny that a lot of you have suggested that the French should be recognised for their efforts, but truth be told, Hitler's blitzkrieg attack was so fast the French were baely capable of making a concerted defence. During the occupation, the French will tell you that their underground organisation practically won their country back for them anyway. The truth is, there were very few individuals who were actually actively involved. After the Allies arrived, the French army was in a lot of disarray and was unable to provide much help in the attack on Germany. It's more of a case that the French were in a position that made it very hard for them to take part.
The ones I feel have been truly forgotten are the Norwegians and the S.Africans. Norway had a tiny population but those who escaped the German occupation and managed to get to the UK, went on to train to counter-attack. Anyone who has read an account of the attack on the heavy water plant at Telemark will know how determined many of these young men were.
In S.Africa, the war practically divided the nation (well at least the whites there at the time). The British descended S.Africans were determined to fight the Axis powers and ultimately most S.Africans did so in Ethiopia and Eritrea fighting the Italians. At the same time there were the Afrikaners who by and large were fiercely anti-British and found the Nazi beliefs to be similar to their own. Some Afrikaners made their way into the German armies although the S.African govt. did its best to stop this.
(Note: this is very much a sweeping generalisation and simplifies things quite heavily).

------------------
Jagged Conscience: No maeve, don't stand up for Rob, he needs to learn.
Maeve:that's Rob?
Jagged Conscience: He's a Rob

It's funny that you say this from what I've seen the Arrow wasn't that great. BTW, your sig is wrong. "Inter Arma Silent Legis" don't remember what is and isn't in caps. "In war there is only silence" something like that.


------------------
There is no signature

[This message has been edited by Dj Yoshi (edited February 12, 2004).]

Not quite. It's more like "Laws fall silent in the midst of arms".

"In times of war, the law falls silent" is what it's suppose to be

------------------
Inter arma silent leges

Thanks for the correction, didn't feel like busting out my Latin notebook...but it's still Legis not Leges :P. Leges is a messed up translation for legal practice of some sort.

------------------
There is no signature

Guys,

I'm a recurit in the Canadian Forces Communication Reserve. We have the best communications technology in the world... Hate to break it to you yanks:P

------------------
GlaDiaTOR
"The best time to drive in winter is when your the only one dumb enough to be on the roads. That is totally me.
MSN:ascendancy007er@hotmail.com
ICQ:8931547
AOL:GlaDiaTOR007er

For it's population, Canada contributed very much in WWI and WWII. I don't have my history text avalible to me, but I know that prior to WWI, Canada's military was minimal. However, within days thousands and thousands of volunteers signed up to fight in Europe. Even though we were an ocean away and pretty safe, we didn't wait for the war to directly effect us until we moblized in WWII.

In WWI, the Battle of Vimmy Ridge is considered one of Canada's greatest military victories. They took, and held an important German stronghold. And that's only one example of

By WWII the Statute of Westminister gave Canada control over it's external affairs. I believe it took Canada one week (most likely enough time to call an emergancy session of parliment) to declare war on Germany after Britain did. Again, volunteer numbers were outstanding, much more than the Army had requested.

Canada was given a lot of missions separate from the rest of the allied forces. They were the major (if not only, but I'm not positive) force involved in the Raid on Diepe, which was a first attempt on an invasion of Nazi-Territory. The raid was a complete failure, the Canadians were outgunned, outmaned, and the Germans had known they were coming. However, the intellegence gathered in that raid was used in the planning of the Normandy Landing.

After D-Day, Canadians were ordered to head north, and push back the german forces. It wasn't easy, the Nazi-Youth gave Canada plenty of trouble (and keep in mind, they were among the most dangerous of German troops because they programmed since childhood to die for Hitler. They didn't accept it, the wanted to die.) But We pushed forward on to Holland and liberated them.

Canadians were also resourceful. Our Merchent marine vessels weren't allowed to have large arms for quite some time. So to trick U-Boats into thinking the ships were heavily armed, they would take large wooden poles and secure them to the top of the ship. A U-boat can't tell the difference between that and a barrel of a large gun.

Canada was also a refuge for people fleeing Europe:

http://www2.kpr.edu.on.ca/cfps/holland.htm

Anyways, I think it's about time that Canadains were put in a WWII game. We helped a lot, and our military deserves just as much credit as the US.


------------------
--Hinch
Terry Hinch's Web Comic
All opinions expressed by Hinch are the explicit views of Hinch, and only Hinch and his 7 other personalities. In the event that said personalities are in dispute, the majority shall prevail. All opinions are held in perpetuity of the present, past, and future throughout this universe, mirror universes, and all multi-verses, including alternate time lines.

.... And? Sorry, but the "hate to break it to you yanks" line sounds as if you're pointing out that we're wrong about something, when absolutely nothing about communication equipment was said. Provided you *do* have the greatest comm equipment in the world, what does that amount to in the face of numerous short-comings in every other field? It's an important aspect of a military machine, yes, but that's tantamount to bragging about having the best tasting MREs.

Pfft. You've never even tasted an ANZAC biscuit, have you?

Heh, those ANZAC biscuits are hilarious. They're good, but the english/grammar on the package is hilariously AWFUL.

------------------
Eat the pudding.

Be very careful who you call a Yank. People from the North or West don't mind, but call someone form the South a Yank, and they will shove you through a wood chipper.

------------------
Checksum: I thought about it, I guess I'm striving for my own personal ideals. I'll just project those ideals onto Jesus and say "I'm trying to be like Jesus" so that I won't have to listen to you banter endlessly about me worshipping a false god or some such.

The Last True Evil: Ironically, that's very Christian of you.

You're ignoring a couple of things:

1.) There's absolutely no reason to assume the Arrow was less manueverable at lower velocities than it was at mach 1.5.

2.) The F-117A was extremely high-tech at its introduction, even though it wasn't very fast and it handled as well as a rock. Maneuverability doesn't necessarily mean technological advancement.

The Arrow wasn't a dogfighter, it was designed to be an interceptor. Its only armament was going to be a missile package, which would have been pretty useless at dogfight ranges or lower speeds.

Star Wars equivalent: The Arrow was supposed to be like the Missile Boat.

I'm not ignoring anything, Jon. Aircraft are more maneuverable at lower speeds. In fact, the hyper-agile aircraft of today (The Super Flanker series, the F/A-22 and the U.S./German X-31) induce stalling in order to turn on a dime. Now then, the only other aircraft that is similar to the Arrow in respect to overall design is the Russian MiG-25/MiG-31. The MiG-25/31 is more maneuverable than the Arrow, and has higher stress tolerance than the Arrow. The MiG-25/31 max out at a 5g turn, even then, that is not impressive as most fighters push pilots to the limit at around 9 g's, and the MiG-25/31 pilots were told not to push the aircraft beyond a 2.5g turn. Therefore, I'm willing to bet that the Arrow (with a lower stress tolerance) would not be able to go beyond the same 5g turn of the MiG (if it could even reach the 5g's). You were the one that stated it was designed to be an interceptor, very fast and very agile, and then you state it wasn't designed to be a dogfighter (I never said it was...) so are you now saying it's not agile? Because that's what I've been trying to say all along. And if we do indeed agree that it was not agile, then I must say it is fairly arrogant of Grant to say it was the fastest and most maneuverable jet of its time, as I have already pointed out that the MiG-21 (which was in service in 1958, the same year the Arrow Mk. I completed its first test flight) was faster than even the Arrow's predicted maximum speed (the program was scrapped before the troubled Iroquois engine was put into the airframe and the Mk. II could hit Mach 2) and was an incredibly maneuverable aircraft, one that could easily engage in a dog fight.

I don't ever recall saying maneuverability means technological advancement, but then again, I'm incapable of reading and/or comprehending...but, the F-117 was considered a technological advancement because it didn't have to be fast or maneuverable, the stealth design would allow it (though it can still turn rather well, though there are no official documents stating its g-stress tolerance). Now then, I'm wondering why you bring up technological advancement. Are you saying the Arrow was an advancement? With its unstable design, weak frame, weaker landing gear, and inability to maintain high speeds without the engine disintegrating? Not only that, but the fact that the Russians already had an aircraft that outperformed it when it was still being designed (the MiG-21) and both the U.S. and Russia had aircraft that outperformed it just a few years later (the MiG-25, and the YA-11/12), I really fail to see how it was a great technological advancement that you Canadians try to make it out to be, but then again, I cannot read nor comprehend...

And thank you for giving me a Star Wars equivalent of what an interceptor is, because I have absolutely no idea what the difference is between interceptor, dogfighter, air-superiority fighter, ground-support fighter, or strike fighter...

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.