Why did the Central Powers get their three most important nations included in BF1 while the Entente didn't even get its...

That's not actually true. They landed at 3 of the beaches, but didn't provide 3/5 of the troops. American divisions were way, way bigger than British or Canadian ones.

France lost WW2
Britain "won" it but they were to WW2 what Italy was to WW1

Because we can't have a game in 2016 with only white nations. So instead of France, we needed to add blacks. Since American "liberals" are incredibly racist, they figured Ottomans and Hejaz are black enough to fill those quotas.

The only "non-white" nations that should have been included were the Ottomans and Russians.

It may be that DICE fucking hates frogs and likes to shit on them.

>Since American "liberals" are incredibly racist, they figured Ottomans and Hejaz are black enough to fill those quotas.

But the Ottomans are the whitest faction of the game

>defeat luftwaffe in battle of britain
>make gains in north africa prior to us arrival
>fight bulk of the japanese in burma
>send materials to the soviets via the arctic
>make up a strong invasion force on the western front, make strong gains in belgium and netherlands, albeit less important than the us
>begin development of the atomic bomb prior to the us, us takes over later on
>radar tech
>brits develop penicillin

You can't seriously believe they weren't important. if hitler brought britain to a peace treaty, his atlantic wall would not be penetrated by the US, and he could dedicate 100% of his army to the eastern front, as well as get oil in north africa and get access to the suez canal

>fight bulk of the japanese in burma

>as well as get oil in north africa

Yes, the oil they didn't discover until the mid 50s

>and get access to the suez canal

Do you seriously think the British would yield access to the Suez? ha!

>>The only "non-white" nations that should have been included were the Ottomans and Russians.

Well done user, well done. However...

>being this bootyblasted because of a fucking video game

literal manchildren

Why do German rifles have bipods?
Why does the German sniper have a bayonet attached?
Why does anyone have their bayonet on? They're not preparing to charge or to be charged.

>access to suez canal
Yes. they would have. In the event of Germany having total air superiority over britain and strangling them of resources, Britain would be at their mercy, and a harsh peace treaty could be inflicted.

Yes. there was a huge amount of Japanese there, more so in the failed invasion of India, and your laughing reaction image you found on google images doesn't change that.

That's literally the biggest cultural product of the decade on the topic of WW1
It'll have an impact on millions of teenagers across the world

And since big movie/games on this subject are rare, it will have a long lasting effect
It's normal to be mad about how flawed it is

Outside of the bipod, you're being nitpicky here.

The "why do they have their bayonets on" was nitpicky, yes. But I honestly don't see why a sniper would ever have his bayonet on.

>Yes. they would have. In the event of Germany having total air superiority over britain and strangling them of resources, Britain would be at their mercy, and a harsh peace treaty could be inflicted.

Way to move those goalposts user. You didn't say anything about crippling the UK before.

Not to mention that "total air superiority" over Britain is going to be tough to do when Britain outproduces Germany on planes and pilots, and has a favorable loss exchange, especially in pilots, over their home soil.

oh and a quick google search shows bipods were indeed a thing in ww1

google.co.uk/search?q=ww1 bipods&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=925&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim8ISpif7PAhWhCcAKHS1QA1sQ_AUIBygA

Not a single one of these is for a standard-issue rifle.

>Yes. there was a huge amount of Japanese there, more so in the failed invasion of India, and your laughing reaction image you found on google images doesn't change that.

And that doesn't make them the "bulk" of Japanese forces, which were in China. Not to mention that the defense of the Philippines in 1944 alone was much larger than BI, nevermind things like the Solomons or the huge garrison in the Carolines or the Marianas.

>you didn't say anything about crippling the uk before

>if hitler brought britain to a peace treaty, his atlantic wall would not be penetrated by the US, and he could dedicate 100% of his army to the eastern front, as well as get oil in north africa and get access to the suez canal

>britain outproduces germany on planes and pilots
Had hitler kept up his bombardment with fighters for a few more weeks, and not pull out, eventually Britain would've run out of fuel and decent planes. they had about 700 spitfires at the start of the battle of britain.

Yes, they can build more, but in this time, germany can have fun with their air domination, and begin massive bombing campaigns in broad daylight, bomb ports etc.

> American divisions were way, way bigger than British

Americans: 73,000
British: 61,715

> way, way bigger

Yeah, no. American propaganda.

Not that guy, but you miss the second point.

British pilots outperformed German pilots 1 for 1.

I know, but it didn't make up for the vast difference in airforce size.

> I know, but it didn't make up for the vast difference in airforce size.
But it did.

The British won.

Oh no, now some plebs who are to dumb to open a book will stay dumb

Only because Goring prematurely pulled out. I'm actually defending Britain's role in ww2 if you read the thread, I don't doubt britain's competence, but we coulda been fucked by the luftwaffe.

>Had hitler kept up his bombardment with fighters for a few more weeks, and not pull out, eventually Britain would've run out of fuel and decent planes.

No. No they would not have, since most of their fuel production was across the Atlantic and well out of German reach, and British fighter strength kept increasing, not decreasing throughout the Battle of Britain.

>they had about 700 spitfires at the start of the battle of britain.

ww2db.com/doc.php?q=309

Also

>Ignoring the Hurricane
>Ignoring the German losses
>Ignoring the weather turning south and its deleterious effects on bombing raids.

I mean for fuck's sake, what Fighter Command was envisioning was moving FG 11 (not 12 or 13) back to bases in the Midlands, which doesn't abandon southern England, it just makes the response time about 20 minutes worse. That's the literal best that Germany could realistically hope to achieve, and they weren't getting that much done.

If you count bombers as well as fighters, the UK had a bigger airforce than the Luftwaffe.

So you're already abandoning the 3/5 of them were British.

And as for individual division size:

americandday.org/D-Day/Order_of_battle.html

I count 5 American divisions and 7 British/Canadian divisions. That gives us an average size of

73,000/5=14,600 for the Americans

61,175=8739.28 for the British.

Given that a British division is roughly 60% the size of an American one, I feel justified in calling them way, way bigger.

I agree, we could have. The Battle of Britain was a very close thing.

Doesn't change history or the facts though.

No you coulnd't have you dimwit. First off, even in those bombing raids, the Germans were losing roughly 3:2 on planes and 5:1 on pilots, they were getting hurt far worse than the Brits were.

Secondly, so what if the British have to abandon southern England fighter coverage for a few months (which isn't even what would happen if they pulled back., but let's humor your idiocy). Britain pounded Germany back with over ten times the tonnage for YEARS and it didn't break the Germans, neither their industry nor their morale. What the hell do you think a few months in part of England with tactical bombers would do?

I'm not the guy who said 3/5.

I didn't count the Canadian figures in the number of British troops - some sperg would have a fit, if I did that.

Your entire analysis is flawed. A great proportion of troops from either army would not have been divisional.

There were 61,000 Brits and 73,000 Americans. Fairly even.

>There were 61,000 Brits and 73,000 Americans. Fairly even.

It's also irrelevant.

I made 2 claims in my post

1) The statement that the British (and including canadians, because I don't see how else you even get close to there) provided 3/5 of the troops on D-Day is false: Which you say you agree with.

2) An American division was "way bigger" than a British one.

Overall aggregate troop levels don't even begin to contest that.

cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/944UQIG.PDF

which you've given nothing to rebut, other than clarifying that you weren't counting the Canadians, which brings the number of British organizational units down; and asserting (without evidence) that a lot of troops attached would have been in those brigades or other special units.

Those numbers have to be made up somewhere.

>they were getting hurt far worse than the brits were
Didn't make up for German numbers

>let's humor your idiocy
We're having a civil discussion. Don't be a prick.
>Britain pounded germany for YEARS
They pounded major cities. This isn't that effective.
They pounded their navy too, but considering a british invasion of Europe alone is ridiculous, as is a land invasion of Britain, the German Navy wasn't that important until the US entered, by which point the combined British and American Navy made the German one laughable anyway.

The Germans however, can bomb the royal navy, and essentially cut off Britain's ability to prevent the Germans strangling them, as their blockade would not be contested if the British navy is bombed to shit.

>Didn't make up for German numbers

It quite very well did.

>They pounded major cities. This isn't that effective.

And what? German light bombers pounding fields and meadows would be?

>The Germans however, can bomb the royal navy,

You mean, the Royal Navy that spends most of its time in the Atlantic Ocean out of range of Luftwaffe bombers?

>and essentially cut off Britain's ability to prevent the Germans strangling them, as their blockade would not be contested if the British navy is bombed to shit.

That won't happen, because the British navy isn't sitting in ports that are in Luftwaffe range. Hell, even the Home Fleet tasked with the notion of parrying a possible Sealion was based outside Stuka range. The destruction of the British fleet by the Luftwaffe is a complete non-possibility, even if the British sit around with their thumbs up their asses. It's not in the target zone.

Because of course, they're not going to have their thumbs up their asses. What ships are in the UK are going to be defended by fighters far enough north that the Germans can't get their fighters in range to protect bomber sorties over them, even if they have a million 109s.

There is no plausible way that the Battle of Britain would have worked for Germany. Even if they won air superiority, which they were a very long way from doing, they couldn't actually deliver the sort of bombings that would be necessary to bring Britain down.

>if you count bombers
irrelevant. British bombing of europe made fuck all difference until 1944.

>No. No they would not have, since most of their fuel production was across the Atlantic and well out of German reach, and British fighter strength kept increasing, not decreasing throughout the Battle of Britain.
Logistics are a thing, fuel can't reach britain if there is a blockade, and Germany could potentially inflict one if they gained air superiority and began a series of port strikes. The pacific theater is a great example of just how crucial air superiority is.

>ignoring the German losses
It still would've taken months to fully ruin the luftwaffe. They were pretty fucking big.

>the weather turning south
It will eventually come back in German favour, and bombings can begin again before any sizeable fighter force is assembled. British Pilots were given a DAY'S TRAINING. The British were holding on by a fucking string.

>British cowards in charge of choosing who did the Best

I shall remind you of what you did during both wars

WW1
>Send pakis and niggers while we did the actual job with the russians

WW2
>Flee and abandon your ally
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation
>Bomb your ally
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dakar

Perfidious and Cowardly.

Hundreds of millions lived in British India. Now guess how many lived in French Africa and Indochina.

Do you conscript the men who work on farms in Bengal or the men running the factories in your capital? Regardless, the Brits made up the vast majority.

>irrelevant. British bombing of europe made fuck all difference until 1944.

Oh, but the much lighter and weaker German bomber force is going to cripple Britain?

>Logistics are a thing, fuel can't reach britain if there is a blockade,

There was no blockade. You had a number of u-boats attacking shipping, and generally not actually doing all that much damage.

jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

>and Germany could potentially inflict one if they gained air superiority and began a series of port strikes

Port strikes where? In Canada? In Greenland? In Gibraltar? In Scapa Flow? You know, where the RN made its major bases?

>The pacific theater is a great example of just how crucial air superiority is.

The Pacific theater had carriers which could deliver aircraft to wherever the enemy happened to be. Germany did not have this capability. They barely had enough fuel in an Me-109 to get to London, fight interceptors, and back. If the Royal Navy goes even as far north as Hull, the Luftwaffe can't cover any bombers it sends to attack it with any sort of protection.

>It still would've taken months to fully ruin the luftwaffe. They were pretty fucking big.

And it would have taken months to ruin the RAF, as they weren't really declining in strength.

>It will eventually come back in German favour, and bombings can begin again before any sizeable fighter force is assembled.

In which time the British utilize their production advantage and spam out more planes to protect themselves with. The Battle of Britain cost the British a hair under 2,000 planes. In that time, they built roughly 7,500.

> British Pilots were given a DAY'S TRAINING.

You know, it's funny. I read in Dirty Little Secrets of WW2, that British pilots needed 240 hours of flight time before they were let into combat. How did they pack that into a single day?

>The British were holding on by a fucking string.

No, they weren't. You have no idea what you're talking about.

not him but

>You know, it's funny. I read in Dirty Little Secrets of WW2, that British pilots needed 240 hours of flight time before they were let into combat. How did they pack that into a single day?
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567824/Battle-of-Britain-pilots-could-not-shoot-straight.html

>WE WUZ WHITE N SHEIT

Nope

>Oh, but the much lighter and weaker German bomber force is going to cripple Britain?
If the RAF is on its knees and can't react to multiple bombings at the same time, yes.

>There was no blockade. You had a number of u-boats attacking shipping, and generally not actually doing all that much damage.
This is a hypothetical blockade, under the possibility of Germany winning the battle of Britain

Port strikes where? In Canada? In Greenland? In Gibraltar? In Scapa Flow? You know, where the RN made its major bases?
All these other places outside of gibraltar act as spots the RN can't defend the isles from at long range. And it's not ridiculous at all Franco would give Hitler access to Spanish air space. Sardinia would be a good spot to launch attacks on Gibraltar from.

>The Pacific theater had carriers which could deliver aircraft to wherever the enemy happened to be. Germany did not have this capability. They barely had enough fuel in an Me-109 to get to London, fight interceptors, and back. If the Royal Navy goes even as far north as Hull, the Luftwaffe can't cover any bombers it sends to attack it with any sort of protection.
Yeah, Oil really fucked Germany, but if so needed, Hitler could purchase fuel from Stalin, only he expected Goring to win anyway so didn't.

>And it would have taken months to ruin the RAF, as they weren't really declining in strength.
Yes, they were.

>In which time the British utilize their production advantage and spam out more planes to protect themselves with. The Battle of Britain cost the British a hair under 2,000 planes. In that time, they built roughly 7,500.
The germans can and would take advantage of their brief air superiority to take out key factories too.

>No, they weren't. You have no idea what you're talking about.
No, you do. You're an American with no common sense.

>If the RAF is on its knees and can't react to multiple bombings at the same time, yes.

No, it won't. If it doesn't react to a single bombing raid, only uses flak to try to fend them off, the Luftwaffe still can't deliver more than about 50-100,000 tons of bombs a year. That's not going to break Britain.

>This is a hypothetical blockade, under the possibility of Germany winning the battle of Britain

And if Germany somehow wins the Battle of Britian (which is itself pretty radical), there would still be no blockade, because Germany doesn't have the force to blockade the British isles with. Their planes don't go far enough. Their navy is too weak.

>All these other places outside of gibraltar act as spots the RN can't defend the isles from at long range.

They're also not places Germany can reach from their territory.

> And it's not ridiculous at all Franco would give Hitler access to Spanish air space.

Moving the goalposts further and further.

>Sardinia would be a good spot to launch attacks on Gibraltar from.

No, it wouldn't, since it's about 1,300 kilometers each way and well outside the operational range of your bombers.

>Yeah, Oil really fucked Germany, but if so needed, Hitler could purchase fuel from Stalin, only he expected Goring to win anyway so didn't.

Do you have ANY idea about what you're talking about? It's not about aggregate oil. The fighters that Germany had, on full tanks of fuel, couldn't go that far. They were designed as short range interceptors to support Heer actions. You could give the Germans the entire oil production of the U.S. in the timeframe of the BoB and it wouldn't have meant anything. The 109, the premier German fighter, can't fly all that far. And without that, you can't effectively strike outside of southern Britain, no matter how successful you are in hurting the RAF.

>Yes, they were.

Then why did they have more operational fighters in November than they did in June?

>The germans can and would take advantage of their brief air superiority to take out key factories too.

When the British had the air superiority, they blew up entire cities like in Operation Gomorrah. This didn't stop German fighter production, hell, didn't even slow it down. Why do you think the Luftwaffe will do better with a far lesser amount of ability to actually deliver bombs?

>No, you do. You're an American with no common sense.

Yes, I'm the one who has no common sense because I can look at 2 numbers and figure out which one is bigger, a skill that has apparently eluded you. I have actual, on topic knowledge about capabilities of the planes involved. I've looked at comparable strategic bombing activities, and have a rough idea of where the naval forces involved were. None of this apparently matters, because your ignorance is as good as knowledge.

Are you from Norfolk?

Italy were to WW2 what Italy was to WW1

Well mehmet friend

>But France was the kid who scored the lowest on all marks and only won because his teammates got first
fuck off back to /int/, even if you are only pretending to be retarded it doesn't make you look any better

fuck this shit thread though, how many battlefield threads do we need at one time at all times? every other cunt has their own precious opinion about the game that they feel needs a new thread despite raking over old ground over and over

>ea will never add bulgaria and serbia

hurr

>I thought history was written by the victors...
Nope, history is written by those who flood the media. This is why so many people, even in Europe, think America saved France in WW1 while France itself stood idly by, only barely resisting until their American saviors swooped in at the last moment.

This is also why Americans are considered utter badasses and the French cowards while the French have the best victory-to-defeat ratio of all European nations (I'm quoting Niall Ferguson on this) while America has never truly fought a war against an equally matched opponent (other than injuns, durkas, natives and themselves they've fought against Mexico (lel), Spain (an empire already on its knees) and the two world wars (both times joining the party when it was already over)).

It will never happen because, as I said above, the Americans are writing history... but wouldn't it be awesome to have a triple A WW1 video game that focuses exclusively on the Eastern Front?

>both times joining the party when it was already over)
I'll give you WW1 but you're honestly retarded if you think the war was already decisively over by 1941

History is written by America.

France in particular is marked for systematic erasure.

In the European theater America didn't get involved until 1944 when the Soviets were already pushing Germany back incredibly hard. I'll congratulate America on defeating the Japanese though. Not that it's really impressive, considering Yamamoto himself predicted that if Japan could not win the war in 6 months, it could not win the war at all.

Do you think Bulgaria regrets it?

BF1 takes place in 1918

By 1918 the French were completely exhausted

and some reason, although they outnumbered the Brits from 2.7 to 1.9 mil, wikipedia elft out all the French offensive of 1918....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

The US was already unofficialy involved years before Pearl Harbor, through its supplying of Britain with food and supplies. People might overstate the importance of Lend-Lease, but it was still significant in helping the Soviets pushing the Germans back.
So no, the US was involved on the Allied side before it was effectively over, and its entrance into the war against the Axis could arguably be considered the actual date the war could no longer be won by the Axis.

In 1918 like in the rest of the war, the French made up the overwhelming majority of Entente troops in every decisive battle, and all Entente armies including the British and Americans were under French command with Ferdinand Foch as supreme commander.

But yeah obviously France was totally irrelevant.

>BF1 takes place in 1918

It has campaigns as early as 1915.

America's Lend-Lease involvement was important, but let's be honest: American WW2 movies never depict America as the supplier. They always depict America as the country that saved the day and singlehandedly destroyed Nazi Germany. When looking purely at direct military involvement, America WAS late to the party. They just learned a very effective lesson from their enemies: devise a lie, repeat it enough times and eventually it will be accepted as truth.

I honestly think maybe the worst thing America has done for Western civilisation is destroying France.

>The Germans however, can bomb the royal navy, and essentially cut off Britain's ability to prevent the Germans strangling them, as their blockade would not be contested if the British navy is bombed to shit.

even ignoring the luftwaffe frankly sucked ass at anti shipping attacks certainly in 1940- 41 their biggest success in naval strikes was against their own forces.

>It still would've taken months to fully ruin the luftwaffe. They were pretty fucking big.
thing is the luftwaffe were losing the battle of britain from day one, the RAF gained in strength during the battle while the luftwaffe lost strength, even the brief period when the RAF was declining in strength the luftwaffe was declining faster. so sure it might take months to destroy the luftwaffe, its still the only possible outcome, and while it is being destroyed the luftwaffe is pretty ineffectual at its mission

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation
occasioned by complete french moral and military collapse in the south, essential to salvage any hope of victory from the wreckage, also evacuated the majority of the french troops in the pocket

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir
france wasnt a ally at the time, the ultimatum was reasonable presenting the french with a number of options they could honorably have taken and ample time to decide. they chose poorly.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dakar
vichy france, not the free french under de gaulle who signed off on the plan and were active participants in the battle.

>BF1 takes place in 1918
There's Gallipoli in the game genius

>By 1918 the French were completely exhausted
You're confusing with 1917
In 1918 France was back at the head of the allied powers

>If the RAF is on its knees and can't react to multiple bombings at the same time, yes.
the main issue is that there was no concieveable way for the luftwaffe to put the RAF on its knees to begin with, the RAF had better fighters, a better control system, far better pilot survival rates (bailing out over home versus bailing out over hostile territory) a far higher replacement rate and a higher rate of pilot training and thanks to the policy of rotating pilots out to train new pilots better quality pilots as time went on

>In the European theater America didn't get involved until 1944 when the Soviets were already pushing Germany back incredibly hard.

So, North Africa, Italy, convoying, strategic bombing, and Lend-Lease didn't exist in your world?

...

No

jealousy