PDA

View Full Version : Flyable heavies :D



na85
04-10-2007, 02:53 AM
I've always found that one of the most interesting points of WW2 aviation was the presence of massive fleets of bombers, the likes of which had never been seen before and will never be seen again.

It's always been one of my pet peeves that there are no flyable heavy bombers in the IL2 series.

Hopefully if another patch comes out for il2, we get to see some Halifaxes, Lancasters, etc.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I should add that I'm still running 4.04m, so if heavies have been added in later versions it would seem that I'm missing out

na85
04-10-2007, 02:53 AM
I've always found that one of the most interesting points of WW2 aviation was the presence of massive fleets of bombers, the likes of which had never been seen before and will never be seen again.

It's always been one of my pet peeves that there are no flyable heavy bombers in the IL2 series.

Hopefully if another patch comes out for il2, we get to see some Halifaxes, Lancasters, etc.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I should add that I'm still running 4.04m, so if heavies have been added in later versions it would seem that I'm missing out

mrsiCkstar
04-10-2007, 03:04 AM
no heavies have been added and no heavies will be added. sorry.

Akronnick
04-10-2007, 03:28 AM
For a lot of reasons, this sim can't really handle flyable heavies. But...

If bombers are your thing, the medium bombers that we DO have totally roXXors. They are exquisitly modelled inside and out, and just staying alive in one is a real challenge, let alone putting ordnance on target.

Give the B-25, the A-20(both versions) the Mosquito, the Ju-88 or the He-111 a try, you will not be disappointed.

Longpo
04-10-2007, 04:26 AM
Don't forget the Pe-2 aswell, a favorite of mine since I learned how to level bomb with it.

Need to upgrade though for that mate.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

claypidgon
04-10-2007, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
I've always found that one of the most interesting points of WW2 aviation was the presence of massive fleets of bombers, the likes of which had never been seen before and will never be seen again.

It's always been one of my pet peeves that there are no flyable heavy bombers in the IL2 series.

Hopefully if another patch comes out for il2, we get to see some Halifaxes, Lancasters, etc.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I should add that I'm still running 4.04m, so if heavies have been added in later versions it would seem that I'm missing out </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We will never have a "true" heavy bomber in this game...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Hoatee
04-10-2007, 06:19 AM
We share your desire for the addition of flyable heavy bombers but it looks like it ain't going to happen. The medium bombers are way better than nothing though.

WarWolfe_1
04-10-2007, 06:29 AM
Heavies would be nice, but like the others have said not with this Sim and more than likley not BoB either. Map size being one issue, modeling, are just a couple of issues amoung many.

The mediums in this sim are very good, and If I were going to wish for new flyables it would be things like the F7F, PV-1/2, B-26, A-26, Beaufort, more versions of the B-25, PBY, and way more than I can list http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-10-2007, 07:11 AM
These guys are representative of some of the things that can be accomplished with the medium bombers in-game: http://favacw.dyndns.org/faforum/viewtopic.php?t=1472

They're not heavies, but for all intents and purposes, they hit like heavies...be sure.


TB

WTE_Ibis
04-10-2007, 07:19 AM
Fingers crossed, maybe in BOB or soon there after.

.

FritzGryphon
04-10-2007, 07:22 AM
There'll be one as soon as a motivated and skilled group makes one, without regard for personal gain.

We've seen this already with many of the medium bombers.

pacettid
04-10-2007, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
These guys are representative of some of the things that can be accomplished with the medium bombers in-game: http://favacw.dyndns.org/faforum/viewtopic.php?t=1472

They're not heavies, but for all intents and purposes, they hit like heavies...be sure.
TB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! TB,
The Fallen Angels have recently been flying tight, high-level medium bomber formations, with up to 8 bombers and 3-4 escorts on the Winds of War. Never thought I would see good bomber formations on a DF server, but it is actually becoming fairly common on many of the fine servers out there on H/L.

general_kalle
04-10-2007, 09:04 AM
if just we could level bomb with the B25 without the AI having to act stupid i would be satisfied. ok no B17. so what. B25 i fine for me.

by the way. buy the game called B17 Flying Fortress: the Mighty Eighth
its old and do not have the same fighter realism but the bomber part is cool
up to 18 bombers where you have comand of 6.
all 10 postitions playable including pilot and bombardier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
its impassible to shoot down a bomber with a fighter though so its best to play escort or Bomber. it feals like your there.

its pretty old so you can probably find it cheap somewhere

na85
04-10-2007, 11:55 AM
Oh don't get me wrong, I love the medium bombers in this game, the B25 is fantastically sturdy. I made it home from one sortie on HL with one engine entirely missing.

The mossie is also fun to fly.

So the IL2 engine just can't handle 4-engined heavy bombers? Too bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

WWSpinDry
04-10-2007, 12:02 PM
TB-3?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_TB-3

na85
04-10-2007, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSpinDry:
TB-3?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_TB-3 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I thought we might see a Lanc in 4.09, perhaps.

However, according to Akronnick:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For a lot of reasons, this sim can't really handle flyable heavies. But... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I took this to mean the engine isn't really capable of a true heavy.

WWSpinDry
04-10-2007, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
...the engine isn't really capable of a true heavy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Guess it goes to show I don't grok what it takes to run this sim behind the scenes. I would have thought the problem to be supporting control of four engines, but the existence of the TB-3 refutes that.

Akronnick
04-10-2007, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Oh don't get me wrong, I love the medium bombers in this game, the B25 is fantastically sturdy. I made it home from one sortie on HL with one engine entirely missing.

The mossie is also fun to fly.

So the IL2 engine just can't handle 4-engined heavy bombers? Too bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that the engine can't handle 4 engines, it's more that the tactical scenario that the engine is geared to isn't really realistic for 4-engine bombers. The biggest limitation is the size of the maps. In real life, heavies were used against strategic targets that were thousands of miles from their airbases. It doesn't make much since for a B-17 to take off, fly less than 100 miles to strike a formation of tanks. This would never have happened during WWII.

Also, the heavies require about five times the effort to put into the game as a single seat fighter, and at least twice as much as a medium bomber.

Since they could never be used in a realistic mission, and they would take so much effort to include, it was decided by the powers that be that said development effort would be better spent on more single seat types that could be used in realistic scenarios.

Agree or not, that was the decision, and at this point, development of new aircraft for IL-2 has been closed for some time now, so there definetly won't be any heavies added.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-10-2007, 01:35 PM
Well, personally, I think the inclusion of even 1 of the big three, B-17, B-24, Lancaster (or 4 if you count the PE-8) would have been the icing on the cake. I don't think this sim is lesser without them because the scenarios and current crop of flyables is heretofor unseen in this genre and still has untapped potential as well as a considerable future.

On the other hand, the absence of a torpedo bomber in the PTO severely limits the creativity of potential missions that could be made...oh well. I still think it's absolutely the best WWII flight sim ever created. Witness the 100's of hours I've spent in it over the last 5+ years.


TB

VW-IceFire
04-10-2007, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSpinDry:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
...the engine isn't really capable of a true heavy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Guess it goes to show I don't grok what it takes to run this sim behind the scenes. I would have thought the problem to be supporting control of four engines, but the existence of the TB-3 refutes that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The sim engine can handle a four engine heavy with full control quite well. The engine supports all we need to do it and the TB-3 is proof that four engines is not a problem in terms of control. The problem is actually modeling one. So far nobody has successfully stepped up to the plate and done it. Its a huge job.

ImpStarDuece
04-10-2007, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
I've always found that one of the most interesting points of WW2 aviation was the presence of massive fleets of bombers, the likes of which had never been seen before and will never be seen again.

It's always been one of my pet peeves that there are no flyable heavy bombers in the IL2 series.

Hopefully if another patch comes out for il2, we get to see some Halifaxes, Lancasters, etc.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I should add that I'm still running 4.04m, so if heavies have been added in later versions it would seem that I'm missing out </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thought: Massed fleets of bombers (particularly heavy bombers) were really only a feature of the ETO airwar (with some operations also in Italy and over Japan) and aren't really representative of the majority of WW2 bomber operations.

Medium bombers played a more prevalent role in more theatres, doing a wider variety of missions and probably has just as significant an impact. There were around 51,000 4 engine heavies built during the war, while there were around 116,000 two engine medium/light bombers built.

The Japanese, Russians, Germans and Italians really didn't develop heavy bomber fleets.

In my opinion I'd rather have more flyable mediums than heavies.

claypidgon
04-11-2007, 05:49 AM
I more then anyone want a true heavy to fly because I'm a terrible fighter pilot..But we should just stop going on about because we will never have one in il2FB...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Matz0r
04-11-2007, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In my opinion I'd rather have more flyable mediums than heavies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I'd hate to see B-17's and Lancasters skip bombing ships/tank from 100 feet on servers.

djetz
04-11-2007, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the other hand, the absence of a torpedo bomber in the PTO severely limits the creativity of potential missions that could be made...oh well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beaufighter. AKA flyable allied torpedo bomber. I've had quite a bit of fun torpedoing Japanese warships in the PTO with this. Australians used this plane very successfully for the exact same thing in real life.

So, you already have what you're asking for, and you've had it for years. Perhaps this is another example of Americans forgetting that they didn't win the war all by themselves.

I suspect what you're really asking for is a USN torpedo plane. Which you can't have, for well known reasons.

Except you can, as there's a number of US skins for Japanese torpedo planes that mock up USN planes. Not a perfect solution, but plenty of people use them in missions and find it an acceptable compromise.

djetz
04-11-2007, 06:22 AM
Following on from my previous post...

B5N2 as TBD-1 Devastator:
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=1870

B5N2 as SB2U Vindicator:
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=1869

There are more like this, look around.

WWSpinDry
04-11-2007, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
I'd hate to see B-17's and Lancasters skip bombing ships/tank from 100 feet on servers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What; are you nuts? That'd be nearly as much fun as trying to slow-roll one! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

claypidgon
04-11-2007, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the other hand, the absence of a torpedo bomber in the PTO severely limits the creativity of potential missions that could be made...oh well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beaufighter. AKA flyable allied torpedo bomber. I've had quite a bit of fun torpedoing Japanese warships in the PTO with this. Australians used this plane very successfully for the exact same thing in real life.

So, you already have what you're asking for, and you've had it for years. Perhaps this is another example of<span class="ev_code_RED">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</span> Americans forgetting that they didn't win the war all by themselves.<span class="ev_code_RED">&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;</span>

I suspect what you're really asking for is a USN torpedo plane. Which you can't have, for well known reasons.

Except you can, as there's a number of US skins for Japanese torpedo planes that mock up USN planes. Not a perfect solution, but plenty of people use them in missions and find it an acceptable compromise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No we just won 95% and supplied the equipt for the rest!!!!!!

general_kalle
04-11-2007, 08:00 AM
i must say that id rather have a Level bombing B25 and a flyable Blendheim or B26-also levelbombing

the B26 is more appropriate for Normandy invasion theatre as it was the bomber that was used there. its a bit heavier than the B25.
a PBN nomad would be nice aswell.

Matz0r
04-11-2007, 08:31 AM
Blenheim MkIV/MkI
B-26
More Ju-88 variants
Ki-21
Do-17
Handley Page Hampden
Whitworth Whitley
Vickers Wellington
PZL.37
DB-3/4
SM.79

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

WWSpinDry
04-11-2007, 08:33 AM
A-26! Don't forget my beloved 'Vader! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

csThor
04-11-2007, 08:54 AM
This one?

http://www.br-online.de/kultur-szene/thema/star-wars/foto/dar-darth-vader-david-prows.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

djetz
04-11-2007, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by claypidgon:
No we just won 95% and supplied the equipt for the rest!!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryD...-Allies-Piechart.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png)

WWSpinDry
04-11-2007, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
This one?
http://www.br-online.de/kultur-szene/thema/star-wars/foto/dar-darth-vader-david-prows.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find your lack of respect ... disturbing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GerritJ9
04-11-2007, 12:37 PM
Don't forget the G4M1 is also flyable...........

claypidgon
04-11-2007, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djetz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by claypidgon:
No we just won 95% and supplied the equipt for the rest!!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryD...-Allies-Piechart.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That dosent mean a thing...

jasonbirder
04-11-2007, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No we just won 95% and supplied the equipt for the rest!!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I sometimes dispair at the levels of ignorance shown on this forum...I really do!

claypidgon
04-11-2007, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No we just won 95% and supplied the equipt for the rest!!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I sometimes dispair at the levels of ignorance shown on this forum...I really do! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you dont belive that then there is some ignorance being shown....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifTry reading some history books,not just the forum...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

general_kalle
04-11-2007, 03:53 PM
a flyable Kate and Avenger would be nice. that way we got both american and japanese Dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and fighters.

ki21 is even worse than Betty so im satisfied without it.

what abaut a DB3

Zonama
04-11-2007, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by claypidgon:

If you dont belive that then there is some ignorance being shown....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifTry reading some history books,not just the forum...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Consider, if you will, then, the Eastern Front. It was the bloodiest theatre, and one in which the US played no part. And yet, had the Soviets and Poles not succeeded, it would've freed up more German troops for Western Europe, making any eventual invasion either drastically more difficult or impossible.

There's no real way of measuring which country played the biggest part in the war, neither in blood nor in industrial output, because the result depended on so many things. I can guarantee you, though, that hugely exaggerated claims such as "winning 95%" are most certainly wrong.



As for heavy bombers, they are pretty fun in the odd online server, but I also appreciate this sim's limitations, the TBF's the plane I'd really like to see.

jasonbirder
04-11-2007, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you dont belive that then there is some ignorance being shown....Try reading some history books,not just the forum... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was a German victory ever likely after Stalingrad in 1942?
Was it even a remote possibility after Kursk in July 1943?

Zeus-cat
04-11-2007, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd hate to see B-17's and Lancasters skip bombing ships/tank from 100 feet on servers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, B-17's and B-24's were used this way in the Aleutians. The weather was so bad that high altitude bombing was banned unless the weather was perfect (which really means it was banned 90+% of the time). The American pilots just kept coming in lower and lower with their heavy bombers until they were at treetop level. Accuracy soared the lower they got. So did the danger from AAA.

DmdSeeker
04-11-2007, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Thought: Massed fleets of bombers (particularly heavy bombers) were really only a feature of the ETO airwar (with some operations also in Italy and over Japan) and aren't really representative of the majority of WW2 bomber operations.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How true is this actualy? I've no idea of the airwar in China in the thirties; but I'd imagine most people's first awareness of the impending WWII was Guernica. I know things are relative; and the Luftwaffe could never match the Eighth; but wouldn't Guernica, Warsaw Rotterdam and coventry all count as massed raids?

And I'm very ignorant of the Eastern front bomber ops; but surely the Russians were bombing Berling with thier heavies? They had more than the TB-3.

claypidgon
04-11-2007, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zonama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by claypidgon:

If you dont belive that then there is some ignorance being shown....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifTry reading some history books,not just the forum...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Consider, if you will, then, the Eastern Front. It was the bloodiest theatre, and one in which the US played no part. And yet, had the Soviets and Poles not succeeded, it would've freed up more German troops for Western Europe, making any eventual invasion either drastically more difficult or impossible.

There's no real way of measuring which country played the biggest part in the war, neither in blood nor in industrial output, because the result depended on so many things. I can guarantee you, though, that hugely exaggerated claims such as "winning 95%" are most certainly wrong.



As for heavy bombers, they are pretty fun in the odd online server, but I also appreciate this sim's limitations, the TBF's the plane I'd really like to see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anybody knows we sent so much equipt to Britain the island almost sank and all of the convoys and planes we sent the Soviets.And the germs knew we were coming accross the channel so they couldnt send everything to the Eastern front..

jasonbirder
04-12-2007, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anybody knows we sent so much equipt to Britain the island almost sank and all of the convoys and planes we sent the Soviets.And the germs knew we were coming accross the channel so they couldnt send everything to the Eastern front.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Do you really believe this stuff or are you just trolling...

claypidgon
04-12-2007, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anybody knows we sent so much equipt to Britain the island almost sank and all of the convoys and planes we sent the Soviets.And the germs knew we were coming accross the channel so they couldnt send everything to the Eastern front.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Do you really believe this stuff or are you just trolling... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I belive sir that you can read,try reading some history books instead of comics..Its all in black and white...