Say what-
Finland never fell to the USSR, neither were they occupied. The finnish story in WW2 is… interesting, to say the least. They fought against both to soviets and the germans. (Against the soviets in the Winter and Continuation wars, and against the germans in the Lappland war.) They were also very interesting in the postwar years, being somewhat close to the soviets (Not accepting marshall plan aid), but were still firmly independent.
Honestly Sweden/Finland are a wild card. If I could decide on this matter it would be to place them on the Axis side for WW2, and allied side post-war- especially since they are in NATO now.
2 Likes
I guess so, but, technically speaking, the earliest Swedish tanks, are technically Cold War.
Nope. Strv m/31 is 1930, Strv m/38 is 1934, Lago I is 1935…
There are plenty of prewar swedish tanks, not to mention finnish tanks.
Finnish yeah, but they Op’ed those tanks untill the late-40’s and early 50’s
To be fair we also used shermans till '57, and T-34s were used as well for the USSR for a while.
1 Like
Yeah, my knowledge on that is somewhat hazy from the years between now and when I actually studied it, and I was trying to keep it condensed for a fairly off topic portion of a forum thread. Albiet I only studied this as a first year elective in a little university on the other side of the world, so I’m happy to be corrected.
As in my previous reply - i decided to use a spoiler (just in order to reply to a rather interesting exchange regarding flagging and historical side aspects of this debate):
Summary
Reading and analyzing your reply as as whole, i see lots of similar views, but also deviating conclusions about certain aspects. Without going into too much details i would like to focus on a few points.
Upfront:
I saw a general consensus regarding the main issues of Hitler: The combination of his crude race & nation theory with his rather narrow view on capitalism & communism as a whole - whilst combining them in his view on the main driver (from his perspective) for both: Jews.
Main reasons for WW 2 becoming a WW:
-
Imho Hitler simply underestimated the willingness of certain powers to drag the UK and the US into this inevitable war with the USSR - if you do some additional research you might come to the same conclusions: You can’t earn money with weapons without a war - and every war has usually a massive (if not solely) political component which is strongly connected to economic interests.
-
From the perspective of the UK there was in both WWs no need to drag a regional conflict into a World War - except keeping their status. That they went de facto bankrupt due to the lend-lease payments / debts helped to elevate the industrial superpower USA (with a very isolationist mindset of their citizens) to the leading military superpower - and to create the mindset of being Gods’ own country obliged to export “freedom” and “democracy” as soon as economical (oil), ideological (communism) or geo-strategical (sole global superpower) aspects create the necessity to intervene.
-
Technically seen the US were the sole winners of WW 2 - whilst the actual winners, the USSR sacrificed 27-39 million people (depending on sources) whilst their country was largely destroyed. On top of that the former (just naval) superpower UK became a junior partner. Political chess - perfectly executed.
-
We might disagree on certain aspects, but at the end of the day you might agree that Poland was just a pawn in this chess game - and the US supplies to the USSR were aimed to encourage the USSR to fight Germany in order to weaken both whilst minimizing own losses and maximize own profits. Just try to compare combat losses of “boots on the ground” and you can’t deny the logic of this assumption.
-
I do not agree with your views regarding the need to use regained military strength - same as with Danzig, but imho deviating views on particular things are non-essential if we have a common understanding of the whole picture / result.
Have a good one!
1 Like
It might end up becoming an idea for the future for both nations and sub-tree nations. Given they are doing split BR ratings. So you never know.
1 Like
They should be on Axis side, since they run German equipment mostly and that’s important in SB.
1 Like
Depends…?
At least WW2-era they run more russian stuff, ate least until you get to the 122s and leos and stuff
I thought there was no WW2 era?
WT does not do history or WW2 as we are constantly being told when we ask for era separation.
1 Like
The inventor of ground combat sim had history in mind when he developed Allies vs Axis and Dictatorships vs Nato lineups for us. it was a good idea and is much better than the mix chaos in AB and RB.
The problem is these heavily mixed chaos tech trees for AB and RB were simply carried over into the sim. that was the mistake.
the sim lineups would have to be changed and improved so that everything fits. improved balancing, an even clearer separation between ww2 and cold war vehicles, no captured vehicles, etc.
so the lineups are more independent of the AB/RB tech trees
2 Likes
Well at least in simulators there should be some form of history present to simulate the conflict with correct sides etc.
3 Likes
I think he meant the soldiers too not just vehicles in wt. Also we are mainly talking about the ww2 stuff I-III rank. The moust common uniforms used by finland are simply german unifroms and standard issue helmet for their soldier was also german helmet. They sometimes also used their own designed helmets or soviet helmets too and certainly used soviet weapons. They really just used any equipment they could. But we need to separate things given by their allies (axis) as military aid and things captured and reporpused from their enemy (soviets) in the ww2. Then decide what side they should be in not by the number of soviet vehicles in use.
2 Likes
I agree with you that Finland belongs on the axis page.
but just putting the entire Swedish techtree between 1_1 to 6_1 on the Axis side would not be good.
it would have been right to put Finnish WW2 Axis vehicles in the German techtrees. without Sweden. that’s how I would have done it.
there are comparable problems with the techtrees of the other nations. which would have to be solved especially for Sim
3 Likes
I mean yeah, but that would be rather complicated. I personally prefer keeping finland in the swedish tree as if you removed Finland from Sweden then Sweden alone would have no reason to be in ww2 sim battles at all. Also I didnt say up to 6 br I really mean just the ww2 tanks to like 3 rank so like 4.0 t-34 and 3.7 panzer IV as last ones, teoretically up to 5.7 t-34-85 but at that point there are too many after ww2 tanks there. I would not mind your solution too but we all can agree that current situation is just wrong and needs to be changed so that there isnt tanks from finland in swedish tree fighting tanks from finland in german tree.
2 Likes
yes absolutely. and it will get worse with every update. because then there will surely be new mix vehicles for AB/RB. and nobody at Gaijin is worried about the negative effects for sim. this is a huge problem for us sim players.
to be honest, it was a big mistake to give sweden ww2 vehicles at all. unfortunately, the swedish ww2 vehicles have been in the game for years and I can’t magic them away.
I would have preferred the isralelian solution. i.e. to introduce sweden only from the early cold war. even though sweden was still neutral during the real cold war. today sweden is finally part of nato in reality. so if we are not quite so strict then sweden fits a bit to the nato side in the game from tier IV/V on.
as far as ww2 is concerned. I see absolutely no solution for sweden. because sweden, unlike finland, did not take part in ww2. it’s like including martians in ww2. which of course does not mean that swedes are aliens. :D
2 Likes
I mean Sweden still did trade with germany and supported Finland in the winter war and contiunation war via supplyes etc. I would not be so strict as removing sweden from ww2 sims entirely. Also I think its imposible at this point with people having the early vehicles and warthunder never completly removes vehicles only makes them unresearchable. Simmlary I think its not much possible to just put finland alone to german tree and make sweden alone again. So making 1.0-4.0 sweden-finland stuff in simulators on axis side seems only acceptable and least complicated option that has decent chance of getting implemented.
- it would be least confusing or frustrating for the playerbase that are not interested in history or dont go on forum to say stuff like “why cant I play simulators with my early war swedish tanks when I could before?” or “why cant I research early war tanks of sweden anymore?”. While if sweden-finland tree is just put at axis side in simulators it would be just “oh I am fighting allies now and no longer there are tanks from finland on the enemy side… neat i guess?”
1 Like
