Jump to content

JG4_Retnek

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    665
  • Joined

Community Reputation

290 Excellent

About JG4_Retnek

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Old Europe
  • Interests
    Strategic Air War WW2

Recent Profile Visitors

1033 profile views
  1. Someone in Youtube pointed on the source, Swedish testing in the late 40s: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x31qqzl
  2. Can confirm this - had some nasty surprise coming back to a "unprotected target" just to find 50% of the AA alive again. First I suspected the mission designers to use some vengefully re-spawning loops. Checking the mission-file confirmed there was no re-spawn. Just my sloppy shooting driving the crew away but leaving the gun intact. With light MGs one has to aim accurately, not always a good idea to conserve cannons ammo.
  3. That's definitely true - and sad, because without trueview the g-force-effect is gone, too. But as you say it - without "trueview" I'm too limited to check six. So that's a no-go.
  4. Thanks for the hint - I finally found that feature and check it out right now!
  5. Hm, hm - the source about General Galland mostly used is a book written by Galland himself ... a good tactic to display a self-chosen picture for the public. Quite commonly done by German leaders of all kind after WW2 and astonishing effective until today. The picture painted that way often was incomplete at least - Galland is one of these cases. I gladly would like to read a critical study about the history of the higher Luftwaffe day fighter command in WW2 - is there any? Is there any substantial biography about Galland, too? (I don't think so) In the meantime one should read the better autobiographies, written by Rall, Krupinski, maybe Steinhoff f.e. Here again a very interesting aspect is what contemporary is ignored by the author. Or just cited because he has been in a position one had to mention somehow. And what persons are explicitly presented as good fellows and / or capable superiors. Those men all went through the same sh.., so veterans are very reluctant with critics or finger-pointing. But they are free to praise and honour.
  6. Would be acceptable to me if my original position would recover after that g-force-impact - but it doesn't. I have to re-center manually. Not sure with that realism-aspect, too. I very much doubt a pilot in combat situation would sink down in the seat the way it's presented now. He'll keep the gun-sight in center view using all his power not to miss the very moment to shoot. Difficult to say how much g is needed to activate the effect in IL2-BoX. I'd say too early and too much.
  7. I can confirm that kind of observation for my mission: https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=6225&name=Retnek No video, but it's the best way to explain what happened. Patrolling over own industries (somewhere 1422) lot's of heavy AAA grenades exploded, lucky me! No problem to follow the path marked by the AA. I was able to close the gap with the Rata until I was able to see details of the grenades explosions plumes - must be a He-111 nearby! But there was no plane - AAA ghost gunnery. I am quite blind as fighter sometimes, my screen isn't first class, too, but THAT blind and that bad? I finally panicked and dived down in circles to avoid the 109 I must have missed somehow. No fighter showed up on my tail. So the report above is best explanation for what happened. (except I'm really THAT blind)
  8. Same here. Never had that kind of update-problem before - but moving the old "updates"-folder away was the cure. New update folder is just 2 GB, deleting the old one with 8 GB was fine for my small SSD, too.
  9. Hm, might be the good old "both engines active" problem, at least for the upper, little cowl flaps. They won't change when just one engine is chosen as active. And they are ONLY intended for ground-operations, will shake your plane nastily when open in flight. So here it's a bad idea moving those two types of flaps with one pair of keys or joystick knobs. For the larger, lower in-flight cowl flaps there's nothing special I know of.
  10. Fully confirmed, same here - a high-G-manoeuvre > 1 sec and I'm sinking down the seat - sudden rubber spine disease. I'm wasting a precious button on the joystick to re-center the view quickly. But doesn't help sometimes. Driving me mad! I missed so many snapshot-occasions just because of that. Keeping the opponent in sight, getting him back in front of the nose and then the reticle is far out of center or even completely out of view ...
  11. Emmerich ... aircraft ... freedom ... independence ... sure it's a fresh trailer? I somehow feel I've seen that film. A pilot hanging at a chute, landing, running to a wreck, drawing that pilot out of the cockpit and punching him. But that other pilot absolutely did not look like a Japanese! And I seriously doubt the USN or USMC in 1941 (or even in 1945) had coloured pilots within their ranks ... must have been something else.
  12. That picture could have been taken anywhere in (western to middle) Europe 100 y ago. It's interesting to find people at that time - living so much more separated and within much more intact local sub-cultures - on those pictures present a very uniform way of clothing. Pictures usually were taken in the "Sundays dress". The more wealthy farmers, craftsmen, clerks - whoever could afford the luxury of a photo at that time - preferred a common civil, middle-class dress-code. And most (nearly all, I think) of that clothing was sewn or needled by hand, by the family-women usually. Or a local tailor for the men's best suit. During holiday I love to visit local museums in small towns or villages all over Europe - from Norway down to Austria at least one can find this standard. Uniforms of any kind were fine, too. No way to wear traditional or day-by-day clothings! Rarely I could find (very) old people wearing a bit more traditional pieces on pictures taken 1910 or so. There are some exceptions (fishermen, sailors f.e.), but all in all the Central European middle-class had to be photographed in the way shown above. PS: 13 children at least ... looking healthy and well dressed. A blessed family!
  13. Difficult to discuss science with someone not willing to understand the method. History isn't static. Our understanding of the world isn't, too. There's no "final truth", one (gladly) leave that setup to the religious and the present mainstream of economic "sciences" . Well done science is a trustworthy process to find a promising direction, an increasingly sharper image of what is or what has been. Adding pieces, find new aspects, sometimes just by changing the point of view, bit by bit. Going that way there's no chance for winner or looser to finalize "The History".
  14. Wrong. If you (are able to) use the sources available to the public. One might stay at the level of penny press or "documentaries" on certain TV-channels. But who would call that waste of time a proper education? Most of the more serious historians and other sensible people enjoy a common concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian#Professionalization_in_Germany " Sources had to be hard, not speculations and rationalizations. His credo was to write history the way it was. He insisted on primary sources with proven authenticity." That concept has been used successfully for the historical sciences. Sadly the impact on everyday's life by the insights of modern historical research was (especially in Germany until 1945) very low. But that's a problem a lot of scientific insights share - wtfc? Anyhow, there are academic standards for historical research and even in the worst time of Cold War historians from both sides of the Iron Curtain usually were able to find a common understanding about the facts itself. "What" happened never that much was in question. A practised Soviet historian seriously denying the Soviet responsibility for the Katyn Massacre even in 1965 was rated an idiot by his own colleagues, too. Beyond that academic consensus there are "historians" presenting "alternative truth" endlessly. Dead horses are a perfect ride for propaganda.
×
×
  • Create New...