Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2049 Excellent

1 Follower

About unreasonable

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1455 profile views
  1. I think you have misinterpreted @SCG_Sinerox's comment: The Germans did not have a shortage of unskilled workers, given that it could draw on the labour of the conquered territories - most of the increase in size of the German forces you point out came from the recruitment of Hiwis. What they did have was a shortage of skilled labour to make large quantities of sophisticated weapons, especially given JtD's point on their slowness in adopting assembly line techniques. They also lacked recruits with the prior experience of maintaining and operating motor vehicles. The US - and to a lesser extent the UK - could put into a tank a soldier who had prior mechanical work experience. The German's recruits had prior experience of maintaining horses. That is alright for the vast bulk of German artillery and supply wagons that were horse drawn, but a significant disadvantage in manning a mechanized formation. So Sinerox is absolutely right that the Germans had manpower issues: not some much in the total number of warm bodies, but in building and operating advanced machinery, which is how I read his post. Whether that was material in deciding on a few heavy tanks rather than a large number of smaller ones I doubt: there were many factors involved and the tendency to go for "superweapons" seems to be a broader trend in German procurement.
  2. Then stop making them. Bagration was an operation directed against Army Group Centre. That is a simple fact: if you insist on making public posts denigrating other posters here, some of whom I know for a fact are extremely knowledgeable about things WW2, while making basic mistakes yourself, expect to be refuted in the same forum in which you made your comments. I have no intention of contacting you privately now or at any other time.
  3. Too late! Bagration destroyed Army Group Centre - not North.
  4. Thanks for the heads up on the need to capture video on old tracks before the update - I expect this only affects a few people at any time but it was hugely frustrating to lose work.
  5. The skin is easy (for Vb): but not sure how to upload here, even zipped the file is too big. Was Special Guest Star in my last movie as 007's surprise gift from Q. If "Air Marshall" does not work how about "Sector Controller" or even "Forward Air Control", positioned in a vehicle?
  6. Ouch. A take off accident apparently. RIP
  7. @Thad Good discussion! I agree with much of your conclusions, but it is hard to see how the Germans could have achieved anything decisive even if they had smashed into the centre of the salient. The problem for the Germans was that they had just enough divisions in good shape to either act as reserves, or to go for a strictly limited offensive like Citadel. The Soviets were already planning to attack at Orel (Op. Kutuzov) and were able to do this in relative safety as all the German mobile units were being ground down elsewhere. By the end of the year the Germans were back at the Dnieper and having to think about building reserves to counter the invasion of France, which they knew was coming, as well as dealing with Italy. If they had held back the mobile divisions they may have been able to have good results counter attacking the Soviet spearheads: once away from their fixed positions, minefields and artillery support the Soviet tank formations were very vulnerable. Longer run, it is hard to see the Germans not being defeated in the East once they had to start building up strength in the West as well. They were simply losing the production battle by a huge margin, and the Allies, East and West, had learned how to avoid stupid mistakes. Without Citadel, though, they might have held out a bit longer in the East. I count Citadel as a definite win for the Soviets, whatever the loss count, but I agree with @Porkins - it did not decide anything, just accelerated the German collapse.
  8. Biggin Hill used to be an all grass airfield, but it got hard taxiways and runways long ago, during WW2 I think. As you can see in this video of the twin cockpit Spitfire, taking off - not from grass. (1.35) Indeed from: https://www.pilotweb.aero/features/airfield-profile-london-biggin-hill-1-3320887 "Our next meeting is with Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar Ltd. This is amazing−a building stuffed with Spitfires and Hurricanes and Spitfire parts. (There are also a Harvard and an L4 Cub.) Most are ready to be wheeled out and flown, while others are undergoing restoration or maintenance. (The maintenance company is The Spitfire Company Biggin Hill Ltd.) There to meet us is the manager, Joe Hirst, and Paul Campbell, a graphic designer who works for the business part-time. The business has five employees and several sub-contractors and holds open days for the public once a fortnight. Joe says, “We started here because one of the Spitfire owners lives nearby, plus the airfield is open all year round − having no grass runways − and has all the facilities we need.” @ZachariasX will have to confirm the surface used for his trip, obviously.
  9. Ha! Vindicated. Thanks for taking the time to write this up so thoroughly. You lucky fellow....
  10. I think it looks very authentic, I also like that your films are short. One question: I had a gun camera setting using the editable external free camera settings, but at some point recently the folder with these has vapourised. Can you remind me how to set up the view with no plane in it as per your video?
  11. @the_dudeWG The only comment I would add is that if it is true that they were painted from a variety of paints sourced at different times from different places, I would not expect great uniformity, so there is no need to make all Jasta 11 reds the same. I think the best anyone can say about complex events that happened a century ago is that often nobody fully understands what actually happened, nor can they. You may be right, of course: but your choice of language - which is borderline obnoxious - does not motivate me to add your book to my already extensive collection of WW1 aviation history.
  12. Oberleutnant. Not sold on using two different Gothic fonts - or any Gothic font in a purportedly British film from WW2. Your accent is not really 1940's RP. Possibly better to skip the voice over and just use subtitles: either way, use one or the other, not both. The film is very authentic looking!
  13. The water and oil temp limits are given in the Tech Specs page: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational-details/ Water rated temperature in engine output: 70..85 °C Water maximum temperature in engine output: 100 °C Oil rated temperature in engine output: 90..100 °C Oil maximum temperature in engine output: 115 °C
  14. No harm at all, and as you indicate one of the advantages of making your own manual/guide/checklist rather than just looking at someone else's is that it helps you to actually learn the content. Same as taking any other exam: study the original material, make your own notes. Only then look at the Cole's Notes or whatever, to see if you have missed anything important. My point was merely that for someone who wants to get started the information is out there. Good luck!
  15. The BoX audio being subtle is a good thing, since the breathing in your video sounds like mine when I am in a fight! Having additional loud breathing would be like being in a two seater...
  • Create New...