Jump to content

IVJG4-Knight

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Excellent

About IVJG4-Knight

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

802 profile views
  1. @Kataphrakt Well you posted this: This claim or another i've seen by the Chieftain that sherman armor was almost as thick as a tiger doesn't have any value. -First of all the alloy is different . -Secondly there's overmatch at play so while theoretically relatively thick , practically it offered poor protection. (This is for the tanks present in the game ). Ps: Video you posted :"Truth about panzer aces" It's complete nonsense .What truth did it show .Not even an interview.But oh i spoke with this guy and he told me this. What about the american historians . What about the french historians . That covered this aspect many times before .It's like this guy thinks he's the first to talk to a tank ace . So so low value .Why didn't he just film the interview with the veterans (i really like this kind of video interviews with ww2 veterans). Thanks but my post was accurate .
  2. If you would ask Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton how many race wins he has he wouldn't know.They asked Sebastian Vettel some time ago in an interview and he said 41 and that he only remembers the number because he's team made a poster .I've seen many F1 interviews and many of them don't remember .That doesn't mean there aren't people that keep score. Tank kills are proven by: Combatants People that took part in the battle on both sides. They might not know after the war but after every battle they would have known with more accuracy . There would have been people who put this stuff on paper to calculate the efficiency of the tiger force for example. War diaries . There are battlefield photos (sometimes made by tank crew themselves). Aerial photos. Locals. I also have the book that this guy is talking about( Alfred Rubbel "Erinnerungen an die TIgerabteilung 503 ") . And he basically said the sherman was no danger to the tiger.He sees the rusian tanks as more dangerous. And even with the 76 mm gun it was a "half way a usable tank and i now way comparable to the russian tanks" .(pages 93-94) What Rubbel said about kills is he's book -"13 february 1944 of the 7 t34 and sherman we destroyed 6" (talks about unit not himself) -"14 february 1944 at least 20 enemy tanks were destroyed "(same as above) -"15 february around 20 tanks destroyed but we lost one of out tigers. This was a rare event , must have been an upgraded t34 with 85 mm cannon that shot the tank from the side at close range, the crew got out safely , no wounded " This is just 3 days but you notice what the idea is. Please stop pushing your personal "Sherman was great agenda". This is a sim about the early sherman and early version of the tiger. If you really want to i will pull out my Korean war stuff and show you how " great" your upgraded sherman was.:D Please stop pushing your "Sherman was great agenda".It was not equal and even if :The fact that it was mathematically equal means nothing .Do i actually have to tell you why ?
  3. My opinion is Shaw's book alone is worthless in multiplayer .But for example i shot down many p51s in another sim because they didn't know how to fly a combat formation.They flew so close to each other that all their attention was directed towards keeping that close formation.This is a big mistake . I also saw 2-3 and even four plane flying one if front of each other .This was a tactic used by RAF during battle of Britain .Germans didn't think much of this tactic and called it the line of idiots. Some were civilian airline pilots who didn't know anything about combat so it's understandable . About the 109 and BOB dogfights : i think the 109 was used poorly .Galland (who i think was a brilliant tactician )said to Goring that it's a mistake to use the 109 for providing close cover to the bombers.The planes needed to zig zag to bleed speed in order to stay close enough to the bombers.This "tactic " also burned a lot more fuel than what Galland proposed: To fly in front of the bombers (just like Doolitle proposed later in war).This is just my opinion on the matter . First of all as i said before it's important to me what you say now. Do you recall having the conversation ? yes or no ? Did you at any time write that Galland is a worse strategist , commander than the Head of the german state during ww2(the dictator ) ? Yes or no ? Second maybe if you have a private conversation and find out about some threat you're the kind of guy that thinks it's not polite to tell anybody about it. Depends on the content of the conversation.But don't worry i will talk to a friend of mine that's knows this stuff and see if it can be recovered and when i go to Germany to visit my relatives i'll talk to a lawyer to see what's what.
  4. I'm happy you changed your mind. I deleted the private conversation (1 september 2018) because i believed i was wasting my time after that sentence . If you still haven't deleted it You will be surprised to see it's word for word .Anyway i wanted to see your opinion now.So the issue is done for me. Look first of all i never even read he's book .I read the opinion of journalist, publication owner, who i know has interviewed multiple ww2 pilots, has a team of historians that work for him etc.Some of Galland's ideas are what i would have done .It's a personal opinion. Anyway this journalist in he's publication and i , believe Galland was a good tactician .I can go on and on and write 100 pages on tactics and such , how and why etc . Good bad is all subjective .If you listen to today's historians who are a bunch of couch potatoes eager to push their agenda than everybody they choose is incompetent . Even I can make Napoleon seem incompetent based on he's campaigns in Egipt , Russia and i think he's the best strategist ever.
  5. Because : I said Galland was a brilliant strategist , came up with Doolittle's idea of : loose fighter cove, flying in front of bomber formations . You said he basically wasn't very good at all, not based on logic .I mean you even confused Peltz with Galland (the ardennes). And i responded he's much better than Hitler.Hitler made silly decisions like me 262 as bomber. And then came your bomb : No you're wrong again "good old hitler would have won the Normandy campaign if only the me 262 was converted early into a bomber ". So i should let you write on a topic about air tactics when you write stuff like this ?
  6. .Good luck trying to fool me .You see unlike other persons i write only stuff i'm sure about. I was arguing about fighter tactics and how A Galland and Doolitle have influenced fighter tactics with a few brilliant ideas and you supported a blatantly wrong strategy just to push your agenda.
  7. Wow now i saw you on this thread. I find it amusing considering your "experience " in this domain made you say quote "good old hitler would have won the Normandy campaign if only the me 262 was converted early into a bomber ".
  8. It's the other way around a spitfire flying at 400mph has greater kinetic energy than a b17 flying at 150mph . It's m * (V square) /2 .
  9. Just to resume the last pages of this thread: My girlfriend is pretty and your girlfriend is ugly , my daddy is bigger than your daddy etc etc.
  10. Int: -How was it to fight the mustang with the 109 and fw Ta ? Pilot: -How should i say this , everybody sees things differently .The Mustang was good , a plane you shouldn't disregard , fast and maneuverable It had one big advantage compared to our planes (with the ta i din't have the occasion to fight the mustang , it's a shame because i can't compare the two ) it had very fast instantaneous turn rate , at the start of a dogfight it could turn and point it's nose almost on your 6 .Many german pilots just lost their nerves and crashed or were defeated . But if the german pilot continued to turn and drag the mustang into a sustained turn you would then you would get the mustang in this way. The more experienced pilots knew this well. int : -This with the 109 ? Pilot: - 109 and also with the 190 .The 190 had lighter controls while with the 109 you needed to have muscles because of the heavy controls . You would maneuver the 109 with 2 hand during heavy maneuvers. One vs one the munstag was not a problem (talking here only in my personal experience), but there were almost always 10 times or 20 our numbers . PS: I just posted this interview to show the german point of view. Many people dismiss gemans as nazi or wehraboo and their opinion as irrelevant and end up with one-sided opinion . I think i posted this many times but you have german pilot opions , allied pilot opinions and the truth is in the middle somewhere .If someone denies this i will not even bother to respond .
  11. As far as i remember this is the video i was talking about (262 running out of fuel) . I might be wrong .I think MiloMorai knows more. The fact is i didn't remember .But actually Galland was shot down by a p47 . Overall it's considerably more difficult for me to find accurate statistics on 262 k/d compared to tanks for example . Just as an example, I was reading a book about israeli-arab air wars .And even though you see in the book twice the same situation: pics of gun cam footage and enemy plane taking serious hits, that enemy plane returned to base. My problem is with people that spread false information .About Shermans just 3 times ("third the tigers were loaded on trains and it wasn't a fair battle") and i think you know who made the comment . Complete fabrication .Only in Ardennes According to Richard C Anderson us army lost about 900 shermans . According to Dupuy Institute Tiger losses were 16-20 . That doesn't mean there were only shermans and tigers .But if this important battle can be dismissed as "one time". Let's be serious . And there's also West Germany , Italy , North Afrika ,Normandy .I can give you more details in PM.
  12. -And that reddit post that contains emotional arguments like "wehraboo" is objective ? Let's be honest :It shows an irrational animosity . -Me262 kills / losses ratio seems very hard to determine for me. AFAIK every allied fighter or most had gun camera but all the footage i see of 262 shot down shows 262 shot while landing or there was another one posted on the forum of a 262 that ran out of fuel . -you talk about tiger fever.Here i've seen historical facts destroyed by all kind of " youtube and reddit historians " . I've seen here complete fabrications like Tiger met Us shemans in battle only 3 times. Tiger k/d ratios in major battles are at least 3 to 1 in Ardennes and as high as 10,12 to one in Nord Afrika and Russia . I can send you in PM solid evidence from dozens of solid historians and retired officers ,. PS: i only responded to this last part about tiger fever because we also have the tank in il2 and it's indirect evidence how much nonsense some people are wiling to write to push their agenda .
  13. I used the f15 example to show how irrelevant turn performance is for a good energy fighter .Nothing more. "F-15 got proper high speed control surfaces and lift surfaces, its has also 1:1+ TW ratio" That is irrelevant it will still not have a chance of defeating a spitfire in a turnfight . Or a british meteor for example . That doesn't mean it's not a better fighter than those planes .It is by far. Comparing me 262 turn performance in il2 bos vs f15 in a different sim using tacview i optained: f15 has a small but certain advantage in instantaneous turn performance. me 262 has a small but certain advantage in sustained turn performance. Also in il2 bos game i don't have a problem killing bostons , spitfires etc while flying the jet. PS: I want to congratulate the devs for creating the plane is such fine detail .This plane alone is worth the price.
  14. on one hand -I don't see why the many generations apart makes any difference to the concept.You feel ? on the other hand : I'm confirming. Either i'm setting up a straw man or i'm confirming .Which is it ?
×
×
  • Create New...