I love how you most likely didn’t read all the arguments that were provided, and all the counter sources provided against the brochure
Very interesting argumentation, to say the least
1 Like
Oh he read them. He just literally doesnt have anything besides that brochure, because there isnt anything. Ive had this same conversation too many times on here already and no one could provide anythting that would be considered even remotely a source for any other tech tree.
1 Like
If you read those arguments you should know the MT is not an issue for WT whatsoever.
We know it existed, it was tested and offered to the RF but declined.
Much more sources than the agm179 tri mode seekers
Maybe.
Show from where we know that. Because 8500 replies in the main thread couldnt prove that.
3 Likes
That document is from a test report on the missle lmao for the export offering …
Really embarassing
No its not lmao its a brochure from an airshow not a test report
And btw still waiting on debunking all the other things.
1 Like
I am pretty damn sure, the bloody BROCHUUUUREEEEES, are inelligeble as a primary source, via gaijins policy, xrom explained it somewhere around here, i don’t know why we are beating this dead horse, brochures are not the greatest of sources, i feel like its common sense, oh well…
2 Likes
Well according to the thread were in they are fair game now.
1 Like
Too bad it is not from the manufacturer, unlike the 2a7 and kh38mt one.
This brochure is an official information poster issued by the Ministry of Defence of Hungary (Honvédelmi Minisztérium) in cooperation with the HM Zrínyi Military Media Center.
What an interesting method of picking and choosing ones sources.
3 Likes
Especially considering that this is the only source specifically mentioning the 2A7HU and not just generically the 2A7. Should be a better source then according to the last denied reports.
Being from the manufacturer is a pretty big plus, also the 2a7/8 one is probavly extremely correct while this one is clearly hallucinating.
Like i sad the 2a7 issue is probably what actual limits are modelled in game vs wrong information outright.
I would love to see the meltdown if gaijin implements FCS aiming speed instead of stabilizer speeds or the actual IIR seekers of HAMMERS and Kh38.
Ah so you must have a manufacturer source regarding the 2A7HU that disproves that hungarian source, right?
2 Likes
This, it really does feel like you are the biased one, towards redfor in this regard, my friend
so a brochure that buffs a 2a7hu is incorrect, while being from the defence ministry of the country that procures the damn thing, but the brochure about 2a8 that was debunked to be wrong, with old information on 2a7+ and 2a7NO, and all the talking about spectus placement somehow isn’t ?
I don’t wanna point fingers here, but i feel some bias in these statements
2 Likes
I love how everyone of tou just ignored the actual argument that FCS and stab limitations are implemented in a inconsistent way and you should focus on this instead of making up fantasy about sights or brochures.
Probavly the 2a5 and onwards have the same limitations but noone bithered to write that 9n the brochures.
Find a KMW brochure that says the same if that’s actual info shouldn’t be too difficoult no?
Who did i even write this for ?
Yeah, nah, you are the last person i will be talking to in this thread from this moment onwards
2 Likes
I am talking about the 72km/h brochure.
You’re just ignoring the stab limitations lmao and my whole argument, btw.
At least you guys stopped regurgitanting the night sight fanatssy and started crying russian bias. For me, that’s a win.
Mods should still be more liberal with the ban hammer.
Getting back to the stab limit, someone unenployed should get into this and expose the actual stab limits of modern tanks and bug report those. It would be funny.
I know russian tanks should lose a degree or 2, and the same for the abrams, but i am not certain.
Yeah, i agree, with how little argumentation and sources were provided, you shouldn’t be a part of this discussion, i didn’t say a word about russian bias btw, all i said is you are a redfor biased(you are claiming we are bluefoids, no ?)
You yourself seemingly can’t read or comprehend the information provided in this thread, the 72kmph brochure is literally taken from the ministry of defence of hungary, if that isn’t a valuable source, well…
2 Likes