Just searching “Объект 279” in Google and the top 3 results will mention 5 to 7, those results being Wikipedia (Russian Wikipedia makes no mention, English Wikipedia says 5-7 RPM), “pakpatriot.ru”, which says 5-7 RPM, and “armedman.ru”, which says “up to 7 rounds per minute”.
So multiple sources state 5-7 or just 7 RPM. On top of that, of your multiple sources, you’ve only shown Wargaming, which is perhaps the least important source out of them all.
As stated, you very clearly used the website I mentioned for information, yet also disregard that same website when it states an RPM of 6 to 7 RPM. By definition that is cherry picking.
Sure, never said that couldn’t be the case. My whole argument is about real life characteristics, and not how it behaves in-game. Zephoid said the Object 279 does not have any autoloader or semi-autoloader, I disagreed and provided proof. And now, my whole argument is that the Object 279 in real life did have an RPM from 5 to 7 seconds.
Again, that the Object 279 should or could have a slower reload rate for balancing purposes is an argument that I have not made nor will enter. I am purely talking about real life characteristics.
And here you’ve shown to completely not understand what I said.
Different nations use different methods to determine the penetration of their rounds. For example, lets just look at the methods that the US used.
US penetration criterion
Each one of these criterion will give different penetration values with the same exact projectile, in the exact same conditions, yet each and every single one had its own completely valid definition for “complete penetration”. And the Russians have their own methods and “criterion” for determining if a round goes through or not.
WarThunder pen values are roughly “Navy criterion” when it comes to performance. What I mean by this is that a projectile with 100 mm of penetration at a given distance will have a 50% chance of going through a 100 mm thick flat armor plate at said specific distance.
One cannot take values from one penetration criteria and simply copy the penetration to a system that uses a completely different penetration criteria. That is the problem with the source you’ve given, precisely that it is Russian documentation that uses Russian methodology which would not correspond to other testing methodology.
One of the easiest examples of rounds that overperform with the current calculator are US APCBC-HE rounds. They all overperform, from the 75 mm M61 to the 90 mm M82.
You also said, and I quote:
But you can keep defending this nonsense.
It just goes to show russian bias does exist and some people will go to extreme lengths to defend it before they admit their is a problem.
As if I have been defending the performance of the Object 279 in the game to begin with. That is a misinterpretation on your end, because I have not. In fact, I do think it should be 9.0. My only problem is when people misrepresent or outright spread misinformation on real life characteristics of a vehicle.
Excuse me?
My most played vehicles are American. My favorite vehicles are all American. I have more total games in US vehicles that any other nation. I have played Russian vehicles but I consider myself most definitely a US main. Hell, every single topic I’ve made in this forum and the old forum except one is about a US vehicle in one way or another.
What a sad attempt to deflect the argument. Not to mention that it is completely off-topic.
