Lets talk about the state of Germany

Machinery of War Discussion
1301

I’ll still take your statement that it performs worse than a 30G missile with a grain of salt until I test it personally.

This is you claiming Pantsir’s missile performs worse.

Clearly you do believe in VT-1 performing better, somehow.

You demanded that I cannot make inquiries, which is anti-science, information suppression.

How? Being anti-science means rejecting any sort of actual evidence, but you haven’t got ANY to begin with apart from “I tested it close to a year ago”.

A demand that I stay lacking knowledge while you make claims on VT-1 without evidence.

One major difference… I’ve owned a VT-1 carrier since 2020, I clearly do posses both theoretical AND pratical knowledge on how it performs, I’ve seen it go from the best missile in the game, to the worst, and then to decent.

I never demanded anything of you either, you’re answering criticism with unfounded criticism (that you made up on the spot), thus, logical fallacy.

You never explained the scientific method to me because no one on the forums has, I’ve explained it to a few people since I’m a scientist, but that’s about it.

Congrats on strawmanning… wanna just admit you’ve absolutely no idea what you’re talking about? Because this is getting stale with how much you’re stalling, and pretending to know anything when you clearly don’t. You’re theory crafting as @PigtailedSlime told you already, but you reject the idea under the notion that it’s impossible for you to be wrong, that is actual anti-science :p

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired as well, seeing as you thought I was quoting myself, whilst I was quoting you…

5 Likes
1302

No, that’s me doubting the specific claim that “VT-1 is worse than Pantsir’s missile.” That’s it, there’s no counter-claim in my statement.
Just cause you posted that VT-1 is superior doesn’t mean I did.
I haven’t made any claims thus have nothing to provide, and you nor anyone can force me to make a claim.

Me: “All information is capable of being incorrect, especially in software that’s ever-changing. It’s anti-science to consider information as permanent, and/or always correct.”
You: “It’s anti-science to believe information can never be wrong.” a statement in full agrement with what I said in the past, and re-iterating here now.

You’ve never quoted me in this conversation BTW outside the direct replies.

1303

Because it actually is? You didn’t even take notice of me stating that I was not comparing the missiles themselves explicity, that is something you did in a reply to me…

Just cause you posted that VT-1 is superior doesn’t mean I did.

Strawman.

Me: “All information is capable of being incorrect, especially in software that’s ever-changing. It’s anti-science to consider information as permanent.”
You: “It’s anti-science to believe information can never be wrong.” a statement in full agrement with what I said.

Now you’re putting words in my mouth. You’re so disingenous that it’s actually funny lmao. Not that you ever said anything like that to begin with, so just stop making things up on the spot.

You’ve never quoted me in this conversation BTW outside the direct replies.

I’m quoting you right now, this specific function of the forum is labelled as “blockquote”… but you never use it so you wouldn’t know.

1 Like
1304

I didn’t put any words in your mouth. Are you changing your position because you agree with me so that you can disagree? That’d be a contrarian act, and the first example on this forum if indeed you’re forcing yourself to disagree with my statements that we obviously agreed on prior.
Namely the agreement that we both stated that information isn’t always correct.

How many times do I have to tell you I’m not your enemy?
Sincerity & honesty is not disingenuous, and to claim as such is provocative as well as incorrect.

And yes, I too said you were using backquote which is in the quote you did. “the direct replies.” = using the backquote system.

Also here is you posting VT-1 being superior:

You are the only one in this entire thread to post those statements.
In-fact, the first person to bring up 50G was ueberman, which didn’t make those statements.

1306

Since no one has ever said “VT-1 is superior to Pantsir’s missile” around me, and you’re the first person to bring it up, how do you expect me to interpret it?
To me, it’s you quoting yourself form a previous time because I’ve never come across that argument after the physics changes to the rest of the missiles.

The fact you’re insulting thousands of players as being nobodies isn’t healthy either.
Do you go out of your way to bully honest people that don’t speak on subjects they don’t understand? Or is this a convenience thing?

There’s no reason to insult people, to belittle them, especially when they’re curious & seeking correct information.

1307

A blind man with a walking stick can see that shadow was being sarcastic about the VT1 being better then the pantsir missles

5 Likes
1308

Then why bring it up to begin with?
Dude responded to my curiosity about the VT-1’s changes with hostility & weird stuff like that…

1309

LOL in which field?

1310

Thats because you constantly label yourself as a kind of pro player know it all, you speak of skills etc that the average player simple doesnt have and the games needs to be more balanced to the average. It is the same for your mig29 opinion, the weight difference is so small the average player cant use it, but your continued saying how op it is. Pantsir vs VT-1, the Pantsir for the average player is simply better the radar+cannons give simply more protection combined then any other SPAA. 2S38 vs otomatic vs Hsvtl. The 2S38 is a huge problem with its combination of SPAA capabilities lws, unmanned turret and so on. Ka-50 vikhers vs apaches etc . Vikhers being able to counther SPAA missles while hellfire targeting/approach is broken. You have so many opinions because of your know it all ,i am pro player attitude that you completly forget the perspective of the average mass of the game. Thats why most people dont like you either, because you constantly play yourself up that you know it better then everyone else, while a bigger part of the community shares their opinion on the matter and you just completly stamp it as wrong

3 Likes
1311

No, I’ve never once in my life claimed to be “pro”; nor have I ever claimed to “know it all”.
To reiterate my statements: I am not a pro; while I’ve been an information broker in my past, and love to collect information, I cannot ever know it all about anything as I am man.
I will repeat correct information compiled by others added to my collection until an update ruins that information.
I’ve cited people more skilled than I as well as people with more knowledge on many subjects than I.

I never once claimed Mig-29 was OP. Nor did I claim the weight difference was significant.

Pantsir vs VT-1 I’ve shared no opinion on at this time.

2S38 being multi-role is no different to M1A2 being multi-role. M1A2 isn’t a 12.0 just cause it can fire a fused round while other 11.7s cannot.

And Ka-50 doesn’t have the observation & optic equipment of Apaches, this fact doesn’t change just cause there’s a faster longer-range TOW 2 with a proxy fuse attached to the Ka-50.

I have few opinions, there are ten-thousands of aspects in this game. I physically cannot address them all, let alone half. Most of my statements are from others, or just general statements of fact I’ve come across.
And as I stated previously I do not have the attitude you claim.
I in-fact read & listen to everyones’ perspectives, and take into account multiple perspectives constantly.

The fact you seem to have thought anyone can know it all is an insult, no one can know it all.

Apologies that you ended up with entirely incorrect information about me.

1312

Screenshot_20231108-020654_(1)
Screenshot_20231108-020654_(1)1080×1468 134 KB

This seemingly pretty official brochure seems to imply that the bagel had no AP ammo for its main gun and its only anti tank armanent was the atgm launcher. With its prinary roll being as an SPAA.

Ive also found info stating that the l60 shells are incompatible with the l70 on the bagel due to the l60 shells being precussion primers and l70 shells being electronic primers.

This would imply that the bagel in game would need to have its ap shells removed.

There is also sadly AFAIK no such thing as the mythical bofors 57mm APFSDS.

3 Likes
1313

I’m getting the rope

1 Like
1314

Obviously i wouldnt dare bug report it. And obviously gaijin wouldnt go and do such a thing. (Hopefully)

1315

but where dose it imply that it dosnt have an AP round?

nvm mind i read the text below now XD

1316

This weapon mix makes it possible to engage all targets on the battlefield. In reference to the sentence prior where it mentions the 57mm anti air gun and anti tank launcher.

And that combined with all the other info ive found on the bofors 57 variants and their ammo all seem to state that no AP ammo was made for the l70. As it is a ship cannon.

1317

no it says shhip gun as its a dual use gun on ships

also i found this (yeea from wiki i will look more into it
The baseline version of the new gun, later known as the Mark 1, used a cartridge with the same case-length as the cartridge on the 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60 (57 mm x 438 mm) but with a new shape and propellant, giving it an increased velocity of 1,025 m/s (3,360 ft/s), compared to 890 m/s (2,900 ft/s) on the L/60 cartridge.

1318

Ok so it looks like the only the primer is changed and they run a hotter load.
The case “stays” the same aswell as the round so its all good

1319

Which is where the incompatitbility comes in. Not to mention in the site you linked to it states that the navy was not happy with the m50c l60 as it still owed its origin to the ground based l60.

And dual use ship cannon means for baval and air targets as stated in the brochures for the bofors 57 l70. Not naval and ground.

1320

delete

1321

40mm? Not 57mm?

1 Like