Israeli mains already gave up after creating countless bug reports just for them being rejected instantly and no Mods to reply to their posts, US still have a hope to get a better tank not just a copy-paste Abrams with a weaker turret ring, but otherwise this is my opinion about noticing only Russian barrels to be hard to disable, i can give proof of my claims but its going to take me hours to bring the exact replay.
it does happen on russian tanks, its just that their crew are mounted so far forward compared to the breech that the extra spalling doesnt hurt them
I cant recreate this on the abrams though, their breech is too big, american bias confirmed?
this is 100% confirmation bias
1 Like
You shot directly at the cannon, try shooting directly at the armor next to the cannon and you will see, in other words, stop falsifying results.
im pretty sure the original poster was shooting through the barrel, which is what I did, Im not falsifying results, im just trying to repeat what he did
1 Like
“Burden of proof” You’re the one who said he’s lying. Prove yourself or go back to reddit with yiur weak rhetoric skills.
not much point in the second guy providing proof to dispute a claim that the first guy hasnt given proof for.
we assume everything is equal, so the guy who says that russian barrels are harder to damage needs to provide proof of that first
1 Like
both parties need to proof the claim if you look it like that
Claiming something is, has the same ammount of burden of proof, than claming something isn’t
This is not how it works.
The burden of proof lies with the party making a claim
2 Likes
and claiming that there is no difference, is still a claim.
This is how logic works.
There is always an exact opposite statement to a statement. And both are statements you can proof or disproof, proofing the one, or the other.
Kinda important in mathematics, that disproving the opposite statement, proves the statement.
tldr
Both parties in such arguments make claims.
One that it is a certain thing or whatever, and the other opposes, and with that claims it isn’t.
Nope
This is literally not how it works.
Nope.
This is you with your logic:
-the sky is pink
-no, it is not, stop lying
-give me proof that sky is not pink!
3 Likes
then you aren’t partaking in the argument, since you have no opinion.
Did you study logic or mathematics to know that?
I am using the standard formal system of logic with set theory from Cantor and Zermelo Fraenkel, though that is more applied than we need to.
So just the bases of logic/mathematical proofs.
and by you saying, stop lying, you claim, that this is a lie and therefore not true.
And that is basically how you have defined the opposite of a statement.
Like the sky either is pink, or it isn’t.
(formalities apply in definitions)
So one party claims that the skye is pink.
The other claims that it isn’t pink.
Both parties now (like in science) need to look for evidence, supporting their theory (a theory without evidence, is just a theory and can’t be decided if true or not).
Now you can collect the evidence (simply by looking at the skye for example) and you gathered that it isn’t pink, case closed.
I know people/trolls abuse parts of it, to shift the burden of proof to others, when in fact, all parties involved have the burden of proof in such an argument, where different theories clash.
Especially with commonly accepted knowlege.
Also the thing with unproovable things, and also the social implication of using for example this as a diversion tactic and other logical fallacies, manipulating people.
Done right you for example need to look at the different theories of gravity, like MOND vs the lambdaCDM model, that try to correct the theory of gravity to include things we currently cant.
Both parties are researching, and trying to find evidence, what model is closer to reality.
I think more nuance is needed, esp with someone claiming that a commonly accepted theory is wrong.
But in science, which is the closest (by design) to the objective truth, you need evidence for every statement. Including the opposite statement, if needed.
Edit:
to make it more fitting for War Thunder:
To make or change any significant value, of an engine, munition or whatever in game, you need sources (evidence). But not only for changing numbers, but also for implementing them in the first place, otherwise you could just put unproovable/undeniable numbers in, and you can fabricate your own reality, that has nothing to to with real life.
Nope.
Burden of proof lies with the party making a claim.
You post a claim - you post a proof for it. Simple as.
You don’t post a claim and ten ask for others to disprove it.
This is not something to debate.
2 Likes
yes it was shooting straight through the barrel, and not the armor around it
its not that it destorys the cannon and barrel but that Only on the Leo 2s ive noticed that it creates extra spall within the tank, one shotting the crew
whilst on other tanks like the abrams no such thing happens