Weapons grade denial as a coping mechanism?
3 Likes
Seeing as these are still the same standards they train all US servicemen to in 2024, no.
Look at my knee, I don’t need to look with my eyes for the full duration of the door opening. Only long enough to grab the correct round. They are all labeled accordingly in three places for ease of reference.
You’d be safing the gun from moment of firing, in this case while the gun is still recoiling the safe arm would have been on its way down to allow the stub base to drop and a new round to be loaded. No need to add the .06 additional seconds and even so - they timed this almost the same exact way in 1980. There is tolerance for such error.
Bad faith from your side of the discussion (or lack thereof).
In a very relaxed setting where time was not my primary concern. Very good I’d say, even with your nonsense unnecessary time additions. Even if you think “1/16th” of a second was the only time I paused, the door still doesn’t need to open more than 1/4 the way to pull the round where I pulled it.
Bro doesn’t know how to say “I guess I was wrong”.
Instead it’s “evidence isn’t trustworthy unless I say it is”.
3 Likes
I’ve disputed your fiction with fact.
I can’t tell you how often I saw false information, incorrect data etc in the military. The whole “buddy system” for the rifle range is a great example. People in the pit will generally put up a 3 even if you missed. So yes, there is 100% some bias in every aspect.
Disputing fiction that doesn’t add up to the fact is all. And instead of having perspective, you and @MiG_23M seem to only have stubbornness and nearsightedness.
Interesting claim that DoD assessments/studies that are openly available from multiple open sources, and the current published minimum standard for performance are “stubbornness and nearsightedness”
But admitting to ignoring open source documents from actual authentic sources like DTIC.mil or an actual M1 crewmember because you don’t like the information is “perspective”
I don’t think the facts bear out your claims, but you do an admirable job of sticking to a claim even in the face of an overwhelming defeat.
6 Likes
I can’t say I’ve ever had experience with this, we’ve never done any kind of rifle qualification where someone’s word was used instead of a target sensor. Sometimes you’d even hit the target clear as day and they’d still mark it a miss because the sensor was bad.
You’re not disputing fiction, though… you just live in your own reality and that is fine because it will never have any bearing on the game. You don’t need to convince us… you need to prove your claims to Gaijin and you’ve provided absolutely nothing but conjecture not based in reality.
1 Like
“I don’t think the facts bear out your claims, but you do an admirable job of sticking to a claim even in the face of an overwhelming defeat.“
Where are the sub 5 sec reload videos then?
He’s talking specifically about the USMC rifle pits. They pull down your target and mark the hit then run it back up to show you where you hit.
I’ve never seen anyone cover for someone else’s shot placement, but I’m sure it has happened at one point or another.
You are absolutely right, it won’t as the USA players don’t know how to play their own tanks, thus they get make believe reloads that now make some top tier nations far harder to play.
So being the minority, and according to the game an “excellent player” I have clearly no say on the matter, even using facts. All because clueless people buy the top premiums and play them terribly. I don’t think I’ve seen many hull-down abrams except the ones in my squad tbh.
But if we are giving fictional reload to the USA tanks, let’s give ficitional reverse speeds to USSR tanks. It’s only fair right?
My abrams KD is higher than my T-90M, and I don’t even have an ace crew. Imagine if I did.
Of course it is make believe, they aren’t shooting real bullets. It’s a video game.
What isn’t fictional is the fact that real world Abrams crewmembers are slamming rounds downrange in 5s consistently both on documentation and video. As shown to you in the original post…
Could you go back and quote any sources for your claims or “facts”? An Abrams loader casually loading a round too slow in a random video is not indicative of true mean reload rates as shown in documentation and video.
So you’re equating a 5 second reload (shown to be real world mean reload rates in documentation and video) to the complete and total impossibility of a faster reverse speed due to gearing and RPM limitations? They didn’t even give the T-90M the upgraded transmission that was proposed for it because it was shown that it doesn’t have it.
I imagine that has something to do with you using 11.3 or lower Abrams and the T-90M being 12.0 more than anything else. Those downtiers go crazyyyy.
Ah yes because I had so many downtiers.
Most of my abrams games were 11.7, when 11.7 was top, and I had a better time fighting anything in the abrams or the Type 10 purely because if I had a semi bad shot I could follow it up almost immediately, meanwhile you play USSR, and you have a reload that is either 7.1 or 6.5 and it doesn’t get any better, (although there are many documents that dispute the T-80U/Uk/UM2/UD/Bvm have a 6.0 reload instead).
Mix in the bad reverse gear, and wow. Russia suffers compared to everyone else.
A bit random, but I see they never fixed the TOW instant reload on either Bradley that’s been a bug for years, just like the abrams lower plate not spalling 50% of the time being another bug they haven’t fixed.
I mean you even admitted he did it in sub 5 seconds 🤷🏻♂️
Irony.
5 Likes
I don’t know what you’re asking for at this point, seems like you just wanna nerf the American stuff and if that is the case you should start doing poorly in them and let these Russian players kill you often or something.
That would do the opposite. And asking for balance isn’t hard.
Did I? Really? Where? Because I asked him to do it again with the door closed. Ideal conditions ≠ combat conditions I don’t know how many time I have to say it. Or are you just this dense?
Asking for it and creating it are two different things. In my experience you could give the American players a T-90M and they would lose 10/10 times to a Russian main in a T-90M. How is that balanced?
But there is no need to do so? It was explained quite well in the initial post and every complaint you’ve made since about it is just a cope.
1 Like
The quotes are from this very thread, are you denying that you made either of those posts?
3 Likes
Lmao. I’m glad you agree the USA mains are terrible. But a pebble will hit the T-90m in game and it’ll explode I swear.
It’s not coping. I just have to repeat myself since you don’t listen 🤣
Clearly you missed “with the blast doors open”
So if it’s open, and you have a 5.2 sec combat load (which would be fair in game), if the ammo is struck, the whole tank is gone.
Or, you have a usable blowout panel, “suffer” with a 5.8 (ace) or 6.0 (expert) crew reload. THAT is lenient.
Because if we are going off of more realistic values, it’s 4.77+0.06+1.0~1.2= 5.83~6.03
That’s a lot of words to try and deflect attention from the fact you confirmed his sub 5 second time
Good luck with your “perspective” argument 🤣
2 Likes
I am constantly one shot in my T-90 series tanks, the only tanks that I cannot consistently one shot are the Abrams or Leopards. This is consistent with their design philosophy and somehow they still fail to perform well enough to counter the Russian tanks. Why?
That’s extremely ironic
Consistently ignoring that it was a 5s reload simulated with a closed blast door
Crazy irony going on with his lack thereof a rebuttal
3 Likes