But are they actually more frequent, or do people just think they’re more frequent? You still haven’t answered my question about how you treat different bounces.
This is also true if you say a claim and substantiate it with evidence.
It’s still you that said the thing.
This is unrelated to the thing we’re discussing above.
Totaly irrelevant example people used to beleive flat earth on that period too …
This question can work vice versa too …do you keep tracking all these data to be so sure that there isnt russian bias? I think that both we dont, so the only available data that someone can have is the one that it is available on media and forums and his personal experiance of what he has noticed that is abnormal
‘‘its my personal opinion’’
What is so hard t o understand …? ( pls you are waisting my time again…)
Some people still believe flat earth is a thing. WT has their own conspiracy theorists, those who believe in bias lol.
People that claim bias is real should present objective evidence, so far they haven’t done that.
1 Like
Yes that’s literally my point, just because a majority of people talk/believe something does not make it true.
Please answer my question first. But no, I do not either. But that does not matter, because I am not denying the existence of Russian bias as a whole, I am denying that your conclusion that there is some bonus survivability stat that Russian tanks have based off of anecdotes and youtube videos is correct. I am pointing out that your data and analysis are deeply, deeply flawed, and therefore your conclusion cannot be correct. The burden of proof to present data is on you, not me.
To put it into perspective, if I told you right now that I was a millionaire, but didn’t show you any proof, does that mean it’s true? You can’t prove that I am not one, since we’re talking anonymously on an internet forum, so does that mean I must be a millionaire? You don’t have data on my earnings or identity, so clearly I must be one.
Also, I forgot to address this point, but you are correct in saying that most of the time the only available data one can access is limited. But that is why we call those opinions, not facts. You are allowed to have your opinion based on those, but to present it as objective fact with clearly bad data/evidence is wrong. There is a reason things like medical studies aren’t just based on what the doctor thinks, but actual randomized testing.
i think i answered but i ll try again. To prove the bonus survivability that Russian tanks have as i claim or the opposite as you do, we both need numbers as solid evidence to prove our points but that is rather impossible . My opinion is that since its impossible to provide such data by numbers the only closest thing to numbers is majority factor , thats why im focusing on the majority on media and forums that players complain about russian bias. And for multiple time i say again the obvious …its my personal opinion based by what i experience in the game while playing it many many years too.
I am curious to see your ""burden of proof “” by saying "I am not denying the existence of Russian bias as a whole " i suppose you keep some concrete proofs about it …
for what exactly are you refering, the majority on the media that i said or the incidents i am presenting?
Like the concrete evidence you presented by your personal experience with the panther that you have shot ?..lol
Just a proof bugs exists on vehicles that aren’t Russian.
At an Art of War Symposium which took place at Carlisle
Barracks, Pennsylvania from 26 to 30 March 1984, General Lingenthal described
his regiments first contact with the T-34.
“By chance our regiment met on the second day of the
Russian war the first regiment of T-34s that had been in the Russian Army; and
we, of course, had no knowledge at all of this tank; and, in the first phase of
this battle, my tank was shot; and my driver was killed. Four tanks were in our
group, and they all suffered the same fate. … We had further fighting in the
morning and in the afternoon, and then we finally burned some of these tanks by
using 76mm high explosive shells with delay fuses (one-fourth second). So
because they had all tanks with fuel on the rear we could make them burn. Then,
of course, when we approached the wrecks I remember very well that we saw what
terrible strength of armor they had, and we were very impressed. I can tell you
we reported this immediately to higher echelons, but I do not know how they
distributed this information to other divisions.”
xD
I did a hit simulation to the ammorack of the Somua - Tiger ii H , Fiat 6614 - Tiger ii sla.16 and Centurion X - Su 152 incidents that we presented before. On all of them there was NOT an ammorack explosion, I guess because of the not explosive type of ammo they were hit .
See bellow
Somua - Tiger II (H) : No ammorack explosion
Fiat 6614 - Tiger II (sla.16) : No ammorack explosion (turet and side ammorack)
Centurion X - Su152 : No ammorack explosion
** BUT !! **
Hit simulation on BT-5 and KV-1 ammoracks shows that definetely they should have been exploded because they both hit with explosive shells
See below again
ΒΤ5 -Panzer IV G : Ammorack explosion
Kv-2 L-11 - Sherman 1 Composito : Ammorack explosion
So for multiple time you are WRONG !!!
Or because hit analysis doesn’t model internal ammo/fuel explosions ? Those explosions you see are not from ammo cooking off, it’s just from the APHE itself. You don’t need HE filler for internal ammo to explode, not knowing this is actually amazing.
you have right but i think that an ammorack being hit with an explosive shell and especially a direct hit the odds of not exploding are rather zero or at least should be rather zero.
Some tank have a wet ammo rack, doused in oil iirc(could be wrong so if anyone know please correct), so they have a high chance of not blowing up when being hit. Plus gaijin spaghetti code that chance is even higher
In my opinion if a shell blacks out it should explode, not just disappear. Explosion from APHE should make it go black easier, but when it reaches that status it should explode regardless.