Weird of you to claim USA is “Russia” just cause I defend USA.
You claim others defend Russia when they’re defending Sweden or USA, then you defend the Soviets in War Thunder claiming they’re the best.
Choose one:
- Deflects from Russia to the US
- Says he “defends” the US when nobody mentioned them, apart from him of course
The mental gymnastics you can pull off at a moment’s notice are simply the best. Haven’t seen ones like that since old forum’s aja318.
You claim others defend Russia when they’re defending Sweden or USA, then you defend the Soviets in War Thunder claiming they’re the best.
“Here’s how I can win this argument even though I have no logical counterpoints and can only strawman”.
Ah, thanks for quoting yourself here:
Makes it easy for me to understand your perspective.
I’ve defended Germany, USA, Sweden, et cetera on this forum. You know this, most others know this.
And you don’t know what mental gymnastics means, otherwise you wouldn’t be claiming those that defend USA are “defending Russia”.
“USA shot down a Chinese balloon using an F-22.”
“Stop defending China.”
“American equipment is superior to Russian equipment.”
“Stop defending Russia.”
Only on the forums have I ever been accused of defending a nation that I am criticizing.
Andd this is pot calling kettle black.
I’ve defended Germany, USA, Sweden, et cetera on this forum. You know this, most others know this.
Have never seen you do that, so pipe down.
And you don’t know what mental gymnastics means, otherwise you wouldn’t be claiming those that defend USA are “defending Russia”.
Why did you change the goalpost from Russia to the US then?
I’ve seen you make a clown out yourself many times over, last time you even tried telling me MBT-2Ks turret is as bad as 2A4s, when I asked for proof of it you wind up and left, you have no legitimacy.
My post wasn’t even “hurr durr Russia OP”, all I did was explain why Russia is performing as good as they are - you come in, deflect from Russia to US FOR NO REASON WHAT’SO’EVER, and when I call you out on your stupidity you resort to saying I’m doing the same… coolio.
The first one clearely shows that it was knocked out by a mine, it literally show 0 secondary damage that could be from a kinetic round impact, no fire, no fuel leakage clearely no detonation, all the damage that can be seen is from a mine or an explosion form below the front drive weel, the second one look like it was abandoned, but since the image is so close it is unclear if it sustain any damage aside form that hole, so it is also unclear that was abandoned by the that impact or if the shot actaully went trough at all, again it shows, and the tird one doesnt show much fire or heat damage coming from the hole, but it could have been destroyed by that impact, but it could also been destroyed by a a lot of other things aside from that. unless there is a clear image of the hole it is impossible to claim or disclaim that it was destroyed by that shot.
Besides it doesnt help that all the pictures are taken form an angle that dont show to actual penetration
Ah, this is what’s known as a gaslight attempt.
You made the thread where I defended Germany non-stop, with me stating that Germany should receive KF platform prototypes.
I didn’t move goalposts; I challenged your reasoning by providing you an objectively superior nation in War Thunder to compare to.
I never said MBT-2000’s turret was bad. I said that it has similar weak spots to L2A4’s turret which is accurate. Breech size is about the same, and turret ring is non-existent.
@Crazed_Otter
I see you’re pushing disinformation again.
1- I’ve never made nor will ever make hot claims.
2- I never start arguments.
3- I’ve never once flagged anyone because of a rule-following post they’ve made.
Thanks for telling us you’re capped at 3 flags a day. IDK what my cap is but it’s significantly higher than yours.
4- I do not know every subject as you & @FurinaBestArchon claim.
Not sure why you two claim I know everything when that’s impossible.
Could you please share some examples of your criticism? I havent seen you say a single word against russian tanks.I dont have any intentions of arguing with you.
You’re always free to provide an example.
You made the thread where I defended Germany non-stop, with me stating that Germany should receive KF platform prototypes.
Weird:
I didn’t move goalposts; I challenged your reasoning by providing you an objectively superior nation in War Thunder to compare to.
Why did you deflect from my explanation on Russia to the US? There was no challange, it was textbook goalposting.
I never said MBT-2000’s turret was bad. I said that it has similar weak spots to L2A4’s turret which is accurate.
Still waiting on you to prove it:
I dunno mate, seems to me like you really go OUT OF YOUR WAY to defend Russia. I’ve never, literally never seen you say a single bad word on them, and whenever someones does make a valid point - you 99% of the time deflect from it, strawman it, whatever it is you do, just to make sure the topic goes away from Russia.
You’ve angered him!
I am well aware your question is sincere, good sir.
1- T-80BVM shares the same exact turret as T-80B from 10.3, making its hull the primary buff to its armor.
Its turret thus has weakspots at least as big as M1A1 HC’s turret. Only has gunner thermals, and its round is equivalent to L27A1 & OFL F1. It’s exclusively carried by people shooting its hull, and if players ever start shooting its turret or idler wheels more consistently then T-80BVM becomes worse than the 11.3s that have stronger turrets but slightly weaker hulls, and worse rounds in the case of T-80U.
2- Su-25T is slow for top BR battles, and requires clear skies and no SPAA on the ground. It can’t do stand-off. Mig-29SMT is the F-16A of Soviet CAS finally catching up to most tech trees. Gripen will have Sweden catch up to tech trees as well.
Will have to stop here since this thread is moving too fast. I can give more examples later.
@FurinaBestArchon
No, moving the goalpost would be switching from win rate to KDR in my own argumentation.
Nations aren’t the goal, win rate was the goal used by you, so I used your own goal and supplied you a nation that doesn’t match your own goal.
You’ve never seen me say anything good about Russia. Good =/= bad.
You’ve seen me exclusively criticize Russian equipment.
@Crazed_Otter
You claim “NATO mains” are provoking people, which is inherently a provocative statement of yours to make.
I think you forgot about ERA.Those ERA panels are enough to stop any rounds. That’s why people dont want to shoot at the turret.It’s better to shoot at hull and hope that it does some damage.
1 Like
But thank you for sharing some examples
I treat ERA as M1A2 turret armor that disappears after being hit.
After its gone on say T-80BVM’s turret, its turret is hilariously bad for top BRs, granted Ariete’s entire tank is similar.
Attach K5 to Ariete’s turret and it’s essentially a T-80BVM’s turret.
1 Like
Lmao.
ERA panels are quite small.Usually only one panel breaks after a shot and it’s quite hard to hit the same spot again.
I think ERAs are currently over performing in game.In real life ERAs aren’t as effective as in war thunder.
1 Like
Composite armor can disappear?
this also shows in bombs
No, that’s just a comparison I make since M1A2’s turret cheeks are strong.
Russian bombs use KG not pounds.1000lb isn’t same as 1000kg
1000 lb is about 500kg