Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
chebuRUSHka

How not to post in Mechanized Warfare

Recommended Posts

On 26.2.2017 at 3:13 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Why is that? 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.de/2013/02/accuracy.html

http://tankarchives.blogspot.de/2013/05/accuracy-revisited.html

First he begins with a strawman argument in order to make everyone with a different opinion look like a clueless fan boy. Then he shows some documents, like all slavaboos do, in order to demonstrate his intellectual superiority. Too bad he doesn't know Germans used the 50% criterion, where as Soviet union used standard deviation or срединные отклонение. He lacks the formal education to understand his sources, but he talks down on people who don't share his opinion. It's really pathetic.

img38.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, chebuRUSHka said:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.de/2013/02/accuracy.html

http://tankarchives.blogspot.de/2013/05/accuracy-revisited.html

First he begins with a strawman argument in order to make everyone with a different opinion look like a clueless fan boy. Then he shows some documents, like all slavaboos do, in order to demonstrate his intellectual superiority. Too bad he doesn't know Germans used the 50% criterion, where as Soviet union used standard deviation or срединные отклонение. He lacks the formal education to understand his sources, but he talks down on people who don't share his opinion. It's really pathetic.

img38.gif

 

 

 

Something is pathetic around here, but I don't think it's Archive Awareness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please continue, I will compile your complaints and mail them to my alma mater, clearly my engineering education is insufficient to understand ballistics and probability and should have its accreditation revoked.

The theoretical deviation calculations are backed by practical trials. Somehow all the "but the criterion is different!" crowds conveniently ignore those, even without the token "all Soviet trials are rigged" flailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Please continue, I will compile your complaints and mail them to my alma mater, clearly my engineering education is insufficient to understand ballistics and probability and should have its accreditation revoked.

The theoretical deviation calculations are backed by practical trials. Somehow all the "but the criterion is different!" crowds conveniently ignore those, even without the token "all Soviet trials are rigged" flailing.

Your history education is insufficient. You don't understand your sources and you work with false premises.

img39.gif

This is backed by "practical trials" and shows you are wrong.

Quote

American reviews of Soviet optics call them "the best of those known worldwide". Blind devotion to mythical Zeiss quality is not based on any actual historical evidence.

:lol:A blog based on hearsay and anecdotes. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chebuRUSHka said:

Your history education is insufficient. You don't understand your sources and you work with false premises.

img39.gif

This is backed by "practical trials" and shows you are wrong.

:lol:A blog based on hearsay and anecdotes. :lol:

Hearsay that's a direct quote from the American T-34 test? Anecdotes with archive references? Everything I write is sourced. Nothing you write is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EnsignExpendable said:

Hearsay that's a direct quote from the American T-34 test? Anecdotes with archive references? Everything I write is sourced. Nothing you write is. 

Come on now EE, you can't just dismiss my evidence that both of you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Hearsay that's a direct quote from the American T-34 test? Anecdotes with archive references? Everything I write is sourced. Nothing you write is. 

Actually you didn't provide anything but the report's name. Too bad quoting an unsubstantiated report doesn't prove anything and satisfies the definition of hearsay. You really don't know how to handle historical data.

Btw the German WW2 optics which are considered to be the best, were not built by Zeiss. You really know nothing about this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chebuRUSHka said:

Actually you didn't provide anything but the report's name. Too bad quoting an unsubstantiated report doesn't prove anything and satisfie the definition of hearsay. You really don't know how to handle historical data.

Btw the German WW2 optics, which are considered to be the best, were not built by Zeiss. You really know nothing about this topic.

I was under the opinion that anyone even remotely interested in WWII armoured warfare was intimately familiar with that report. "Zeiss optics" is like "Kruppstahl", almost a meme in military history circles. My apologies for using specialist jargon on my extremely narrowly specialized blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Are you sure?

Yes, I am.

The TWZ-1 is not considered to be the best, so wasn't talking about that one.

The ones that are usally mentioned as the best sights of ww2 are the TZF9 and maybe 12. Leitz was the main producer of these sights, Zeiss was mostly restricted to license production, although they provided a thermal imager for the TZF12 called WPG-Z. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chebuRUSHka said:

Yes, I am.

The TWZ-1 is not considered to be the best, so wasn't talking about that one.

The ones that are usally mentioned as the best sights of ww2 are the TZF9 and maybe 12. Leitz was the main producer of these sights, Zeiss was mostly restricted to license production, although they provided a thermal imager for the TZF12 called WPG-Z. 

 

You're shifting the goalposts.  At first you were saying that the T-34 could not have the best optics, because the best optics were German and they were not produced by Zeiss.

Now, having been shown evidence that some German gunsights were Zeiss-made, you're saying that the ones considered to be the best were not Zeiss-made.

Your examples of the TZF 9 and TZF 12 gunsights are irrelevant.  The tanks were shipped to the US in 1942, before the allies had captured any tanks that would have the TZF 9, and before the TZF 12 was even introduced into service!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

You're shifting the goalposts.  At first you were saying that the T-34 could not have the best optics, because the best optics were German and they were not produced by Zeiss.

Now, having been shown evidence that some German gunsights were Zeiss-made, you're saying that the ones considered to be the best were not Zeiss-made.

That's not what i said.

I never inplied there is logical link between the fact, that T34 optics were not the best and the fact that Zeiss did not build all German ww2 optics.

 

Quote


Your examples of the TZF 9 and TZF 12 gunsights are irrelevant.  The tanks were shipped to the US in 1942, before the allies had captured any tanks that would have the TZF 9, and before the TZF 12 was even introduced into service!

My example is not irrelevant. The anectode about about one American saying  T-34 optics were  "the best of those known worldwide" is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Peasant
      > A6M Zero
      > Yamato
       
      Oh.
       
      Zeroes main issues in combat had a lot more to do with situation, pilot training, flying culture of IJN air arm, and technological issues. In reality, the Zero could fight toe to toe with an F6F.
       
      Technological is radio issue, leading to difficulty co-ordinating battles.
      It might not help the Japanese used a lot of hand signals in dogfights, so when the Americans increased the battle area by going faster and higher, they ran into serious issues.
      Stuff like splitting up Japanese fighter groups was much easier than it's American counterpart.
      Also being handicapped by weak engine tech.
       
       
      Yamato best BB ever built.
×
×
  • Create New...