FaustianQ

I dunno, not particularly interested in reducing a species to extinction to save one human life. That kind of hyperbolic argument doesn't actually make for sound discussion on conservation, as you'll quickly push people who want to make more nuanced arguments to "well, fuck humans I suppose".

Hindsight isn't even necessary to see how ass backwards this was, jesus fucking christ. Posthumous Hero of the Soviet Union awards for fucking Jodl there. Like, lose to the French/Brits/Americans, because they haven't been masturbating furiously to the revenge porn fantasy building up in their heads for the last 4 years. There wasn't going to be a graceful surrender to the Russians, Germany didn't just burn that bridge down but shot every bridge builder they could find.

I was thinking more that Iran might be susceptible to a new leader willing to liberalize and match the west, and that foreign "investors" will come strip Iran of everything it's worth, leading to everything spiraling into awful.

No one beats Teddy and Jackson at bullet eating. On topic, does anyone think Iran will go through a potential "Yelstin" phase?

I see this sentiment all the time, yet Andropov was an excellent economic reformer and had he lived the USSR would have been stronger. Economic reform doesn't have to be dumb liberalization and privazation.

The M47 was supposed to have an increase in firepower, that ended up being rather disappointing - same as T-62. Both tanks were imagined as something else but ended up growing fat and nothing like original specifications. M47 is barely an upgrade over the M46, the T-62 is barely an uograde over the T-55. Neither were well used and both had short production runs for thier perspective nations. Both quickly became obsolete within 4 years of introduction. I guess the difference is the M47 got exported and people were able to turn it into a good tank (that no one bought).

I'm not going to disagree, 1960-1972 were the USSR golden years. Still not going to cheer the man, those good years had much less to do with any skill on Brezhnevs part. He was a beaucrat, not an economist, too bad he didn't just focus on his strengths.

Erdogans a dumbass and the AKP are fucking loons that are really mad that the Kurdish leftist party helped take away thier majority. Never mind that said leftist party was sapping PKK strength and acting as a moderating force, fuck it.

You might as well speak of separatists armed with T-34/85s, at least those don't try to suffocate the crew. If given a company of T-62s, by the end of 30 days I'd have 14 115mm SPGs and 14 APCs. Yes, I have a raging hateboner for such awful garbage, why do you ask?

Brezhnev kind of helped the USSR along to it's doom by basically not confronting the issues it faced during it's day. Like, had Andropov not died it might not have mattered, but it lead to Gorbechev and the eventual dissolution and everything that entailed. I seriously dislike Brezhnev for these reasons and efforts should have been made to rotate him out, but the man made sure that'd be a difficult task in the first place. Possible analyzation of all incoming and outgoing material? Checks on power usage and centrifuge usage? Everyone is fucking awful, it's all just various degrees. Saudis are literal bottom of the barrel shit and the US doesn't gain anything from being thier ally. In this case, we know the devil so damn well we know hes not worth keeping because hes incapable of the reforms necessary to squash Wahhabism. I'd rather pick a new devil then play groundhog day for fucking ever with sunni extremists that cannot be negotiated with. If all repproachment with Iran is just the US trying to apply pressure to get SA to change, that could work too, but the US has to have the guts to follow through when most assuredly SA will do everything in it's power to not.

As far as an arms and goods market, yes very good for Russia. However, further energy market saturation isn't good for Russia.

What are you having trouble with parsing?

Ugh, I hate posting from a tablet, I type like a retard on facebook. But no, the US really doesn't have a choice (the sanctions would drop anyway as the other 5 signiatories would have just moved on without us), and the deal is better for the US in the long run. More influence in Iran, and it's better to open up Iranian energy markets to reduce Saudi influence and hurt Russia through petrodollar depression. Plus, maybe we can eventually also dump Pakistan or at least make that a threat if we can be cordial instead to Iran. This would make for better relations in the area anyway - not having to deal with Pakistans shit means closer ties to India and less toleration of funding of extremists in Afghanistan.

Teid you're giving the T-62 way too much credit. The T-62 was a Russian M47, just bad and only medciore after the 72 revision.

This is really unfair to Orcs. Orcs are at least populist and have meritocratic societies, are good at industry, architecture and science, excellent society and coalition builders, goal oriented, and aren't raving fanatics but realists.

Everything from extraction to storage and distribution is going to monitored, in exchange 3/4 of all centrifuges will be shitdown, and all but one will old types, the last remaning "advanced" one will be for research purposes. Enrichment is limited to 3.67%, signigantly below medical grade of 20% and far below 90% needed for a good nuclear weapon. Basically 90% of Irans uranium has been confiscated and they're strictly limited on maximum storage. The US signed this deal so it could have influence on Iran and personally open up negoatiations. If they refused to take part, the US would basically lose out on having any input on the deal, which the remaining Euro members and China would have gone through with anyway. Iran would have gotten a better deal if the US did not participate, serious. Further, the US likely is seeing a sea change for ME politics - Saudis don't seem to lan on being reliable partners for long, and while Iran does fund terrorists, they're not Wahhabists like what SA churns out. Wahhabism is the direct root of basically all islamic extremism right now, and the US can't make headway in important foreign policy matters when your own "ally" is undermining you. Iran is less worse bad faith actor, it's people are signigantly more cosmopolitan and wish to be part of the global economy, and while interested in regional hegemony, they are more so in a nationalistic, rather than religious sense ala SA. Further, Iran is simply in a good strategic position, has a competent military (no really) for the region, and is likely to moderate over time due to stability combined with an increasingly secular population. What I am saying is, fuck the Gulf States, Kurds, Turks and Persians are the better choice.

Not tanks, but relevant

And the Panzer IIIs mostly had ammo in the hull floor and turret ring, of course that's from Mr.Practical Diamler-Benz so thats an ETPTR. Yes, allies did have an assortment of tanks which had sponson or side stored ammo, but that was universally in support vehicles, not literally everything and not in the primary battle tank design. Germans were nuts. No, you see the tank which has 50% the armor and 70% the firepower is obviously overpowered. The endless bitching about the Jumbos is delicious though, as well as "But the IS-2 is OP" tears. The allies fart out good heavy tank design while the Germans have two good heavies, the Tiger H and Tiger IIH. The E has a bad BR, the Porsche is papery, the 105 is a laughing stock and the Maus is useless.

My favorite part about the Wehraboo rhetoric about "Russian tanks explodey" is that the Russian vehicles have artificially weak gas tanks so they explode at all, while Germans get away with universally strong ammoracks (such that destroying them may not kill the tank, which doesn't happen for any other nation) because the first year of the game was "flank German, kill German". Sorry, Allied crew safety, fuel and ammo placement is superior fascists shitlords, deal with the inherent flaws of your racist, genocidal, fucktard designs.

Seeded rye bun with sliced gouda, cut dill pickles, coarse mustard, tomato, crisp red onion.

I'm picking Tieds side on this debate because the man is right, Burritos are superior to Tacos. Also, you do not eat grapefruit with sugar and you slice it in half and suck the pulp out like a man.

M67 is only for hard targets though and it still performs poorly. Not that it'd need to, by Korea I'd think they could have a very good 105mm HEAT defensive round, but the only other HEAT round I've seen is M662 and I have no idea if that's Korean or Vietnam era. Thanks. Artillery units seemed oddly defenseless for the time when a canister or apers round seemed badly needed. Canister especially would have been okay for unarmored or light armor vehicles, and the 37mm WW2 era canister was well received so ¯\_ _/¯. But I can't come across any evidence besides "Use HE and rifles and deal with it"

Trying to figure out if the 105mm Howitzers had more than the M67 HEAT for defensive purposes in Korea, or if M67 HEAT had been revised by that point at all.

Tangential, but the US has so far been the best imperial power and replacing a known decent hegemon with an unknown or worse known awful one is dumb. Just because the US is bad at state building (actually, I can't think of an Imperial power that was good at it, the Achaemenid Empire doesn't count nerds) doesn't mean you need to destroy it. I have no interest in the potential successor Imperial powers of China or Russia and I highly doubt they'll be as capable or as forgiving.

I was referring to what's available ingame, I don't think comparing to modern available rounds is helpful in this context. Also, SLAP rounds were experimented with in WW2 IIRC, just a 7.62x63 bullet in a sabot. And yeah, the Panzer IVs armor is shit even by light armor standards today. The 25mm I was referring to is an old 25mm AAA used by the Russian navy IIRC, and it's potent enough @ 46mm penetration. Not entirely disagreeing but it's clear that Gaijin found strict realism wasn't fun and so made concession to increase durability, such as suicidally brave superhuman crewmen who can repair an engine block after it's eaten several shells. They're actually still treading an issue WoT had very long ago, and that is modules eating shells, such that dead components can several reduce behind armor effect. I still think my favorite so far is that tracks will eat shells happily due to how they model shell shatter, the shell doesn't evaporate so much predetonate or shatter incoming projectiles harmlessly, track HP is enormous in WTGF. There is some realism to this but you'll have something like a BT-7 track eat an 88mm PzGr43 shell. I will say that WTGF has better HE/HEP modeling than WoT, WoTs systm is far too simple while WTGF actually uses a blastwave combined with shrapnel with individual mass and velocities. This might be too computational expensive for WoT though.