FaustianQ

Iran has a legitimate grievance with Israel, it's way more than mere antisemitism at this point. Also Israel treats the US no different than Turkey does, and it gets worse when even legit criticism of Israel gets their rightwing in a howling rage about antisemitism. In that kind of atmosphere, any relationship will sour, and it makes it difficult for real self-relfection. Israel is about to make it's support a partisan issue, which is dumb, dumb, dumb.

They hate the Kurds, and more specifically the PPK, because they're marxists (of thier own brand apparently), acknowledge the Armenian genocide, have seeked and obtained rapproachment with the Armenians, and have for the last 20(?) years or so fought a guerilla war against the Turkish who branded them as terrorists - I've even had a fellow American argue that the Kurds will be a worse threat to US security because of those reasons. I can't wrap my head around that when the Kurds are literally more hardcore RahRah USA than we are. I personally support the Kurds and the recent easing of tensions with Iran. I think Iran would be okay with a Kurdistan compared to Turkey IF that Kurdistan was mostly limited to the area in Iraq, and IF they get favorable terms W/R/T peace in Syria and influence in Iraq; you'll never even get to the IF part with Turkey. Also, Iran is actually way more moderate than Saudi Arabia and honestly I'd rather pick the more sane group of people to cooperate with in the region (yes, even with all the "fuck Israel" noise).

After being unable to breath for a solid 5 minutes after reading that Colli, I have come to the conclusion I am the worst kind of nerd.

Just personal experience, but I've had more fun since almost inception with WTGF than with WoT. Maybe my good memories of WoT are fading and it's coloring my perceptions, but in the end I've found that while WoT is a good, almost MOBA game, WTGF, especially now that everything is combined arms, is the better product for me. One of the best things in WT is there is no need for "balance" to the obsessive degree it's needed in WoT, as I've run T1 gimmick builds (your lineup is considered a build and you can have multiple of them) into T4 matches - an M22 Locust is terrifyingly relevant even in late game due to being the smallest tank ingame with a still decent gun and high speed. Planes are fantastic equalizers, the module damage mechanics are better overall for reducing frustration while adding a different layer compared to WoT. The only time I've not had fun is when I've slipped back into WoT mode and been more concerned with hard grinding out a tank. Better players and better play is rewarded at a higher rate, and the closing of a close game is usually tense because only the best/luckiest are still fighting. I love the complete lack of enemy spotting, both for having to hunt them down and for the invisibility it grants me (see M22 Locust above). If they added armored cars and infantry I'm not sure I'd play anything else. Caveat though, I only play realistic because arcade is ugh...special...and simulator is borked (and I have no joystick and would be an active hinderance to my team). I dislike the expense associated with the crew, but not the model itself. I kind of dislike the huge loss in energy transfer when rotating compared to WoT, the lack of agility can be damning sometimes. I somewhat dislike getting instagibbed early on when making a bad move, but I've adjusted my builds to compensate.

I'm sorry but clearly the 90mm T76 is the best L/69.570 gun

Explains the US obsession with needle nose turrets, as the effect of sloping would help keep the turret better protected compared to the front hull. Well, you see shell shatter only effected the allies, ahnenerbe gnomes have a racial bonus to metalworking.

Can I nominate every alien movie ever? Not Alien or Aliens because they strangely get it close to right, but just movies with aliens as an antagonist period. If we accept that intelligent life is possible, or greater than likely, then there is nothing special about humans whatsoever. They have no reason to care or be interested in us, the realities of space travel makes connecting in fellowship with a strange alien species a wasted endeavor. Earth is not only a terrifing gravity well, but resource extraction cost is huge regardless of how you slice it (or pulverize it). Easier to simply plunder the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt effectively forever.

The issue is that the moderate elements in Iran want the deal, but the hardliners do not, so they'll be constantly pulling shit to derail the deal and hopefully discredit the moderate stance of rapproachment with the West. It's the same reason why the US constantly doesn't say anything about the Armenian genocide; despite Turkey being an awful actual ally, they're a mighty fine airbase and it's an airbase we really need so don't piss off and feed the hardliners in Turkey who want to break from the US.

I'm personally interested in why German turrets were chronically underarmored from the front for no discernable reason. Even basic testing would have shown the glacis to be an order more resistent to incoming projectiles, yet this design flaw persisted from the Panzer IV up to the Tiger Ausf B. Surely they should have realized it, just as the American did when gunners were instructed to primarily aim for the Panther and King Tiger turrets as the best way to disable the cats, right? I know that the M26 and M46 theoretically falls into this same issue, and to appearances so does the M48, but a quick look in the turret reveals the T99 gun mount to support a 38mm thick internal shield, but even beyond that communications recovered by the Chief (? I believe, I a may be sourcing this wrong) indicate that the Army specifically requested and wanted the M26 M46 tanks to have a turret comparable to the then in limited production M4A3E2 in protection, wherein Barnes lies to them; whether because he thought the truth would slow down deployment, or because he honestly did not know, is not my place to make a call. In any case it seems that the Army did as practice prefer stronger turrets and for good reason as post war studies and standard tank tactics showed. I don't think the M48 falls into the trap since it's using the same post war hit study to maximize armor protection, and cross sections do not tell the whole story on something as complicated on the cast bodies of the M48/M103/M60 tanks. Further, as far as I am aware, all other nations were on the same page as the US - Russia continiously updated the T-34 and KV/IS designs with imrpoved turret armor being a priority, and both France and UK made efforts to at least keep front hull and front turret protection the same. Is this a fascist disease? "I demand a tank reflective of the national peoples ideals!" *builds a tank weak in the head*.

I have awful opinions, but if you want something roughly the size of a P90 to put out something close to rifle while still fitting into a pistol, wouldn't .22 Spitfire be a workable solution, if not a better decision than 5.7x28? 3.25g @ 820m/s is quite a bit better than what the FN round is capable of anyway.