Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

chebuRUSHka

Scrublord
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chebuRUSHka

  1. Maybe the priest's collar is a bad idea. They might get the idea that I'm into little boys. That's not true. I love Nazis and I'm into little girls.
  2. Maybe a high-collared shirt of some sort? Or maybe I could wear a priest's collar ironically?
  3. I just really don't look good in turtlenecks, you know? I spend enough time as it is sitting in coffee bars reading the latest works on post-structuralist theory, and if I'm wearing a turtleneck it's like, damn, I might as well go all the way and get some teashade glasses and a beret. Fuck; I want to fit in but I don't want to be that cliched.
  4. Also, like a good, stylish scarf. I need to cover up these marks on my neck, but it need to look like a fashion statement, not like I'm trying to cover up marks on my neck. Maybe I should learn to do makeup?
  5. Testing? Testing? Hi, this is chebuRUSHka, and definitely not collimatrix wearing his skin. I just wanted to clarify some things. Right now, I can't really read any sources that I cite because my eyesight is still blurry from my autoerotic asphyxiation session that I had this morning wherein I masturbated furiously to the idea of being oppressed by muscular Soviet infantrymen. Just before I lost consciousness I thought of how the noble SS panzer units could probably have held off the asiatic hordes if only they had slightly better gunsights on their tanks. It was a really intense session, so please forgive me if I'm a little testy about the subject. I mean, really intense. My hand still stings, and I wouldn't be able to type this at all if I didn't have an anime girl breast mousepad to mitigate the carpal tunnel syndrome. Anyway, hope that clears up where I'm coming from. All the best, chebuRUSHka
  6. Where's your source? Make an image of the part of the aberdeen report which is supposed to proof that the T34's optics were the best.
  7. The first shows how ranging with the triangles works. Generall information is usefull too. I'm still adding sources btw. You deny the fact Germans used Argon gas to create ultra thin coatings or that those were better conventional coatings?
  8. I didn't write anything about "multiplied by 50%". I wrote " You need to multiply by 2 first " and i was talking about the deviation values.
  9. I stated that i don't consider the TWZ-1 to be one the best sights. The TWZ-1 was a German sight. Therefore we know i don't consider all German sights to be the best.
  10. http://www.75thguards.com/ww2online/downloads/Zheriz_Ziess_Sight_Guide.pdf http://www.liberatedmanuals.com/TM-9-258.pdf http://www2.avs.org/historybook/links/tfexh96.htm https://archive.org/details/GermanTechnicalAidToJapan Best coating Lanthanum glass triangles which made range finding easier better combination of mangification and FOV All facts.
  11. It's pretty obvious i don't think all German ww2 optics were the best, so that interpretation is not possible.
  12. I'm a Grade A retard, because you misquote me an leave out the important part of the sentence?
  13. Nice made up quote. Unable to read the entire sentence? Some people in this forum are just monumentally bad at reading English.
  14. Not at all. Those are backed up by facts, not just meaningless anecdotes.
  15. The problem is that you can't compare deviations values for the 50% criterion directly with ones for "Срединное отклонение". You need to multiply by 2 first.
  16. Which means, even if we ingore the lack of evidence behind the claim, the statement "T-34 optics were the best of those known worldwide" is a meaningless anectode parroted by slavaboos. The anecdote is irrelevant, not my objection.
  17. 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. My example is not irrelevant. The anectode about about one American saying T-34 optics were "the best of those known worldwide" is irrelevant.
  18. 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.
  19. And I'm still waiting for proof that the T-34 optics were "the best of those known worldwide. Protip: hearsay meantioned in a report is still hearsay.
  20. 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.
  21. Your history education is insufficient. You don't understand your sources and you work with false premises. This is backed by "practical trials" and shows you are wrong. A blog based on hearsay and anecdotes.
×
×
  • Create New...