chebuRUSHka

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.

Maybe a high-collared shirt of some sort?  Or maybe I could wear a priest's collar ironically?

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.

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?

Can anyone recommend me some really good lotion?

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

24 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Maybe stop posting until you actually have some sources that prove your statement? That's how the rest of us do it.

We're aware of general information. Focus on posting things that actually back up what you are claiming. If you have generally interesting documents, we have a different thread for that.

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.

15 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Your first link is a guide to a game called Battleground Europe.  Your second link is a general primer on optics design, and the only time the document contains the word "German" at all is in reference to Johannes Kepler.  Your third link is a piece of general information on thin-film coatings in optics.

 

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?

34 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Which value needs to be multiplied by 50%?  Why?  As EE explains it, the Soviet criterion is a circle within which you would expect 50% of the hits to land (it's exactly the same thing as Circular Error Probable).  The German criterion is a rectangular shape within which you would expect 50% of the hits to land.  Nothing about this screams that there is a dropped factor of two in this conversion.

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.

10 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

See these?  These are strikes one and two.  Your posting still sucks.

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.

17 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Contemporary report by expert = meaningless anecdote

A guy on an internet forum = rock-solid fact

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

1. Best coating
2. Lanthanum glass
3. triangles which made range finding easier
4. better combination of mangification and FOV

All facts.

It's pretty obvious i don't think all German ww2 optics were the best, so that interpretation is not possible.

4 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Wow, you really are Grade A Retard. Do you know how English grammar rules work? Apparently I dont, so please, please, enlighten me.

I'm a Grade A retard, because you misquote me an leave out the important part of the sentence?

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

Really now?

Nice made up quote. Unable to read the entire sentence? Some people in this forum are just monumentally bad at reading English.

2 hours ago, chebuRUSHka said:

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.

5 minutes ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

So kinda like claims that German optics were the best? 

 

Not at all. Those are backed up by facts, not just meaningless anecdotes.

19 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

If the Germans are using a 50% hit criterion for their gun accuracy tests, while the Soviets are using a dispersion criterion, what is wrong with determining what the man dispersion is and saying that's the 50% limit?  All artillery manuals I've read from the 1940s assume that shell error is normally distributed, so the method should be a statistically sound means of converting dissimilar data.

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.

25 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 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!

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.

Quote

Your examples of the TZF 9 and TZF 12 gunsights are irrelevant.

The anecdote is irrelevant, not my objection.

Actually not.

2 minutes ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

Nos amigo no habla ingles? 

Bronezhilet doesn't.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

A blog based on hearsay and anecdotes. 

10 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

 

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

You don't have anything to provide besides your insult?