chebuRUSHka Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 On 2/22/2017 at 8:47 AM, EnsignExpendable said: Close enough http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/05/unconventional-anti-tank-warfare.html This is a terrible source my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 59 minutes ago, chebuRUSHka said: This is a terrible source my friend. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 3 hours ago, chebuRUSHka said: This is a terrible source my friend. Actual sources are terrible sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chebuRUSHka Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Something is pathetic around here, but I don't think it's Archive Awareness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chebuRUSHka Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Zyklon, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, LoooSeR and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chebuRUSHka Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronezhilet Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 You literally had me laughing out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronezhilet Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 I took the liberty of calculating a firing table myself and that one shows that you both are wrong. Come on guys, use proper sources next time. Both of you. This is an outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, chebuRUSHka said: 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronezhilet Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chebuRUSHka Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 13 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said: Come on now EE, you can't just dismiss my evidence that both of you are wrong. I'm still waiting on approval from senior party handlers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chebuRUSHka Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 15 minutes ago, chebuRUSHka said: Btw the German WW2 optics, which are considered to be the best, were not built by Zeiss. You really know nothing about this topic. Are you sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chebuRUSHka Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chebuRUSHka Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronezhilet Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 minute ago, chebuRUSHka said: That's not what i said. Quote Btw the German WW2 optics were not built by Zeiss. Really now? Zyklon, That_Baka, Volkswagen and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Bronezhilet said: Really now? Nos amigo no habla ingles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chebuRUSHka Posted February 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Priory_of_Sion said: Nos amigo no habla ingles? Bronezhilet doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronezhilet Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 The name is "Bronezhilet", thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Just now, chebuRUSHka said: Bronzhilet doesn't. Actually he read it perfectly fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts