Talk:Tank

Autoloaders make it slower to load special ammo

Not sure what's hard to understand about that an autoloader "renders it harder (if not impossible) to switch ammo types in a timely matter". Most auto-loaders lock you into an ammo type: You can't decide you want to drop smoke before your next HEAT. --Agiletek (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You have to start a topic before posting something as a general rule. Also, on autoloader I worked with on T-72 it takes 13-14 seconds to make a full 180 degrees turn of carousel and reload a cannon instead of 8 seconds base. Yeah, it's longer, but nothing "impossible". It was also old as shit, like literally 40 years old, so I assume modern autoloaders are far more advanced. --95.28.167.165 13:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The wording used is "renders it harder/slower (if not impossible)", which indicate it varies (feel free to make that more clear). 6 seconds is time in a firefight. Nick Moran notes it is a valid issue. It may not be as important a reason as others, but it is indeed a reason. --Agiletek (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This guy you provided link to later said it's mitigated by selecting another type of ammunition before firing (that's true) and that that whole problem can be mitigated with better designs (that's also true, either by increasing speed of the carousel/better placement of shots (aka something that is already done on everything that's actually in active service) or abandoning carousel entirely a-la Leclerc). 6 seconds mentioned is the absolute worst scenario (not counting tank commander reloading the gun manually) that's very unlikely to happen. I also highly doubt human loader has all the types all so conveniently at hand. To sum up, imho, it's not really an issue worth mentioning. --95.28.167.165 14:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Just because a disadvantage can be mitigated or are less prominent in some executions doesn't mean the disadvantage doesn't exist. Personnel costs in western militaries, especially for a specialist position like tanker, are quite high and will very quickly exceed the cost of the autoloader. Does that mean cost of autoloaders shouldn't be mentioned as a disadvantage? --Agiletek (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If disadvantage is mitigated to the point of effectively not existing? Yeah, I'd say it's pretty reasonable not to mention it, alongside other very low-probability events like human crew member having a psychotic breakdown. Also, if there was a tank with a trained slave loader chained to it with the cost incorporated in check, and the resulting cost was higher compared to the tank with autoloader, then yes, one would delete any mention of high cost pretty quick. --95.28.167.165 09:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Last I check that's what a communist conscript was. --Agiletek (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't going to butt into this, however you just said the anon's correct. You can't just take somebody and throw them into something, you need to keep in mind the amount of time it takes to train them and then the supplies they require afterwards, as well as the fact that they can be killed or die from some other cause which is an issue that cannot be fixed by the other crew taking apart and repairing what was damaged. I also have to agree with the anon that auto-loaders no longer have a major time sink in case you want/need to switch ammo types, and saying that they still have that kind of time sink is pretending like the last couple decades of advancement did not happen. -- Triacom (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Changing reply format because format broke this deep. This is reponding to Triacom's 1/1/2020 posting) You're not really clear on what you're replying to. The important part to address of your post is that "the last couple decades of advancement" isn't as important as you indicate for two reasons 1. with a very small number of exceptions, most MBT designs considered current are are themselves even older (pre 2000) and made their design choices without those new technologies in mind. 2: More importantly, /tg/'s interest in tanks is generally for their part in historical wargames (notice most of our articles on tanks are from the prospective of a wargame set in a conflict that starts in 1985). --Agiletek (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware, I know that many designs still in use are much older than those using them, and I'm aware that most newer designs aren't going to see production or real use until decades from now, however a blanket statement like what you added to the main page still pretends as if those limitations are in play and are impossible to overcome when they're not. Furthermore that blanket statement did not make it clear you are referring only to older designs, and as written it covered everything from those older designs to newer ones that we could make today. The newer statement you've added covers all of that far better than the older one. -- Triacom (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Stupid

Two autists battle below this line with FACTS and LOGIC, proceed at your own risk.

Dear 95.28.167.165, if you're going to claim that Soviet Tank Commanders did not communicate in kicks throughout WWII because "Because TPU-4-Bis was good and reliable" then you're going to need to back that up, especially in regards to the tanks which did not have them, and you should not be surprised when somebody calls you out on it. You have the mentality of "I am making a bullshit statement and YOU have to prove it's false, not the other way around,because I am so GREAT!" Which makes you a hypocrite because you're trying to claim somebody else is wrong for putting in a statement that isn't demonstrably false (not every tank had those radios, even at the close of the war) and you're also claiming I'm wrong for keeping it on the page, despite not once proving your point. -- Triacom (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: Thank you Saarlacfunkel for finally changing it to be more accurate rather than deleting that part and claiming it never happened because radios that weren't in all Soviet Tanks were reliable. If only 95.28.167.165 wasn't so dedicated to removing correct info. -- Triacom (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not correct. Something that is partly true is not the truth. But I imagine it's too hard of a concept for you to understand, so meh. --95.28.167.165 17:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It was correct, not every tank had those radios, therefore the statement that they used kicks until the end of WWII is true for those tanks. If you want to clarify it further that this wasn't the case for most tanks until later in the war then that would be good, but deleting it and claiming it's false is wrong. -- Triacom (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you fall out of a stupid tree? The statement was "Soviet tank crews actually communicated moslty in kicks until the end of WWII because Soviet internal radios were shit tier and tended to break in the first minute of every goddamn engagement". There is two absolute statements there that are false: 1) > communicated moslty in kicks until the end of WWII That is wrong as all T-34-85 had radios (and few T-34-76 survived up to 1945, sadly), and there was a huge campaign of retrofitting existing tanks and assault guns with radios in 1943. Not to mention all Soviet heavy tanks, for example, had radios, even in 1941-1942. 2) > because Soviet internal radios were shit tier and tended to break in the first minute of every goddamn engagement Yes, 71-TK radios/ internal comms like TPU-2 on early T-34s were remarkably shitty because they couldn't handle vibrations, and radio operators often had to run to other tanks to relay orders. 9RM radios/TPU-3-BisF internal comms, on the other hand, were very good, and, as mentioned, were mass-produced since 1943. Saying that all of internal radios were bad because early ones were bad is the same as saying all Triacom's edits are stupid shit because he's wrong in this particular case - inexcusable generalization. --95.28.167.165 20:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1) "Mostly" does not mean "entirely". 2) Nobody is saying T-34's didn't have radios, by deleting the fact about the early radios and claiming it's not true because later radios were reliable you were claiming they had a radio throughout the war that they did not. 3) If you knew the early radios broke then why did you keep deleting that? This alone is reason enough to undo your edit. 4) I did not write anything about the Soviet radios on the main page. 5) "Saying that all of internal radios were bad because early ones were bad is the same as saying all Triacom's edits are stupid shit because he's wrong in this particular case - inexcusable generalization." You were just removing a fact about earlier radios because later radios didn't have the same issue. If you want to blame somebody for generalization then look in the mirror. -- Triacom (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1)"Mostly" means at least 51% of the time. 2)> by deleting the fact about the early radios and claiming it's not true It was not about the early ones, how many times I have to repeat that to get through your thick skull? 3)> If you knew the early radios broke then why did you keep deleting that Because the statement was not correct. What is wrong with you? --95.28.167.165 15:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

1) Most of the war happened before 1943 (especially if we're looking at the Victory in Europe day), so it was more than 51% of the time by that metric. 2) "It was not about the early ones, how many times I have to repeat that to get through your thick skull?" If it wasn't then you shouldn't have been deleting it. 3) "Because the statement was not correct." It wasn't correct that the early radios were unreliable? -- Triacom (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

1) That's not how English works. The meaning you're talking about would be "during WW2", instead of "until the end of WW2". As presented it meant "51% Soviet tank crews didn't have operational internal comms at any moment from 1.09.1939 to 2.09.1945". 2) > If it wasn't then you shouldn't have been deleting it Why exactly? It was a false statement because it wasn't about early ones. 3)> It wasn't correct that the early radios were unreliable? It wasn't correct that all radios were unreliable. I feel like I'm in some kind of vicious circle. --95.28.167.165 09:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"That's not how English works." Then it would be a good idea to correct it if you have an issue with it instead of removing it and pretending it didn't happen. "Why exactly? It was a false statement because it wasn't about early ones." Yes it was, if all the radios were as reliable as the later ones then the statement wouldn't have ever been made. -- Triacom (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Whenever someone inserted bullshit memes in semi-serious article, I'd delete without second thought, no matter if it's about every Wermacht soldier being a junkie on pervitin, stupid Poles attacking tanks from horsebacks with spears, French soldiers being spineless cowards or every Soviet radio not working. --95.28.167.165 16:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Except you admitted yourself that earlier Soviet radios broke all the fucking time, so it's not a bullshit meme. -- Triacom (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

And panzerschokolade was a thing. Doesn't change anything.--95.28.167.165 18:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

And I don't see you deleting mention of Pervitin from the Nazi Equipment page. -- Triacom (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

And I didn't delete "radio" entry, unlike notion of everyone on the Eastern front being either drugged or drunk. --95.28.167.165 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, you just tried pretending like radios never broke. -- Triacom (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't, you idiot. --95.28.167.165 16:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't lie, you deleted mentions of the radios breaking and said that was wrong "Because TPU-4-Bis was good and reliable" -- Triacom (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

... are you retarded? Like, for real? Some serious medical conditions? We've been over it. Twice. --95.28.167.165 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Then how did you forget what you did? -- Triacom (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's try it as simple as we can: have 51% of Soviet tank crews been stuck in a vehicle without operational internal comms all the time, at any moment, since 1.09.1939 to 2.09.1945? Yes or no?--95.28.167.165 21:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. They had over 74,000 light, medium and heavy tanks before the retrofitting period without those radios. Only a little over 70,000 tanks were made after those radios became the standard, so assuming each tank had its own crew, then around 51.3% of tank crews had a vehicle which didn't have operational comms all the time. If we assume each tank didn't have a new crew then that percentage would be much higher. -- Triacom (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Now go and read the part about losses and how English works in the original statement (let's just drop such minor things like heavy tanks having 10R stations as standard since 1941). Your logic is simply invalid.-- 95.28.167.165 21:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I already accounted for that, the numbers I used are all unique/individual tanks and like I said, if each individual tank did not have a new crew then the percentage would be much higher. -- Triacom (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's take even more narrow example. As of 01.01.1943, Red Army had 21,2k tanks ("Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century", Krivosheyev. I believe this book is available in English so you can check it out). It was supplied with another 21,1k and 3,3k of tank destroyers. Meanwhile, in 1944 28345 9Rs of different modifications were made. How does that exactly make less than 50% percent? --95.28.167.165 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, why are you ignoring the tanks used earlier in the war? A destroyed/out of commission tank still had a tank crew that didn't always have working transmissions and should not be ignored. Secondly, why are you looking at those dates now? All of those tanks weren't just magically given new radios as soon as 1943 started, and even if that were the case, their crews would still have been in a vehicle that didn't always have working equipment and so they'd count against you. Finally, even if we assumed every single vehicle made from January 1st, 1943 to the end of a war had always working communications, it would still equal less than 50% because there were just that many tanks and crews before this point (don't forget about all the vehicles they had before the war started). -- Triacom (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's numbers for 1944, my bad. > why are you ignoring the tanks used earlier in the war Because once again you forgot that original statement was about ANY point during WW2. You just keep forgetting it. Stop. Please. It's worrying. --95.28.167.165 18:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The original statement: Soviet tank crews actually communicated moslty in kicks until the end of WWII- That's the entirety of the war, not any point during the war and so we should not ignore earlier tanks. As I already pointed out, it's technically true in that most of their tank crews did not have reliable radios, even when we include every tank used in the war, but you seem to have forgotten this already, just like how you forgot what the original statement was. -- Triacom (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh I think I see what you mean, and I think you should've worded it better, so let me try addressing your point again: "Let's try it as simple as we can: have 51% of Soviet tank crews been stuck in a vehicle without operational internal comms all the time, at any moment, since 1.09.1944 to 2.09.1945? Yes or no?" I'm assuming this is the original statement you were referring to (and not the original statement on the main page), and that this is what you meant to write? In that case, I'd say the answer is no, and I'd also say that you're cherry-picking a part of the war that is at odds with what was written on the main page, since that covered the entirety of the war. Also if this is what you meant to write, then don't badger me for not knowing what you meant when you fucked up the dates. If it isn't what you meant, then see my post above. -- Triacom (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

What you're talking about would be "during", not "until the end", so my question is directly referred to original statement, because it claimed at any moment, including 1944 and 1945, Soviet crew members communicated mostly in kicks. I've also already mentioned it, strange you understood it only now. And yes, once again, I'm sorry for fucking up the years. My bad. --95.28.167.165 18:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's examine the former statement then: "Soviet tank crews actually communicated moslty in kicks until the end of WWII-" When do you think the start point of this sentence is inferred to be? As this is written, it's covering a period of time, and if you seriously think it's referring to any moment then break it down further. Do you think it's supposed to be inferred as "Soviet tank crews actually communicated mostly in kicks [from 1944] until the end of WWII-" or do you think it's supposed to be "Soviet tank crews actually communicated mostly in kicks [from the start, and] until the end of WWII-"? Quite frankly, given how it's written it could even be read as "Soviet tank crews actually communicated mostly in kicks [since the Soviets began creating such fighting vehicles,] until the end of WWII-". What you're saying I find the least likely, because that would mean the sentence would read as "Soviet tank crews actually communicated mostly in kicks [from any point during/]until the end of WWII-". The reason I find this to be the least likely is because that changes the meaning of the sentence by adding an alternative statement. -- Triacom (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

> "Soviet tank crews actually communicated mostly in kicks [from the start, and] until the end of WWII-" That's the meaning the original statement had. Please, let us not begin the cycle of "why it is wrong" again. --95.28.167.165 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Then it technically is correct, as I pointed out earlier, unless you wish to not include destroyed/decommissioned tanks, but even then that exclusion would be your own preference because the sentence was generalizing all Soviet tanks, not just the ones working when the war ended. -- Triacom (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Aaaand here we go again. The meaning you're talking about would be "during". The original meaning is "at any point in time from 1.09.1939 to 2.09.1945", which is wrong as of 1944 and 1945. --95.28.167.165 20:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That is not how English works, please explain to me why you think "From X until Y" equals "At any point in-between X and Y". -- Triacom (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That is exactly how English works. When you talk about specific period and stress out that event X happens all the way to the end of period, then it means it is, shockingly, true for any moment until the end of said period. --95.28.167.165 20:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"When you talk about specific period and stress out that event X happens all the way to the end of period-" But they didn't do that, they said that it was mostly the case across the period. -- Triacom (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Across" or, you know, "during". And there was specifically said "until the end of WWII".--95.28.167.165 21:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"From X until Y it was mostly Z" is the same as saying "During W there was mostly Z". As you just said here, they did address it across the period, and not as "Any point in-between X and Y". -- Triacom (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, looking back at it I also fucked up, earlier when I wrote "From X until Y" I thought I wrote "Generally, from X until Y" since the statement on the page was also a generalization thanks to "mostly". My bad. -- Triacom (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

> "From X until Y it was mostly Z" is the same as saying "During W there was mostly Z" Yes. Except here it's not "was mostly Z", it's "Most X did Z all the way up to Y". --95.28.167.165 18:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Now you're re-writing the statement, the original statement had mostly at the end to generalize the whole war, not use it at the start. -- Triacom (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"Soviet tank crews actually communicated mostly in kicks until the end of WWII". "Soviet tank crews" as X, "actually communicated mostly in kicks" as Z, "the end of WWII" as Y. X mostly did Z until Y. -- 95.28.167.165 19:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

At the end of the kicks, meaning "the majority of the time throughout the war they used kicks." As I pointed out already, that is true even if we assume each tank had a completely new crew. -- Triacom (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

> the majority of the time throughout the war they used kicks And I once again just repeat that there should have been another word, "during", for a meaning you're trying to convey. "until the end of WWII" is a specific point in time. --95.28.167.165 19:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And once again I'm going to say you're inferring words that aren't there to say that it meant "at any point" instead of "throughout/across/during". Since we've reached this impasse and it seems neither of us are going to change our minds, perhaps now is the time to drop the argument, especially since it started over a week ago and I don't think we'll be getting anything more out of it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You're both stupid. If it was true at the beginning of the war but not at the end, say that, instead of just removing the sentence, or leaving it the wrong way. FIX THE THING YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT, RATHER THEN EDIT WARRING. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

NO WAR LIKE AN EDIT WAR! Besides, I have a strong personal distaste for people who fill the articles with wrong info (and deal in absolutes while doing so) when right one is two or three google searches from them (ahh, some day I will bring myself to rewrite that "Panzer VI Tiger" entry on Nazi Equipment page). It's not esoteric stuff, it's hard, cold facts, and those people are in no position to boss me around like Triacom tried. In every sane system, if a statement is made and opposed, the burden of proof lies on the one making the statement. --95.28.167.165 19:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added that info, and I have a strong personal distaste for people who try to claim something isn't true by deleting info instead of rewriting it to be more accurate. For the record you were the one who opened with "this is false because this radio was reliable" without proving that every tank had it throughout the war, and knowing that every tank had it throughout the war. You did not prove your statement and didn't even try no matter how many times I told you to take it to the talk page. -- Triacom (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

And if I'd rewritten it, it would have been changed back the way it was and now I'd have to defend my edit instead of just getting rid of wrong info. Nice plan. And you keep repeating "every tank" whereas there were no mention of every tank ever, and you're somehow don't see it (see above). Not the first time. --95.28.167.165 20:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If you had rewitten it then I'd have left it alone. Don't assume you know what I'll do to justify your actions. -- Triacom (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not assuming what you personally would do. It's a bedrock of our goddamn civilization - if one puts up a statement and it's contested, they have to bring something to back it up or fuck off, and I personally know what a pain in the ass such a search can be and have no desire to dig through a dozen books to prove to some noname from the internets he's wrong.--95.28.167.165 15:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And if you rewrote it but somebody else tried to revert it I would've told them to take it to the talk page. If something is truthful and can easily be verified, then just saying it in a summary is usually enough. -- Triacom (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

> then just saying it in a summary is usually enough And so did I, saying that TPU-4Bis was good and reliable, therefore the whole statement was invalid. Somehow it triggered you. --95.28.167.165 09:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You claimed that Soviet radios didn't break because a later version was reliable, like I said, if something is truthful and can be easily verified then just saying it in a summary is enough, and the exact same goes if it's something that can easily be disproven. "Somehow it triggered you." As if you're one to talk, you kept deleting an entire sentence because you were so upset by it you couldn't be bothered to correct it. -- Triacom (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you even understand what I had written before? I have a feeling I'm talking to a wall. --95.28.167.165 16:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course I understood what you said, you were so upset that the article was slightly wrong you decided to delete the entire sentence instead of changing a few words to make it completely accurate, and you claimed that the whole sentence was untrue because of advancements in technology in the later half of the war. -- Triacom (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not "slightly" wrong, and yes, it's untrue exactly because it claimed that advancements in technology in the later half of the war didn't happen. --95.28.167.165 18:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Most Soviet Tanks were not retrofitted with better radios in the later half of the war? -- Triacom (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Most Soviet tanks with older radios or no radios at all were destroyed in 1941-1943.--95.28.167.165 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Is that a yes or a no? -- Triacom (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What does this question have to do with anything? --95.28.167.165 16:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Pretending to be stupid doesn't suit you, you know full well what the question has to do with it because you were arguing the answer was yes for days. -- Triacom (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The question is wrong the way you put it. Most Soviet tanks as of 1944-1945 were equipped with new radios exactly because of horrendous losses of 1941-1942 and counteroffensives in 1943. Retrofitting with radios had a relatively small scale compared to this. -- 95.28.167.165 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There you go, the statement was not entirely wrong because the radios before then we're prone to failure, so what was on the main page was slightly wrong. -- Triacom (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That, too, was already said. Memory leak on your side again. --95.28.167.165 21:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Then why were you arguing against it? I said that and you claimed the opposite. -- Triacom (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm literally speechless. For whom did I write all that stuff about 71-TK and 9R? That's me claiming "the opposite", i.e. all Soviet radios being the pinnacle of engineering at any point in time? --95.28.167.165 21:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I said the original statement was slightly wrong and you replied with "It's not "slightly" wrong" to defend deleting it in its entirety. The only thing wrong was the date, that's what makes it slightly wrong and you were arguing against that. When you wrote "It's not "slightly" wrong" did you mean to infer anything besides the statement being mostly or entirely wrong?

So if a statement has, say, a 60% percent of truth and 40% of lie, it's "slightly wrong"?--95.28.167.165 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if something is mostly true, then it's slightly wrong. It's the same as "this glass is three quarters full/one quarter empty." -- Triacom (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

But the glass is still not full, while you're arguing for it. 60% of truth does not make a statement true. To claim the contrary is propaganda 101. --95.28.167.165 18:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the glass is full, I'm arguing against removing any mention of the glass, with the deleter's reasoning being the glass is not full. -- Triacom (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You'd better beam me up, Scotty; there's no signs of intelligent life on this planet. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere to run, mate. --95.28.167.165 15:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Lemmings on mobile here. Anon, you have committed a logical fallacy at the beginning of this whole ordeal, demanding that Triacom provide the proof for the claim that you made. So unless you have more than the rubbish that I have seen that is your arguments on the entirety of this page, stfu. --96.35.54.183 18:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary, the original claim is not mine. Are you blind? --95.28.167.165 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your claim was that every tank had a certain type of radio, so radios in Soviet tanks were not prone to failure. Trying to debunk something with bullshit doesn't work. -- Triacom (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I claimed the original statement was bullshit, and I said it twice already here and one time as a comment to edit. You're putting the same strawman the third time. Stop it.--95.28.167.165 21:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Quoting you directly is not using a strawman, neither is saying exactly what you did. You claimed the original statement was bullshit and did nothing to prove it, since you claimed the early radios were not faulty thanks to new advancements in the later half of the war. -- Triacom (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't. Read what I've written before, but carefully. Especially about providing proofs. And, for the last time, the statement was ALL radios were faulty. You even seemed to understand that.--95.28.167.165 21:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

So where's your proof the earlier radios were not faulty? -- Triacom (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

So, for consistency's sake: Triacom, you do understand you're defending a statement on par with "all catholic priests are pedophiles" and "all Americans are obese", right? --95.28.167.165 22:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If somebody was deleting a statement like that wholesale to make it look like no Catholic pedophile priests or obese Americans existed instead of correcting it then I'd have the same issue with it. -- Triacom (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

So such mememongering and posting information the poster knows is bullshit shouldn't be purged on sight, right?--95.28.167.165 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

By correcting it properly you're purging the meme. If it's no longer relevant to the page after the correction (aka it was just a stupid joke) then feel free to delete it. In this case it is relevant to the page since it's giving a direct fact about tanks, albeit told in a joking manner. -- Triacom (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I see your point there, and I can partly agree with it. However, there is a point about actually providing numbers and such on demand. --95.28.167.165 18:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Do either of you have anything better to do with your lives other than make complete fools of yourselves over a shitty joke? --Newerfag (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course, we do that stuff in-between arguing over nothing. That being said I doubt this argument's going to continue further, we've run it through to the point I see no way to proceed. -- Triacom (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)