LOL im sorry but my Marine and Sailor friends that im reading this to are laughing and calling bull. if you want to go the real life route tanks operate using a system called "combined arms" this is because while modern m1 abrams have thermoptics they are only able to see what they are actively looking at.

The hit detection IS terrible. I have plenty of experience with that turret and its a joke, certainly if you're on the move which brings me to my next point. You can't control the HAV when you're using a small turret plus there's also the greatly reduced field of view to contend with.

LOL im sorry but my Marine and Sailor friends that im reading this to are laughing and calling bull. if you want to go the real life route tanks operate using a system called "combined arms" this is because while modern m1 abrams have thermoptics they are only able to see what they are actively looking at.

In order to improve the survivability of tanks in close combat situations( the tank's nemsis) extensive modification has been done to the m1 Abrams lately. One of these modifications is a phone on the back of the tank so that infantry operating WITH the tank can pick it up and tell the tc(tank commander) about danger ahead. This is important because a rpg7vl can punch through 750mm of armor, that's 29 inches of armor. While the face of the turret has plenty of armor to absorb that the sides of the tank do not, which is again why reactive armor has been added weighing down on the armor in an effort to improve the survivability of the tank.

In the end irl the close combat belongs to the infantry, tanks are supposed to control the battle and position the battle by operating either in packs or in infantry concert. The worst nightmare for a tank in any era of history is for hostile infantry to be crawling all over it. In ww2 in the bocage german infantry shredded allied armor because the fighting range was <50m which put all tanks in a situation ripe for ambush from a panzerfaust that would knock out any allied tank without effort. The germans made 6,000,000 of those rockets, while we made 50,000 shermans.... Yeah....

So yeah, since you pulled Irl into this then lets just leave it with this. You should operate with other tanks watching your back, or with infantry support. YOUR TANK IS NOT MEANT FOR CLOSE COMBAT. If your within 25m of enemy infantry your a ******* moron. USE YOUR TANK MACHINEGUN and stop bitching that the cannon which is meant for anti tank duty is not effective against infantry in game.

One acutely notes that correcting grammar is not the same as refuting an argument. in fact your expressing two logical fallacies in order to avoid actually refuting what I said. First, your attempting to shift the argument away from the issues by pointing out something completely unrelated to the topic at hand. In argument this action is the same as a man caught stealing pointing his finger and saying "look a fire over there!" and then using the opportunity to run away. Second, instead of actually discussing the pertinent points you instead attack the character of my language thereby creating an argument that fundamentally is a logic fallacy. That fallacy is that if someone expresses an idea in a way you do not like then that idea has no merit, we both know here and now that such an argument is fluff and bullshit.

There is another felacious argument expressed above. You argue that the blaster was intended to be anti infantry weapon and provide a video as evidence. The argument you are expressing therefore is that "the blaster was effective against infantry, therefore it was intended to be used against infantry." This itself is an illogical argument, for many things are useful in applications other than their designed purpose, but that does not make them an intended tool for that application. A peen hammer will hammer nails well, but that does not make the peen hammer a carpenters hammer.

Your tanks are modifiable. They have weapons such as machineguns that are intended to defend the armor against infantry. You have a choice in setting up your tank in this game. You can design a tank destroyer, or a more flexible main battle tank that is designed to operate against infantry targets as well as armor but flexibility has its costs. Its much like those who have anti vehicle loadouts without any means of defending against infantry.

Would you please find a chromosome blaster video, i can not seem to find one.

Anyway, just to be clear, no where does it say the blaster turret is for AV. The turret was originally meant for AI. Go ahead and look up chromosome Blaster turret video. The videos are a great example of how good the turret used to be.

LB was never supposed to be anti-infantry.

There are literally places where tanks can be running at full speed toward cover while at max health, and be killed by swarms before they even get there.

I love when people talk about things when they don't know what they're talking about.

However...



---


Interesting, give me an example.

I love how idiot tank drivers only consider the cost of the weapon in SP/ISK.

Every time youdo that I'm going to start comparing the cost of my weapon to the cost of your turret. And emphasisze that since it's the only part of the fit that actually kills it's the only valid cost to compare.

Challenge Accepted.

Challenge Accepted.

Interesting, give me an example.

if they are so useless and irrelevant, why do they dominate mates so often.

to be fair they can be killed but they are a huge force multiplier in the form of tanks and it can't be denied that even militia DS can turn a game.