Always has been.
You are welcome to cry about me “maining” something for the 50th time though.
Not really, its been shifting quite often between “atleast it was invented” / “atleast it was used somewhere else”
Depending ofc which ever narrative fits your needs.
My lines have always been
- is there any evidence of it being used in said battle?
- was it at least adopted by the military by that time?
If both are “no” then NO.
Feel free to quote me saying something contrary to this or saying T-50 is perfectly fine.
1 Like
Here we have the “atleast it existed” argument.
Yes, see point 2 in my list.
There’s “bad” and there’s “the worst”.
T-50 is bad but at least it was adopted by 1941-42.
Well there you go that one was without “bad” on it.
And here we again have the “but but but atleast”
I’ve never said it wasn’t bad.
Why so butthurt? lmao
Time travelling equipment is simply horrible.
Like just in that above sentence ?
Butthurt ? :----------------------------------------------DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDd
But but but it might be fine if its soviet right
Like always.
You keep replying tryig to prove a point you’ve lost for the 20th time.
Yeah because… “main” right?
big letters for you: ALL TIME TRAVELLLING EQUIPMENT IS HORRIBLE
sure
Quite sure ive done it now more than once.
You seem to have oddly much time to “prove” otherwise.
Yep
But but but except some soviet equipment but but right ?
Use google translate to your native language: “all”.
You’ve definitely made a mess in your pants more than once trying to argue maths and proving me as a “main” or comparing T-50 being as historically inaccurate as F2 lol
apparently your “all” doesnt include soviet equipment so I suppose we have different dictionary
Yeah u got me there, after all im the one trying to prove myself not maining but accidentally forgetting certain things of my favorite faction
This is exactly where your whataboutism and rather selective historical accuracy comes in play.
T-50 isn’t time travelling at least. Bad but not back to the future bad.
Why is this hard to comprehend? I literally spelled points 1 and 2 for you.
Your dictionary must be missing the entry “examples”
theere we go buddy, little bit of selective historical accuracy
Does examples translate as “German stuff” in soviet language ?
Literally have been spelling out the same thing for you:
Your native tongue must equate ‘examples’ and ‘exhaustive list’, not my fault if any language is deficient.
its quite simple, if you want historical accuracy you want historical accuracy. Theres no “buts” “atleast” or “ifs”
Which you for apparent reason cant understand since ur maining soviets.
Your exhausted of typing 3 equipments that conveniently are germans.
:----------------------------------------------------------------------DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDd
Go be soviet main somewhere else
Just remove T-50 and stop this madness.
Yeah, sorry im above that childish insulting stuff u cant drag me to your level.
Was it there ? No it wasnt.
Theres no fiddling room in historical accuracy.
Surely you can understand that if you put your maining feelings aside and think rationally for once.
Most likely wasn’t.
But it was an active unit in PKKA at that time.
Hence - it’s bad.
Time travelling stuff like MKB or F2 (yes, AS-44 and RPD included, jesus) weren’t.
Hence - these are even worse.
on operation winter storm there are photos of tiger 1’s in stalingrad. so they could easly add them there.
i dont know how far stalingrad campaign is or will go, so if stalingrad campaign goes atleast around that scenario of the Don-front , sure… historical accuracy.
1 Like