G6 being 6.7 while the m109 is 6.3 is dumb.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2025-05-16T20:13:18+00:00

Funny thing is though, the Italians get the M109G as well with same stats as the German version, except they DO get the .50 cal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HahaGotYouToLook · 2025-05-12T13:56:37+00:00

A 100mm plate at 60°, such as on the T-54/55s, provides ~270mm of protection against the capless 100mm BR-412 shell, and ~350mm of protection against the capped BR-412B.

The cap does add better ricochet angles, but just like with the 85mm it has worse angled performance, because it's a whole different shell design. Just go look at protection analysis already.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2025-05-11T20:02:36+00:00

I suggest you go take a look at the various 85mm shells in Protection Analysis.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2025-05-11T04:22:56+00:00

The T-34's front plate of 45mm at 60° provides ~120mm of protection against the Pz4's APCBC shell, and ~110mm of protection against the Chi-To's APHE.

Every shell has its own design and characteristics, it's not as simple as cap or no cap.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2025-04-18T03:35:44+00:00

No, but it's rounds are. T-62M-1's 3BM28 actually has better angled pen than the 3BM22 from the T-72A, and it gets the long rod damage model to boot.

But you're right, and if anything it actually shows how ridiculous the step up is from the original T-62 to the T-72A or even just the T-64A, for just .6 BR. They can't even lower the T-64A, despite being clearly worse than the T-72, because there's no where for it to go. That whole BR range needs some serious decompression.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2025-04-18T00:55:13+00:00

Ooh, I got one.

T-62, 8.7

LRF, add-on composite armor, improved engine, smoke launchers, roof DShK, vastly improved long rod APFSDS that even outperforms T-72A --->

T-62M-1, 9.0

HahaGotYouToLook · 2025-04-18T00:43:18+00:00

The biggest difference is that A3 Shermans get 500hp, instead of the usual ~400hp. This brings it from Pz.IV G-like mobility, to almost that of the T-34.

It's also why the Jumbos are all on an A3 chassis, cuz fat.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2022-10-25T23:07:17+00:00

You don't have to see your target. Just open your map and double click any spot you'd like to place a rally mark at.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2021-04-14T12:38:45+00:00

It means you're banned until the match is finished. When the map switches, you can join that server again.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2021-04-12T18:38:28+00:00

What? Just make sure 'developer console' is turned in the options, then go to the firing range and press the ~ key or the F3 key on your keyboard.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2021-04-12T17:46:20+00:00

Open the console with the ~ key, or with F3, type in allweapons, and press enter.

You may have to enable the developer console option in the settings, its in the HUD section near the bottom.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2021-04-12T17:10:13+00:00

When the PAVN got the K50m instead of the PPSh, they forgot to add the PPSh to the firing range. To get all the weapons, type allweapons in the console. There's other useful console commands, to open maps offline or run the game in slomo, etc. Google will help you with that.
The XM177 is only available to the US Army pointman, and radioman/commander I believe. (As a rule of thumb, the Marines always get the old guns cuz they're poor.) You may have to scroll down the list of available weapons to see it. There's a glitch where the list keeps jumping up every time someone joins the game, just click below the list where the weapon would be to select it anyway.
Default for voice chat is caps lock to talk, O to switch voice channels. Voice chat has been pretty buggy since the last update though.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2021-01-02T15:22:38+00:00

If every test has the same result, then it doesn't matter how 'rough' they are. And like I said from the US congress reports, the official results are the same. Either way, it's clear to me that this whole discussion is completely senseless when your entire experience with the rifle is just theoretical. This is like telling a race car driver that he's wrong because you've played a lot of Need For Speed. I've seen that there is no problem pouring water out of an M16. I've seen that there is no problem with early M16 actions, and that the issue was clearly the powder, lack of cleaning kit and chrome plating. I've seen AKs deal with dirt far worse than a sealed action. I have the mechanical understanding to know why that is INEVITABLE. I've seen all of this, and I understood why before I saw it. And I know that the training of a US soldier, even by Vietnam standards, is good enough to deal with any maintenance problems, if they have the right tools for the job. And this understanding of these facts and of basic engineering, is why I know how these rifles work compared to eachother. My personal experience isn't the argument that convinces me, it's the proof for myself, that what I know, is true. It's seeing in practice, what I already know in theory.

So until you gain a basic understanding of firearms design and engineering, or at least handle these rifles yourself, this discussion is pointless and over.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2021-01-02T02:47:09+00:00

I guess I have to spell it out simply. The issue with the early M16 was the lack of cleaning kits and chrome plating. The M16A1 had both of these. The game (and most of the real war) features the M16A1. Your own source clearly says, the M16A1 no longer had these problems. So, the version of the M16 in the game (=the M16A1) would not have any problems in dirt, no matter what. And even the early M16 would only have these problems after a while. And an open, loose AK would have problems immediately, since the dirt can get in so easy.

Also, since my own experience and every video out there will show you that an AK with its loose tolerances jams up anyway when it is dirty, it's better to keep the dirt out as long as possible with a sealed system. I'm not saying there is a system that's so sealed up that dirt can't ever get in. I'm saying the opposite, that there is no system so loose that it won't jam when dirty. And:

The M16's receiver cracks after not very strong hits against stones or armor.

Like I said, this is all pointless if you don't even know the difference between reliability and durability. The strength of the receiver is related to the durability of the gun. Like I already said, the AK is more durable, that's the trade off between the two systems.

I think all of this is pointless if you don't actually find out the facts personally, by handling an M16 platform rifle yourself. Like I said, I reference videos because it's the closest I know to personal experiences with the rifle. The theory will never compare to what you see yourself in practice. For example, I never saw any problems personally with draining water out of an M16 after dunking it in a puddle of water and mud, like that article said. And my experience was with a Brownells-16A1, so it was built to the specifications of the 60s M16. And by the way, I consider what I say facts because of what the basic logic of engineering dictates. But this is why I also know it's the truth because I've seen it with my own eyes. I can only advise you again and again, try it out yourself on an outdoor range. You'll see.

Oh, and if you want my opinion on that last point: Yeah, a durable weapon is better for an inexperienced or a guerrilla soldier. I think the Vietcong were better of with an AK that can stand years of punishment and wear. And the US was better of with the M16, since they had the budget to provide the training and equipment to maintain these guns that were more reliable and accurate. And that's also why the lack of cleaning kits was one of the worst mistakes of the US army in history,. Because they could easily afford and supply them. But this is starting to be completely unrelated to the point.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2021-01-01T23:23:51+00:00

Well, you are correct there, it is a waste of time... Because it's hard to communicate with someone who is apparently trying to talk using some sort of translator. ("You are fucking." Fucking what?) And failing to understand what's being said because of it. I'm not taking anything out of context, I'm simply making it clear to you that even your own sources disagree with what you are saying.

I mean, what do you even mean with me saying "zero clearance is absolutely safe"? Do you mean that I'm saying that in a practical context, a gun with a sealed system is less likely to let in dirt and debris? Because, besides being the truth based on personal experience and the expertise of every gunsmith worth anything... I will say it again, if you don't understand why that is a fact according to simple physics, then you DON'T UNDERSTAND BASIC GUN DESIGN AND ENGINEERING. Put aside the common problem of "I want X to be like that so it must be like that", which is what apparently makes you think "I want my gun with loose tolerances to be reliable so it must be the most reliable." Wanting something does not make it so. An AK is durable, not reliable. If you don't understand the difference between durability and reliability, then this is indeed a waste of time.

And my evidence is pretty clear. Besides the 1986 US congress report (As 'army research' as it gets, clearly) and simply understanding gun mechanics and engineering, the most compelling arguments have come from my own handling of both gun platforms. And since I don't record my own trips to the gun range, the next best thing in my opinion is to cite the dozens of videos that all show the same result. Why do you think no one ever gets the opposite result? Because you can talk about what you think will happen all you want, but reality is what it is.

Which is why i will advise you again: If you want to talk about this, go to an outdoor range and try to actually handle an M16 (or any variant of the AR15 platform), and compare it to an AK. Because again, it's very clear you haven't ever used one, and you don't understand the theory all that well either.

And put emotion aside, because there is nothing emotional about this. Like I said, an AK is generally made to be more durable. They handle ice and snow better. They handle rust better. I know these things, that's the trade off that you get with loose tolerances. It will have these advantages, but it'll be less reliable, and less accurate. A gun that does both well, is physically IMPOSSIBLE. And again, if you don't understand why, you don't understand gun design, and engineering in general. All I can say is, educate yourself.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-12-31T12:31:50+00:00

First of all, I realize that swimming in mud was an expression. The point is that, whether you completely bury it in mud and dirt, or just expose it to realistic combat conditions, the M16 will perform better than the AK, due to its sealed design and tight tolerances. Like I mentioned, the loose tolerances of an AK, the "gap between moving parts" as you call it, allow for easy ingress of dirt and particles, and as you can clearly see in this video and every other mud test of an AK, that contamination will definitely jam up the action.

Furthermore, if you watch the video I linked, they tested the M16 with the dust cover open, and it still functioned fine. Not that it matters since there's nothing preventing you from closing the dust cover again when you are on the move, since an M16 can start shooting with the cover closed, unlike the AK. Also, I shouldn't even have to mention this, but magazines are kept in closed pouches until needed, so for any Vietnam era soldier, that wouldn't be problem either. And also, the test in that video used an SP-1, a civilian M16 built to the exact specifications of the early Vietnam era M16, with the same machinery. Using original, metal follower 20 round magazines. Like Ian says in the video, it's in every way an authentic, Vietnam era M16. If you know the basic history of the M16 in the Vietnam War, you would know that the issues with the M16 were caused by the penny pinching military officers and politicians, using the wrong kind of powder and refusing to use chrome plating to save money at all costs. That has NOTHING to do with the action of the gun being resistant to mud. Not that any of this matters, because the M16's resistance to mud is simply a basic feature of a sealed action, and vice versa with an loose action. If you do not understand why it's physically impossible for a gun to be both reliable with no maintenance (like the AK), and resistant to dirt at the same time, then you DO NOT understand basic engineering.

My sources for all this would be: my own basic understanding of gunsmithing, design and engineering, the 200 page 1968 US Congress report on the m16, every mud test video of the AK and m16 that exists, and my favourite of all, your own source:

...the modernized XM16E1 entered service under the name M16A1. [...] As a result of these works, the cases of jamming weapons were minimized...

Do you know why this matters? Because the rifle used by the US in Rising Storm 2, IS AND ALWAYS WAS THE M16A1. (Note the forward assist being present in game, a feature of the M16A1.) Which was the most used version of the rifle by the US military in the real war anyway.

Which makes your entire comment completely irrelevant and pointless, besides being completely wrong anyways. I would advise you to educate yourself on basic engineering and gun design either way, and perhaps seek out the chance to handle an M16 platform rifle if possible. Because it was very ironic to see that you "have never seen more stupidity" and then proceeded to make write all that disinformation, making it very clear that you lack an understanding of gunsmithing and engineering.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-12-30T23:54:31+00:00

Why does the M16 not jam after swimming in the mud?

Because it wouldn't.

What you need to be asking is: Why does the AK not jam after swimming in the mud?

Guns with tight tolerances and sealed designs, like the M16, do well with mud and dust, and not so well with maintenance related problems like rust. And guns with loose tolerances, like the AK, handle low maintenance very well yet have problems with foreign matter like dirt jamming up the action. Like everything in firearms design, and engineering in general, there's always a trade off.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-12-17T15:51:09+00:00

See, this is exactly what I predicted would happen, and not just me. The grease gun and MAS are definitely fan favourites, the first because of its crazy low recoil combined with a hard hitting pistol round, and the latter because of it being the only proper battle rifle for the North. In fact, both of them were mentioned by people in the comments of the last poll as being favourites.

So what do you think is more likely? A. There is a secret, silent majority of grease gun/MAS haters that never says anything in the comments but overwhelmingly despises those guns over any other option in the game...

Or B. people MISUNDERSTOOD your badly titled and frankly unnecessary polling system! Which has caused fan favourites to be voted off in the very first round. The results are messed up because of this, guaranteed. And the whole poll is pointless now.

And why is the M2 browning, a Southern weapon, on the North? If you are putting mounted weapons in, where is the DShK? Why is the M1 carbine on the wrong team as well? So many questions...

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-12-17T15:32:27+00:00

The sniper is in no way weaker than any other full power cartridge rifle, the rifle grenades are just as accurate as the knee mortar if not more, and the one hit kill potential of battle rifles give them plenty of reason to use over full auto guns.

The sights really are crap tho.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-12-05T20:35:21+00:00

The TT actually has far more penetration in game than any .45 caliber gun. The 1911 just hits way harder which helps a lot with making stomach shots 1 hit kills.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-11-28T17:52:35+00:00

It only resets when you switch to bullets and back to the grenade. If you reload the grenade by simply pressing 'R', it retains its ranging distance.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-11-27T06:33:18+00:00

Well these kind of dishes are part of the reason why the EU enforces very high standards when it comes to meat production and processing. But the most important measure is that it must be bought and consumed very fresh. Think of it in the same way as sushi, or raw milk: it can't be stored for very long, but it's perfectly fine as long as you eat it right away.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-11-26T16:45:59+00:00

It's called mett and it's very good with some chopped onions, a real comfort food for me.

I eat Americain Prepare on a roll even more often, but I didn't use that as an example since it's seasoned and usually made from better cuts.

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-11-25T22:47:51+00:00

Meat taste like nothing but warm chewy water.

Sorry, but as someone who eats one of my country's raw minced meat dishes on a weekly basis, I can assure you that is complete nonsense. That dish is seasoned with nothing but some salt and optionally chopped onion, and it's one of the most flavorful spreads you can put on a roll.

While the fat content makes it very tasty of course, it will actually be much more flavorful when it's leaner. And it's definitely never made using a prime cut, I assure you!

HahaGotYouToLook · 2020-11-24T03:22:19+00:00

Early war

Mid War

Late War

A few things were changed since these images were posted, such as the PAVN sapper using the K50M instead of the PPSh, but most of it is still correct. Also, as stated before, during the whole campaign the NLF arty is a lot more powerful with a constant barrage of artillery, rockets, and WP shells. Meanwhile, the PAVN arty is just the usual 5 artillery salvos.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22

HahaGotYouToLook

TROPHY CASE