I will not provide links to videos to tactics which were used, discussed and abused years ago. It's pretty pointless, utterly petty and disrespectful to have to request a fellow community-member to have to go back through countless materials just to satisfy some player-experience based-anecdote. Additionally, it drags things off-topic. Also, you could have also asked for videos for when double snipers were used before WFA to satisfy my quote - and I believe there's absolutely no point to show videos of that either, as it's just old stuff from years ago that people just did alongside experienced higher ranked players with countless CoH2 recalling the validity of such tactics.
In either case, you may firmly remain by your conviction that player experienced things may have not happened before unless proven to you - and I do not wish or intend to change your stand on things.
It's a simple request made in a polite manner.
There is nothing "petty" or "disrespectful" about it. You brought up 221 spam as an argument not me.
Feel free not to provide any evidence of 221 spam.
Only I don't remember 221 spam being a valid 2vs2 tactic or even in the meta and allot have changed since then especially early option against armored cars.
Actually the only time when there was an issues was when the 221 was removed and replaced by 222 and it was the 222 that was being spammed.
Patch notes:
"222 Scout Car
The 222 also wasn’t scaling with veterancy as well as other light vehicles and suffered from inconsistent damage output preventing it from tracking infantry properly. We also felt that the auto-cannon was too reliant on AOE for damage. Another concern with the 222 was that it was too cheap relative to its performance,
Manpower cost increased from from 210 to 250
Fuel cost increased from 15 to 30
...."
The 222-221 is hardly off Topic since OP clearly says that 222 does not seem to be a good counter to sniper.
The question still remains why in your opinion 221 will create "loads of problems, especially against USF."