Profile of JohnSmith

We're diverging from the topic with endless arguments about schematics and trying to define what exactly the Panther is - which has been done to death in all previous threads about similar topics. Why not get back to the topic at hand instead of nitpicking on things completely out of context?

It is always worth taking the values of units posted in threads with a pinch of salt. It is way too common and way too regular that numbers that might make the rebuttal worse, or values that do not fit the narrative of the thread are casually ignored or deliberately made more confusing to read or understand. That was even pointed out by elchino7 recently. So beware! It is always best to check and test yourself. I hope this helps!

So, from what I understand by reading this thread, people are quarrelling that the most favourite and most built axis tanks in CoH2, which are fully capable of performing their allocated tasks undisputedly better than most allied tanks, are not totally the best tanks in the game? People are claiming that these Axis tanks are only placed close #2nd or #3rd best depending on dry disconnected stats but not on match-up and gameplay? People argue that these axis tanks are not overall #1 at everything but axis tanks should be the very best at everything? And that these Axis tanks should survive enemy ATGs, TDs, and premium doctrine tanks and axis tanks should always win in any condition? That's exactly what I read and what people posted - I'd say this thread is just 100% concentrated axis bias juice.

The widespread exaggeration that Churchills have high mobility is absolutely inaccurate, and deliberately misleading. People should stop centring their discussion on something that is erroneous and incorrect as their argument.

My point was and is that sentence:

"A good puma micro and your t-34 is useless because you will get penetrated frontally no matter what and even outranged?"

I actually wrong because the probability of a Puma hitting and penetrating a T-34/76 is simply too low to be characterized "no matter what" which indicates certainty (or very high probability).

[..]When someone uses the term "no matter what" it indicates a certainty (100%) or very high probability (above 90%). This hardly the case.

[..]
Puma DOES hardcounter T34 for the sole fact that it can shoot, keep the distance and SEE it without support of any other unit.
Everything above that is semantics.

To help you two, and to return this discussion back to the topic, allow me to constructively contribute to breaking this impasse about English sentence structure. I am trying to help as this appears to be vital to you two, and I'd like to increase the talk around the subject topic, and to reduce discussing the English grammar. This information is supported by my extensive knowledge provided by my English mother tongue.

<english-man> Tactical Imouto's sentence is grammatically correct; it is written as a declarative sentence (future continuous tense). The user makes the statement that the Puma will (in the future) penetrate the T34. This is asserted to be true - the puma will definitely penetrate the t34. Nevertheless, the range, or multiple hits, despite anything, this condition of penetrating will always be met at some point in the future - no matter what, this condition will be true. Tactical Imouto does not talk about predicting the chance of penetration or expected shots needed. If the sentence were written in Present Simple Tense (e.g. The puma penetrates the T34, no matter what), then it'd be wrong (itc, sentence says that condition is always met). Can explain more English Grammar over PM, if interested.</english-man>


I hope this helps to clarify, so we can all return to discussing T4