Profile of Jae For Jett

Except kinetic energy isn't really relevant for comparing the effects of mass and velocity in this context. Neither are shaped charges.

The "velocity guns" can be equated to KEPs, but 152mm and 122mm HE rounds can't really be grouped into either category. Increased velocity means a lot more energy, but thats only really going to increase penetration. While I suppose that does fall under destructive power, more mass means more explosive filler. For rounds this big, that means both more penetration (negligible, I guess), and more shock (I'd count that as damage) to the vehicle if it doesn't penetrate, and more straight up damage if it does. That's why I tried not to exclusively refer to mass, but also to payload (because that's what I think we're actually trying to imply when we say mass).

I get that the bolded part isn't really true given the proportionalities, but that's only if you remove my words from their context. He mentioned an example that used an absurd velocity to yield an absurd result, and that statement was only meant to imply that you could do the same for mass (use an absurd mass to yield an absurd result).

Overall, I think you're sticking too close to principles that really aren't applicable to the actual points of discussion.

Velocity is the most important, look at a rail gun, or the effects of particulate matter accelerated to large speeds in orbit. A flec of paint at high enough speed can have the same impact as an atom bomb.

"Look at [insert celestial body], or the effects of cosmic scale collisions. An object traveling at a literal snail's pace with a high enough mass can have the same impact as an atom bomb."

Claiming velocity (or any single factor) as "the most important," is horribly misguided. Scale any of the factors up high enough, and you'll get insane results. With modern technology, increasing the velocity of a projectile is trivial compared to increasing the mass of the projectile, hence rail guns. Velocity is emphasized so much not because it's more "important," but because it's far more practical to maximize.

Also, I say modern technology because, to my knowledge, this wasn't always the case. While velocity was the most practical factor to optimize now, that doesn't mean it was the most practical factor to optimize during the time period in question, the 1940s. This truth is seen in the weaponry (artillery guns and tank cannons) of the time, which had much larger calibers (when possible) than equivalent modern weapons do. In the context of this conversation and given the practical limitations faced during the time period, payload and mass probably were "more important" than velocity. Again though, there is no absolute "most important" factor when you remove context.

While you are building M1 you can build UC to counter the UC...

At that point, I'd prefer to just counter it with a KT. Countering UCs is the KT's one true purpose, after all.

I bet the poor bastard competing in esports forced to use the inferior faction cares.

Then you would be wrong.

...or suddenly facing Romeo...

If only :'(