This is a very simple and quite well thought out rant-

Recently, I have watched or read many articles or videos on; tanks, weapons, planes, and warriors. Often times, the videos will compare a weapon to another weapon that were for completely different role. What angers me more, I will give an example, is when they compare a long sword and a Katana. The video I watched compared the two weapons, they tested them against; ballistic gel, plate steel, and a steel chest plate. These are what late medieval era weapons from Europe were meant to fight, not Japanese weapons from the same era. Both regions are on the other side of the world, the warriors were trained differently, the armor they had to defeat was completely different, and the process used to produce them were different.

European Armor

Japanese Armor

Of course both ruled the battle fields of that era, but they had different roles in combat. Not to mention the very fields they were used in were completely different. However, the weapons were not always used on knights...so yeah.
Another annoying thing is tank comparisons, I will link to a few videos that made my brain numb. I cringe when ever I see a video only attacking a specific tank's flaws, or its earlier models. I have seen video were they were comparing a Pz. 4 and a M4. This was probably the most fair comparison of WWII tanks ever. They were both some of the most massed produced, simplest, easy to maintain, and were good for the current logistics system. The video attacked the Sherman for running on a gas engine, ignoring the fact that the German tank also had a petrol engine. (THEY ALSO DID NOT LOOK AT THE WAY AMMUNITION WAS STORED) They went on about the Sherman, despite the fact that they were eventually given a 76mm high velocity gun, not having the ability to kill a Pz. 4, Tiger, or Panther from the front. The were comparing the tanks that had come out of the war...so they were the late versions. That video was not that bad, but the ones on Tiger heavy tanks made my brain hurt more. The two tanks a re vastly different, the M4 was meant to be affordable, simple, and to not be a logistics nightmare...along with good support and armor capabilities for its era. The Tiger was a beast, fuel hungry, too heavy, and only for tank on tank combat. The Tiger, and Tiger II, have many of the same problems as the M1a2. I will not go into much detail, but will provide some links at the bottom. The tanks were also produced in such low numbers as to not really have an effect, while the M4, and its variants were produced in mass numbers. In war coverage is everything. (The reason the Maus was a stupid idea)

BlacktailDefense
Example of a Video