Read again. I merely stated that Steel Fury Kharkov 1942 used Wikipedia sources and that there is no realistic WW2 tanksim to date which does everything correctly (impossible anyway, not to mention that Ro is not a tanksim and depicts mechanized warfare rather poorly). There are people who are part of the HCsim genre for over decades (military, engineers, historians, so this does not make you unique in any form or way). Mils is a unit of length, 0.0254 mm for one unit or 1/6400 in angular measurement. The text does not provide an indepth definition (for example the swiss 32" system) or its mathematical derivation. Short: It is trigonometry, chronometry/RADs formed into a simplification by using the intercept theorem (as a handy tool for the commander, today you have IRLS and a ballistics computer), minimalizing the angle necessity (ever heard of limes?). That is more than just giving people [MILS/1000 = width on the straight/distance to target] (the term "mils system" exists and it was written in capital letters in the handbook).
There are just blatant statements (not even comparisons) about "this is better than that" by using russian terms and thinking "must be original because i used them to impress people", basically something anyone who read Tankovy udar could do without looking at TOE or providing any combat values (for example values the russian military or dupuy institute use). It felt like reading some lines directly taken from people like Samsonov or Kadidal. In other words: Bias. Experts on tanks (just to name a few) would be Ian Allen (partially, made also tons of mistakes), Isaev, Zaloga, Michulec, Kavalerchik etc etc for the Germans it would be Spielberger and Jentz (or getting information from the "Fibels") - others generally base their knowledge off mindfarts.
Another thing. Personal attacks will only reveal your true intellect and might seem like a distraction. For your information: I am not from the english speaking world and you should be open to criticism (especially when advertising something in this forum). Your postulation makes people think that Soviet sights were unique and differed substantially from others in that era which is wrong and another oversimplification - the only difference lies in the so called "Gitternord", grid imaging. Furthermore, the Soviets primarily adopted German, French, British and American systems and struggled with their optics during WW2 until maybe 44 after introducing the TSh-16 stated in their own sources. I could go on for hours and hours but i would have preferred a bit more NARA, ROSarchive/TSAMO, Askey or Journal of Slavic Military studies data but that would go far beyond the things gamers are looking into.
Additionally, i would like to point out that the A-32/T34 series has more deficits than just a missing radio (at least till 43) which pretty much sums up the quality of the presented content.
Have a nice day.