Sgt Joch

If you want to be the good guys, you have to do the good things.

Well this is the rub about the whole thing.  Proportionality is a core concept in the Law of Armed Conflict. There are no shortcuts to reduce your own casualties or for convenience.  Collateral damage is accepted but it must be demonstrated that every reasonable mitigation was taken to reduce it. 
So you get a sniper in a building firing at you.  And you know there are civilians either trapped or being held in that building.  Well you have a suit of options.  A counter-sniper program.  Use of a lower yield weapon such as an ATGM or PGM.  A tank HE round.  Or, yes even a ground assault and clearance.  Firing a 2000 pound JDAM into the base of the building to drop it knowing there may be a hundred civilians inside to take out a small group of militants would need a legal defence to show that no other options were available.  There is the tactical situation and other considerations of course.  
Now the IDF may even be cycling through these and have developed a reasonable mitigation approach.  What is suspicious is the level of destruction and its pace.  Based on the speed of damage and how widespread it is I am willing to bet we are seeing shortcuts being taken.  Now that should trigger an outside investigation - in fact UN offices are already calling for it.  Further, willful destruction of infrastructure with intent to make it uninhabitable is also a war crime (something the UN has also highlighted).
None of this has anything to do with the horrendous things Hamas did illegally to start this war.  In fact the LOAC was specifically put in place to avoid revenge escalations or unlawful retaliation. None of this is “pro-Israel” or “pro-Hamas”, that is frankly a distraction being exploited by both sides.  It is “pro-international law”.  Things have gotten so bad that the UNSC voted 13-1, with the UK abstaining.  To call for a slow down on this thing.  US vetoed and supplied more tank shells.  The optic now is that the rules apply to everyone but the US and its designated allies.
Imagine for a second of this was Russia or China doing the exact same thing?  Oh wait, we don’t have to imagine it, we have seen it in Ukraine for almost 2 years.  And we all shouted loudly (and correctly) that it was a warcrime.  But when Israel does that…and it is starting to look worse in some cases…”well that is just combat”?
Take the emotion out of it and try to apply a strictly legal lens.  I cannot even say definitely that what the IDF is doing has crossed the line.  I can say that is it suspicious and likely needs further investigation.  Has the IDF announced it will allow in military observers from the UN?  Has it demonstrated righteous shoots?  Have they announced a multi-billion dollar fund to rebuild Gaza once this is over?  Not that I have seen or heard.
We either apply the law universally or throw it out and we can go all Genghis.  But I am pretty sure no one is going to like that answer either.
 

pretty much totally off tangent other than being a guided vehicle of sorts, but this is what NASA developed to deflate the tires on the space shuttle.  The tires PSI was so high that it was the equivalent of 2.5 sticks of dynamite if it blew.  This engineer took a Tamiya Tiger II motorized model, stuck a DeWalt drill on it and Voila!  It actually served for a bit successfully deflating .. and surviving 9 tires.

Well, 30-60-90 Abrams while nice would not be a “magic bullet”. As we know from CM and other conflicts, they can be immobilized by say mines and can be killed by ATGMs, direct tank fire to sides/rear. Even if they do manage to break through Russian lines, if they are alone because infantry is pinned by artillery fire, they will eventually have to fall back.
As the Germans found out at Kursk, “Uber” tanks alone do not guarantee victory.

I don't think there is any chance the US will ever order more ATACMs now that it's replacement is nigh.
Supplying the longer ranged versions to Ukraine would be good but the Kerch Bridge is apparently off-limits for western-supplied munitions because of politics.

Just to note, Oz is a reliable reporter and has extensive experience in ME and Ukraine.
 

Tokmak probably isn't really closed for Russian logistics. If it were that simple it would have been done months ago, as you alluded to. One of the most pervasive myths in this war is that you can "close" a supply route with indirect fires. That's not how it works. Russian and Ukrainian forces are separated by only a few kilometers in most places yet those forces are resupplied. There is attrition, yes, but plenty gets through.

And this is where I stop listening.  "Forced" to sign the Ottawa treaty.  Sure.  By who?  Bigfoot?
They were!
"May 1990: Gorbachev and Bush Meet at Camp David and Washington
Presidents Bush and Gorbachev met in Washington and Camp David in May 1990. They signed a key elements agreement for a strategic arms treaty, a chemical weapons reduction accord, and a trade agreement reducing barriers to U.S.-Soviet commerce. They also concluded several other bilateral accords to increase cultural and scientific exchanges, and maritime and air links. In addition, the two leaders discussed the topics of Lithuania and German unification. Following the summit, President Gorbachev journeyed to Minneapolis to meet local business leaders. The next day, he met with former President Reagan in San Francisco before returning to Moscow."
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/85962.htm#:~:text=Presidents Bush and Gorbachev met,barriers to U.S.-Soviet commerce.
Hey, you want to paint some nonsense Grampa Simpson rants on how this war you are in is all the US/West's fault - go for it, see how far it gets you in sustaining international support. 
Oh and you totally got me with that picture:
  


Clear indication of a Canadian conspiracy to get into bed with Russia...must be why we forced Ukraine to sign the Ottawa treaty.

Oh even better, let’s double down shall we - now it is all the “West’s fault”.  The US did not “force” anyone to disarm.  Ukraine took the money happily and got rid of mountains of old USSR stocks that would not have shortened you current war at all. Or worse held onto strategic nukes that would have accelerated one.
Regardless, what is unfolding in Israel has nothing to do with their stance on Russia. Or the West not carpet bombing Moscow every time a suicide bomber goes off in Tel Aviv.  In fact beyond some pretty tenuous money trails from Russia buying stuff from Tehran to support their war, that in turn likely funded some Hamas, the link is non-existent.  We could have pounded Russia into sand and Hamas would still be doing this sort of stuff, or do you honestly think deterrence extends that far.
For the record it is in extremely bad taste to post video of slaughtered Israeli civilians and follow up with “I told you so”, especially when the “told” is so far off the mark it borders on John Kettler-level.  It suggests that in your opinion that Israel deserves whatever this is because they have not sent Ukraine enough whatever - statements like that make one wonder just who the hell we are supporting in this war.
Globally, basically the only way you appear to be satisfied is if the US and West essentially start behaving like Russia - that will somehow make the world a better place?  We tried a lot of hard power flexing in the 2000s, we invaded two countries and a whole lot of westerners are left wondering what the freakin point was.  Now we got new messes to deal with and do not need partners we are trying to keep above water telling us “you are doing it wrong” anymore than Ukraine wants us to tell you how to win your war.

Dude, stick to Ukraine.  You are making enormously unfounded leaps of logic here.  No one can reasonably describe Israeli foreign policy with respect to Iran (where they launched numerous HVT strikes over the years) or Gaza/Hamas (where they have conducted regular airstrikes and military action/war back to 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza–Israel_conflict) as “two chair sitting”.  Drawing a leap between Israeli perceived restraint with respect to the war in your country and what just happened in and around Gaza is drifting into conspiracy theory and disinformation.  As I read it you are basically on the road to blaming every misery and long standing conflict in the west sphere on our escalation restraint. This is 1) wrong and 2) disingenuous.

quite a good summary.
I have for the past several months been ploughing through a fascinating 2,000 page book on Operation Barbarossa by two french authors. The book came out in 2019 and is based on the latest research from German and Russian archives. It of course gives a good summary of the pre-invasion political maneuvering and of the military ops in summer 41-winter 42, but what is fascinating is the extent of the atrocities committed by both sides which was in fact worse than what I had previously read.
Barbarossa, Jean Lopez, Lasha Otkhmezuri | Livre de Poche
Regular German army units were from the start regularly involved in civilian massacres, executing prisoners, wiping out villages, killing jews. SS units and of course, the einsatzgruppens were even worse. Russian army units were slightly better, but not by much.
Anti-semitism was of course a problem throughout Europe at that time, but was worse in Eastern Europe and especially in the Baltic states and Ukraine where the Germans had no problem recruiting locals to kill Jewish civilians.
 

quite a good summary.
I have for the past several months been ploughing through a fascinating 2,000 page book on Operation Barbarossa by two french authors. The book came out in 2019 and is based on the latest research from German and Russian archives. It of course gives a good summary of the pre-invasion political maneuvering and of the military ops in summer 41-winter 42, but what is fascinating is the extent of the atrocities committed by both sides which was in fact worse than what I had previously read.
Barbarossa, Jean Lopez, Lasha Otkhmezuri | Livre de Poche
Regular German army units were from the start regularly involved in civilian massacres, executing prisoners, wiping out villages, killing jews. SS units and of course, the einsatzgruppens were even worse. Russian army units were slightly better, but not by much.
Anti-semitism was of course a problem throughout Europe at that time, but was worse in Eastern Europe and especially in the Baltic states and Ukraine where the Germans had no problem recruiting locals to kill Jewish civilians.
 

quite a good summary.
I have for the past several months been ploughing through a fascinating 2,000 page book on Operation Barbarossa by two french authors. The book came out in 2019 and is based on the latest research from German and Russian archives. It of course gives a good summary of the pre-invasion political maneuvering and of the military ops in summer 41-winter 42, but what is fascinating is the extent of the atrocities committed by both sides which was in fact worse than what I had previously read.
Barbarossa, Jean Lopez, Lasha Otkhmezuri | Livre de Poche
Regular German army units were from the start regularly involved in civilian massacres, executing prisoners, wiping out villages, killing jews. SS units and of course, the einsatzgruppens were even worse. Russian army units were slightly better, but not by much.
Anti-semitism was of course a problem throughout Europe at that time, but was worse in Eastern Europe and especially in the Baltic states and Ukraine where the Germans had no problem recruiting locals to kill Jewish civilians.
 

It is completely broken. Just look at this they get within 50 meters of each other in broad daylight and be doesn't even see it. It's laughable that anybody would consider this to be realistic behaviour.
Completely unplayable, I want a refund.
 

Updated to 1.2
Changelog:
-Made C7 and C8 furniture more green after receiving feedback.
-Added dusty grenade launcher for C8
 

That's true almost by definition, since the Russians are not going to he in the middle of their own minefields. Anyone who thought otherwise is deeply deluding themselves.

Once the cluster munitions have been provided, they will also be used in areas where the Russians have not planted mines. Villages, orchards, rear areas, artillery positions, etc.
Officially, there is a promise that they will note and log all areas they hit with these things, but experience from Iraq shows that doesn't happen in practice.
You can look at all this and say "Ok, but they still need these weapons because they absolutely need to win the war", and that's a perfectly fine argument.
Just don't say that the article is based on misconceptions, because it does address both of those points (already existing massive Russian minefields and cluster use, as wel as lack of conventional shells) towards the end.
The article is not based on the opinion of some random journalist with soft liberal sensitivities, but on interviews with actual US combat veterans.

Lol. Way to make it all about you: Kill more people, plz, so I may avoid imagined humiliation.

As I recall, what factors determine off road capability are kept deliberately "fuzzy" by BFC. The "Off Road" rating has more to do with the tank suspension design which is why the Panther has an excellent rating while the Sherman and T-34 only have an average rating even though the last two were more mechanically reliable than the Panther. I had run some tests a few years back, racing all three across a "muddy" map and the chances of bogging did not vary that much.
Overall chances of mechanical breakdown are factored in, but as someone pointed out (maybe Steve), the chances of an AFV breaking down while moving less than 1 km in a 1 hour period (typical CM scenario) are fairly low. Mechanical breakdowns/fuel shortages are best handled by the scenario designer when choosing the number of AFVs available.
That said, the chances of "bogging/immobilising" is a way to keep players aware of the fact that even tracked vehicles cannot go everywhere. In RL, tankers are very careful of where they go since even a small mechanical issue can immobilize the tank.
I am always reminded of Anzio. The Germans had assembled a formidable collection of AFVs to wipe out the beachhead, but conditions were very muddy so the tankers were very reluctant to go off-road and stayed on the roads. Unfortunately, all the roads leading to the beachhead were copiously covered by allied AT assets so the big attack never came off.
 

As I recall, what factors determine off road capability are kept deliberately "fuzzy" by BFC. The "Off Road" rating has more to do with the tank suspension design which is why the Panther has an excellent rating while the Sherman and T-34 only have an average rating even though the last two were more mechanically reliable than the Panther. I had run some tests a few years back, racing all three across a "muddy" map and the chances of bogging did not vary that much.
Overall chances of mechanical breakdown are factored in, but as someone pointed out (maybe Steve), the chances of an AFV breaking down while moving less than 1 km in a 1 hour period (typical CM scenario) are fairly low. Mechanical breakdowns/fuel shortages are best handled by the scenario designer when choosing the number of AFVs available.
That said, the chances of "bogging/immobilising" is a way to keep players aware of the fact that even tracked vehicles cannot go everywhere. In RL, tankers are very careful of where they go since even a small mechanical issue can immobilize the tank.
I am always reminded of Anzio. The Germans had assembled a formidable collection of AFVs to wipe out the beachhead, but conditions were very muddy so the tankers were very reluctant to go off-road and stayed on the roads. Unfortunately, all the roads leading to the beachhead were copiously covered by allied AT assets so the big attack never came off.
 

As I recall, the original issue was that the TacAI is too accurate, I can recall early versions of CMBN where the AI would fire their Thompson SMGs like a mortar and hit targets 300+ meters away. Various tweaks were tried to get the AI to act more human like, but hey, it is an AI...That is why you have the current system with the hard range stop and reducing the accuracy of SMG fire. It works pretty well most of the time since SMGs are not a main infantry weapon. Where you have a problem is with units that are equipped just with SMGs, like Russian SMG squads, which are probably more effective than they should be at short-range, although there is not much than can be done without totally nerfing SMGs.
I ran a quick test a while ago and at 150 meters, SMGs had to fire 200 rounds for each casualty they caused.
This may also be of interest:
 

I didn't fight for the abstract concept of nationhood. But I DID choose to join the military (US Army) as a career. Because I love my friends and family, and being a soldier was my best way to serve THEM. When it actually came to war, I fought for the folks on my left and right. Nationhood sounds good as a thing to fight for, but there are very few people who actually do that.

As for fighting for my country: That is precisely the point. I couldn't care less about my country. My country is just a bunch of lines on a map. It was totally random that I was born within the confines of these lines and not others. Three centuries ago my country didn't even exist. It was a number of smaller areas on a map with some dudes constantly wanting to redraw those lines because they didn't have a playstation or something similar and were bored. Except for the random nobleman who "owned" that patch of land, nobody cared about those lines on the map and much less would have wanted to fight for them. Enter Napoleon and suddenly people here were told that they were Germans and that this conglomerate of lines on a map is something glorious worth fighting and dying for, instead of... well, living in a country that was actually more civilized but with less noblemen still having their heads attached to their necks.
In the following years, people were told that, since they were born inside these lines on a map, they had to hate people for being born inside the neighbouring lines on the map. After the inevitable war, the then "Germans" could finally become Germans, united under a (suddenly beloved) nobleman who called himself emperor. The emperor was of Prussian origin and thus the Germans were told that a militaristic society is the best. With great "Hurray!" millions went to the next war... because... was it even about lines on a map? Or just because going to war is so awesome? Millions of dead later - who absolutely enjoyed the experience of dying for their country (if nothing else), Germans had a brief experiment with nasty leftist ideas like, actually voting for stuff and such.
That ended quickly, when Germans were told that being randomly born to the right parents, they were better than people who were randomly born to different people. And also that the lines on that map absolutely need to be redrawn because people with the right parents need more space and those people being born to parents to the east in areas surrounded by lines called "Poland", "Russia" or "Ukraine" wouldn't need that space, anyway. Oh, and Germans were of course told that being born within the right set of lines, the absolute best is of course to fight and die for that set of lines.
After the inevitable war with even more dead, some people wondered whether those "leftist" ideas weren't all that bad, after all. Voting, inviolability of human dignity, etc. But alas, the lines on the map called Germany had been split into two sets of lines. Both sides were told that it was absolutely preferable to kill their relatives on the other side to allowing them to redraw the lines. If that didn't help it was absolutely necessary to just convert both Germanies, and if necessary the whole world, into a nuclear wasteland.
See, we are kind of fed up with this nonsense of "dying for our country". In between we found out that human rights, like e.g. not getting randomly imprisoned and shot without trial, kind of made sense and that our neighbours weren't as bad as we were told. Even the French. Especially the French. As others have pointed out, had the question been if we are willing to fight for freedom, democracy, etc. the answer would probably have been different.
And finally, let me be honest with you: I support my government in sending billions in money and materiel to help you defend your lives, your right to decide for yourselves, your freedom and, yes, your human rights and the possibility to enjoy your lives. Not the random lines on the map called Ukraine.
 

I doubt anyone else had trouble understanding it....😎

I would be leery about making conclusions based on videos when we only have fragmentary info on what is actually going on and no or only vague info on what actual ordnance was used.
Currently, the game only models conventional artillery with mostly "dumb" HE shell and a small number of GPS/laser guided precision rounds. From what I can see, the existing effect of indirect HE on AFVs in the game seems more or less correctly modelled. US 155 mm HE ammo, for example, will immobilize/damage Russian tanks with a direct hit and can destroy less armoured IFVs even with a near miss. When a conventional HE shell misses, even if it hits close by, only a fraction of the explosion is directed at the AFV, most of it is directed upwards if it hits the ground or 360 degrees if it is an airburst, so no reason why anything other than a near miss should cause damage. Even when a tank hits a mine, the usual result is immobilization from track damage rather than destruction.
One caveat of course is that anti-vehicle cluster munitions like those which can be potentially fielded by the M142 HIMARS or M270 MLRS or equivalent Russian systems like the BM21 GRAD or Tornado G could potentially damage or destroy AFVs from farther away than conventional HE shells, but these would typically only be used to strike units deep behind the front lines because of the high risk of collateral damage to friendly troops. These are not modelled in the game, but would normally be outside the scope of a typical CM battle in any event.