Vanir Ausf B

I have no doubt it is to create space for the F-16s. The Russian A-50s are data linked to S-400s that launch 40N6 missiles with a 400 km range, meaning they could hit aircraft flying west of the Dnieper all the way from Russia.

It is and always has been. There are things you can do to stack the odds in your favor, and it sounds like you did that to a degree. But in Combat Mission, and I would argue in real life, doing everything the right way doesn't guarantee success. Of course, the corollary to that is sometimes you can screw up and still win.

Equipment loses, yes, but casualties are probably less lop-sided.

It's official.

Oh this is the SF2 forum. LOL. I thought it was Cold War.

The LOS tool tells you how far you can see well enough to plot area fire. In dense fog or other severe weather the distance at which units can be spotted will be similar, but on a clear moonless night those two distances will be different by hundreds of meters.

To the best of my knowledge Bradleys did not have reactive armor before 1988.

It was also the subject of a lengthy debate in this thread last week. Apparently the notion of urban combat equalizing casualties ratios is not unique to Russian propagandists.

Thanks! Interesting tidbit from Tatariagmi re: casualties in urban fighting. https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1758206754767200691

Machine translation of a summary:

Grant was also lucky that the Confederate commander (Johnston) caught a bullet early in the fight.

The things is, Grant had no intention of fighting a battle at Shiloh. The Union generals thought the Confederate army was 20 miles away and were taken completely by surprise.

Yep, that's the movie star.

The CM1 games leaned heavily on WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery by Bird and Livingston. Most CM2 results are still very close to their data but it appears BFC have migrated away from that in some areas. For example, CM2 does not use Bird and Livingston's shatter gap model (CM1 did).

Now we know why you've been a captain for 20 years.

BTW, to echo @Anthony P.s excellent points above, the guy in the video has a website (linked in the video description) containing a wealth of Soviet primary source material. But he is absolutely not an impartial investigator. He presents information that supports his narrative, ignores everything that doesn't, and is hostile to anyone who questions the data.

In-game results. Although I neglected to mention that the lower front hull can be penetrated in addition to the turret and mantlet. So yes, the IS-2 is fairly vulnerable to the 88mmL71 overall.

The IS-2s in Gog and Magog are the "mid" models with a stepped upper front hull. The "late" model IS-2 has a uniformly sloped upper front hull that can't be penetrated by the 88mmL71, although the mantlet can.

This is reportedly a Tiger I mantlet hit by an IS-2 in Romania. Granted, we don't know the range, but the close grouping suggests it was not super far.

My understanding is that this is a proposal that will be voted on by the full Senate this week. It's unclear if the votes are there to pass it. If it does pass it goes to the House where it's prospects are dim.

And yes, the red dots mean reduced rate of fire because of hot barrels.

That probably would be a bug, but I can't reproduce it. Every time I add an AVRE to a section/platoon it has 6 men.

An AVRE with a 3-man crew is a one shot weapon because there is no one to reload the petard mortar. The 6-man unified crew was a deliberate choice to ensure a fully-functional vehicle without having to buy a separate unit.

That's correct. The sapper team is technically a separate unit so if you want them you have to buy the formation or add them separately through the Specialist Teams menu.

For sure there will be huge demand for those skills, but if you're not paying for machine gunners, tanks crews and fighter pilots that should free money for a smaller number of technical specialists, at least enough to compete with the private sector.