poesel

Well, _we_ are the Golgafrinchams.
Automation: the fear that automation will take away jobs is as old as automation itself. The word 'sabotage' stems from the wooden shoes ('sabot') of french weavers. They threw them into the mechanical looms in protest.
What automation does is shift jobs from one group of persons to another, and usually creating more jobs than before. That is bad for the first group, but a net positive effect for the economy.

Well, _we_ are the Golgafrinchams.
Automation: the fear that automation will take away jobs is as old as automation itself. The word 'sabotage' stems from the wooden shoes ('sabot') of french weavers. They threw them into the mechanical looms in protest.
What automation does is shift jobs from one group of persons to another, and usually creating more jobs than before. That is bad for the first group, but a net positive effect for the economy.

This guy is civil volunteer, supplying SOF units and he claims German MARS-2 launchers already two days work in Ukraine
 

I'd like to point out that Austria DID fight in WW2. They even had their own leader...

Very good points, unfortunately I cannot even try to answer as tools of modern anthropology ends here, and we are in the realm of conjenctures. I would argue that nations touched by such trauma do have problems with themselves even today. Poles for example still have scars from Deluge and fall in XVIIth century (there are some sociological works  that actually search for it). Germans also can still bear, let's say, "darkness" in their societal fabric coming from Thirty Years War that could bear fruits 300 years later. I don't know about Indians in USA, Kurds or Irish, but those groups were never in "power" so could react differently- with nostalgia, humour, imagination or in myriad other ways. It is different with societies that have "memory of the lost glorious past", i.e. functioning statehood that collapsed.
Note that such traumas often must repeat to "self-prove" itself. So chain of wars, hunger or state partitions should follow in succession. In my country it is "messianism" that formed as a consequence of this; we formed what one sociologist called "community of suffering" (Israelis have something very similar) as basis for social fabric. It's phenomenon completelly alien to, for example, Swedes or Swiss, it's even hard to explain them as they have nothing to compare.
What is fascinating in Russia is that their traumas are massive, repeating itself over and over, very often because of their own making, and the fact that reaction is always despoty and imperialism. Thus they seem to always get back to cause of their problems, after which whole circle repeats itself.
What I try to figure out here is why Putin- normally extremelly opportunistic, machiavellic player- really decided for this war. And I find no other explanation than echo chamber, actual paranoia and real, true belief in this manicheic worldview that started to manifest in him somewhere around 2020. But it was brewing for much longer, even before his birth- it is strongly embedded in Russian culture as such.
And note I don't think history is determined and Russia must stay despotic and aggressive; but it will be proportionally much more difficult to build something resembling normal civil society than in other places. Imperialism is too great narcotic for them to just put it off, and this is just one of many issues here.

Million dollar question. I think not only it is possible to be addicted- it is actually pretty common around the world and in history. Russia case is special, as variation of Byzantine culture (who had its own way of legitimazing ruler) mixed with Mongol barbarity (effective power and bureaucracy) and this born Ivan III and IV. Basic concepts of relations between power and Russian people lies unfortunatelly there, very deep in history. For example L.Bazylow, one of venerable Polish historians of Russia, was convinced that clue to understand it is actually Time of Troubles (Smutnoye vremya).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_Troubles
For him all Russian history from that point was underlined by fear of "Great Emptiness", when world literally stopped making sense. So the only form of "social contract" (in non-liberal meaning) majority of Russian people ever knew came from this experience. Romanovs, who inherited the throne and ruled up to 1917, builded on this notion that Tzar is only figure standing between people and mythical chaos.  Even Soviet Union was to be viewed in very similar metaphysical terms, despite being theoretically agnostic (seems absurd, but remember these RU soldiers with St.George ribbons crossed with Red Flags...). Unimaginable destruction in Civil War, during Bolshevism, Stalinism and WWII actually supposedly reinforced this "fear of hollowness" scars as basis for power legitimization.
Also in this view (mind you, we talk about unconcious, common culture) Ukrainians would serve as figures of anomaly, something "headless", "formless" or "pointless"- simple rustic people living without cause, statehood and form. Non-society even...perhaps that is one of the reason for such viciousness against them?
This "deep anthropology" theory omitts many modern events in Russian history and is simplistic in my view, but has some notion. It is not simple "gangsta warlord" deal, but something much deeply rooted.

I'd like to point out that Austria DID fight in WW2. They even had their own leader...

I'd like to point out that Austria DID fight in WW2. They even had their own leader...

You guys remember that quote from the UA solider in the field early on in this thing?  "I can't believe how f#cking stupid they are?"
I keep coming back to this at a strategic level.  I have gone on at length that the Western Strategic Centre of Gravity (CoG) is unity and resolve, if that falters this could all end badly.  So, Russia being a sophisticated nation and a master of the art of strategic narrative would try and take the high road with respect to ROEs in this war. To demonstrate that they will play by the rules even if the Nazi-whatever-the-hell-Putin-was-going-on-abouts are the true villains.  This play could plant a small seed of doubt that if nurtured could erode the Allied CoG - "look this is an Eastern European border skrimish" etc
Or....
Toss missiles around like a drunken frat boy demonstrating that he can both hurl empty beer bottles and throw up on himself simultaneously.  Now maybe Russia is full-on "no body likes me, everybody hates me, so I am gonna eat worms...and commit egregious war crimes anyway."  But all of this is actually reinforcing their opponents strategic center of gravity...it is shoring up the resolve of the West.  A dead soldier is supposed to happen, a dead little girl with blue running shoes is not.  Russia's inability to "get with the program" is frankly baffling.  
Collateral damage happens, it is the tragic truth of warfare since the beginning; however, nations are judged on how hard they work to avoid it.  And as far as I can tell right now Russia hasn't tried at all.  This on top of the pretty obvious war crimes that happened already in this war is literally guaranteeing that 1) more weapons, money and munitions keep flowing from the West, and 2) there is no renormalization after this...so enjoy being a rump state of China...seriously, start teaching your kids Mandarin.  
I can't believe how f#cking stupid they are, indeed.

I'd like to point out that Austria DID fight in WW2. They even had their own leader...

I'd like to point out that Austria DID fight in WW2. They even had their own leader...

I'd like to point out that Austria DID fight in WW2. They even had their own leader...

I'd like to point out that Austria DID fight in WW2. They even had their own leader...

I'd like to point out that Austria DID fight in WW2. They even had their own leader...

I'd like to point out that Austria DID fight in WW2. They even had their own leader...

The PzH should be able to shoot Excalibur rounds. I haven't read anything about abilities being stripped from that vehicle.
Not that many PzHs in the theater, but then probably not that many Excalibur rounds either.
Does anyone know what happened to these AA systems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_(missile)
Should still be some in stock. Not the most modern system but IMHO better than nothing.

Come on, we already had this a few times. Whether by coincidence or an agreement between NATO countries, no western MBT or IFVs are delivered to Ukraine. None from the US nor from the UK, France, etc. I don't know the exact reasons but that's how it is. Poland and others have sent their Soviet-era equipment. Is it convenient that we don't have much of that to give? Sure. Could we deliver more other heavy weapons? Maybe. You can condemn this as much as you like and probably be right. There has been a lot of waffling on our side. But w.r.t. MBTs/IFVs it is a bit too convenient to single out Germany for bashing.

First of all: when I speak of gas, I mean the gas that is gaseous. Not the gas that is fluid and usually put in cars. Whoever named that...
Fuel is not a problem in Germany, you can buy oil from many places. But there is one refinery (of two) in former East-Germany that is literally connected to a Russian pipeline ('Drushba' IIRC). This refinery has only one other supply line, which is too small to run the refinery at capacity. This creates a logistical problem but nothing else.
Gas (natural gas) is a completely different thing. 50% of households use it for heating, and it is used in the industry all over the place. There is not enough non-Russian pipeline capacity available, and we don't have our own LNG terminals. Even if we had, there is not enough LNG on the market. We buy what's available, but that's not exactly cheap. Even worse, we take away the LNG from other countries who need it, too.
Hence, the understandable criticism of the global south that they have to suffer because of a war and sanctions they have nothing to do with.
Ironically, we have a new government since late last year where one parties main goal is to get rid of fossil fuels. But you cannot reverse in half a year what has been the status quo for decades.

First of all: when I speak of gas, I mean the gas that is gaseous. Not the gas that is fluid and usually put in cars. Whoever named that...
Fuel is not a problem in Germany, you can buy oil from many places. But there is one refinery (of two) in former East-Germany that is literally connected to a Russian pipeline ('Drushba' IIRC). This refinery has only one other supply line, which is too small to run the refinery at capacity. This creates a logistical problem but nothing else.
Gas (natural gas) is a completely different thing. 50% of households use it for heating, and it is used in the industry all over the place. There is not enough non-Russian pipeline capacity available, and we don't have our own LNG terminals. Even if we had, there is not enough LNG on the market. We buy what's available, but that's not exactly cheap. Even worse, we take away the LNG from other countries who need it, too.
Hence, the understandable criticism of the global south that they have to suffer because of a war and sanctions they have nothing to do with.
Ironically, we have a new government since late last year where one parties main goal is to get rid of fossil fuels. But you cannot reverse in half a year what has been the status quo for decades.

Whatever happens w the war, it's clear that Europe must be free of dependence on RU resources.  That will take time & pain and hopefully voters won't be so stupid as to think there's some magic, simple answer to this complex problem and vote in clowns.  This is a pivot point that is a terrible challenge but also an opportunity.  Some sectors will continue to need fossil fuels, some things can be transitioned away over time to other resources, but many can't.  Fools (yeah, that's me included) who hoped that mutually dependent trade would mostly tame Putin have learned our lesson.  
And while I am reviling dependence on evil Putin, I suppose there's those nasty Saudis that deserve mention.  Weaning off fossil fuels is not just for lefty tree huggers -- it's a military strategic imperative.  We'll need fossil fuel still, but we certainly don't need to use it for nearly as much as we do now.  

First of all: when I speak of gas, I mean the gas that is gaseous. Not the gas that is fluid and usually put in cars. Whoever named that...
Fuel is not a problem in Germany, you can buy oil from many places. But there is one refinery (of two) in former East-Germany that is literally connected to a Russian pipeline ('Drushba' IIRC). This refinery has only one other supply line, which is too small to run the refinery at capacity. This creates a logistical problem but nothing else.
Gas (natural gas) is a completely different thing. 50% of households use it for heating, and it is used in the industry all over the place. There is not enough non-Russian pipeline capacity available, and we don't have our own LNG terminals. Even if we had, there is not enough LNG on the market. We buy what's available, but that's not exactly cheap. Even worse, we take away the LNG from other countries who need it, too.
Hence, the understandable criticism of the global south that they have to suffer because of a war and sanctions they have nothing to do with.
Ironically, we have a new government since late last year where one parties main goal is to get rid of fossil fuels. But you cannot reverse in half a year what has been the status quo for decades.

First of all: when I speak of gas, I mean the gas that is gaseous. Not the gas that is fluid and usually put in cars. Whoever named that...
Fuel is not a problem in Germany, you can buy oil from many places. But there is one refinery (of two) in former East-Germany that is literally connected to a Russian pipeline ('Drushba' IIRC). This refinery has only one other supply line, which is too small to run the refinery at capacity. This creates a logistical problem but nothing else.
Gas (natural gas) is a completely different thing. 50% of households use it for heating, and it is used in the industry all over the place. There is not enough non-Russian pipeline capacity available, and we don't have our own LNG terminals. Even if we had, there is not enough LNG on the market. We buy what's available, but that's not exactly cheap. Even worse, we take away the LNG from other countries who need it, too.
Hence, the understandable criticism of the global south that they have to suffer because of a war and sanctions they have nothing to do with.
Ironically, we have a new government since late last year where one parties main goal is to get rid of fossil fuels. But you cannot reverse in half a year what has been the status quo for decades.

Same discussion here. Give out a certain base amount of gas (depending on number of people in the household) at cheaper price and anything above at market price.
Still bites the poor more since they tend to live in less insulated houses and need more gas for the same temperature.
Yes. But it is not necessary to believe.
COVID has changed a lot here wrt telework. Before, it was deemed impossible. But when there was no choice, it worked quite well. But now many bosses want to have direct control back, so there is still a bit of fighting going on.
Another option to save oil is to introduce a speed limit on the autobahn, but this is of course impossible, too...

Gas rationing to private homes is difficult for technical reasons. If the gas pressure is too low in the supply line, a safety switch in the gas burner will throw. You need a technician to turn that back on again. That is not manageable. So rationing by force is not feasible.
However, many people are already reducing their gas consumption simply because it got quite expensive.
There are different predictions how that will evolve through winter, and the final verdict is not out if we have enough gas or not. A lot obviously depends on how hard the winter will be.

Looks like more SMArt 155 sub-munitions working (one is off-camera), but possibly against an already destroyed AFV: