Lethaface

I send you a PM because that is a better place. There was no medical diagnose in my statement though.

he did say it. Look back at what he said. Israel fixing the root cause by killing all arabs. The thin veil he has kept up to hide his morbid fantasies slipped a bit. Anyway I'm done with the subject I just don't like reading extremist stuff if he keeps that for other websites that would be great.

And Arabs correct? and you are in favour of all of them disappearing right? Don't tell me to give you no bull**** when your spouting garbage.

Out of likes but here's one. I never knew about bigfoot aliens

I guess it means something like 'tulip sucker', with sucker in this case referring to blowjobs

Just to be clear, the 'final solution' was a reference to this plan https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Endlösung. You misrepresent my point. I never ever said that Ukraine (or any country or people) doesn't have the right to fight for it's own existence. And with that I also mean 'gloves off' fight without remorse. And no he didn't literally call for the total elimination, but he describes the problem in a way as such that is the only option to fix the 'root cause'.

Well ethnical cleansing / genocide surely isn't something you hear me suggesting. But I have an idea: * Abolish both states. * Call the country Israel/Palestine and reverse the order yearly. The one who goes first gets decided by a coin toss. * Take Finnish law and put it in place (no apartheid, every religion has same status, etc) * Have UN German troops police the country for a decade Anyway I don't need to suggest no fix in order to recognize that someone calling all Arabs/Russian as 'root problems' is ... not in a good place to put it mildly.

The serious usage of the word wore off here, although during football matches against Germany of course everything is on! This. Culture and experiences. And we all have both good and evil in ourselves. The question is whether we let it out or not.

So what is the root of the problem? Arabs? Russians? And you have a final-solution in mind for that root cause?

The thing is about guilt by association as you seem to lay on everyone who had the fortune(?) of being born in Russia or to Russian parents.

Shooting children on the beach with naval guns is perfectly acceptable (or journalists when they report for the other side), or slowly annexing and occupying a state which doesn't exist. I guess better not to include Israel/Arab in this discussion.

Getting good ideas while watching a turn, then forgetting to implement the orders in the order phase. Repeat for a few consecutive turns ('hey didnt I have this idea before already?'). I probably forgot about my worst mistakes, nothing to see here

FWIW I don't see anyone 'giving' Leo2s to Poland unless there's Russian tanks inside Poland. In the past surplus tanks have been practically given away but times have changed.

Your idea is not crazy at all imo (although a battalion per pax is perhaps a bit high on expectation). Nobody has delivered Abrams/Leo2/Leclerc/K2/etc kind of tanks. Also many countries won't have much of them at all (for example our country, we lease 1 battalion although we had a few hundred of them one/two decades ago) and stripping your own army of the few barely operational stuff they have is... not going well with the army. Only a naïve fool would expect Germany to take the first step in delivering modern Kampf Panzer to Ukraine to fight against Russia. Not now anyway, Germany just came to grips with the new world reality / is still in the process (like many other countries, in various ways). But if all countries 'chip in' in some way or form I don't see Germany having a big problem to carry their weight. Between all the political stuff I think Germany has done at least the same as the average country supporting Ukraine, even from a relative perspective. At the same time, as has been discussed here since the beginning, don't get too much romantic thoughts about hundreds of Leo2's in service at the front in large numbers on operational scale any time soon after sending them. And keeping them operational is another thing. A few dozen is probably more doable but tanks don't have the same 'force multipliers' as HIMARS or modern 155mm with precision munitions have. Anyway that's no reason to do nothing imo, so I like the idea of for example all nations somehow chipping in to provide Ukraine with a modern MBT capability. Although I expect there will already be things in motion, but it is in most countries interest to keep such things on the low.

FWIW in game troops can cower without issue in the open as well as in cover.

Why not combine them? Troops in good cover but without ability to participate in the battle will probably survive but don't apply any combat power. Troops in a good position to apply combat power but without actual cover might get easily suppressed by enemy return fire / mortars / support. Normally there will be tradeoffs between various positions and the mission context helps choose. Do you need cover more than wide fields of fire (because you expect artillery working on your positions)? or are you planning to overwhelm the enemy with firepower in a short bit (ambush plus move out quick), so cover isn't that important?

This is in the game since CMSF IIRC and only occurs in a specific situation, I think low light + conscript troops under different formations might do the trick. or sumfink. They can misidentify and actually cause harm against friendly troops.

After all those bitter years of you waiting for the RT module, now F&R 'just' been released and more content is already almost here. Better make sure you don't get a heart attack!

Just noticed this, looking good!

Thanks. I guess because adrenaline 'everything went past him' and he kept filming because that's what he was doing before.

Anyone has a link to the original video? Haven't been following as closely lately because time, although it's good to see the big booms in Russia's rear are now being followed up by big breakthroughs into the strategic rear terrain. As it is the start of the weekend here I'd like to say Nasdrovia to everyone in the thread! It seems that finally we have come to the phase of the house of cards, more specifically the 'kicking it down' episode. Although I was expecting the Ukraine offensive(s) to face heavy Russian defenses for at least a while, but it seems more like the culmination of a CM PBEM: when either yourself or your opponent discovers (after much of the game has been played) that large parts of the frontline now consist of a token defense only: spare drivers / HQ support teams / stragglers, any worthwhile fighting formation already committed in previous endeavors. Izium looking interesting as well.

So why didn't you/everyone do sumfink about it, if you knew what was going to happen? Anyway I don't like the generalizations too much and think uncalled for. Personally I expected something to happen in the Donbass, not a full scale gloves off invasion. Even after 2008/2014 that wasn't the rational thing to expect, it was against the trend for Russia to do this which is in a large part why it wasn't expected by a large part of the world.

China doesn't need to invade Taiwan, just blockade it. Obviously such actions will have significant consequences for China as well.

I (too) can see Ukraine choosing not to attack in strength anywhere as long as Russia has sufficient assets to throw against such an attack - and turn it into a bloody grind. Why would they? Lot's of things been doing 'splodey stuff in Russia's rear lately, making Russians die for their country without Ukrainians joining them. Like you say, if you can take out the enemy in a piecemeal fashion why force a decisive engagement?. Especially when the enemy seems to be looking for the latter. Reminds me of 'emptiness and fullness' written by some old Chinese man which features here on a somewhat regular basis ;-). Of course ending the war sooner has merits of its own, but given the context I'd say 'more haste less speed' applies.

Probably most countries on certain lines.