Bulletpoint

I'd say it's mostly number 1. And a bit of number 3. Number 2 is pretty much a given. Ukrainians are much better at fighting a war than the Russians, but they are -MUCH- better than the Russians at propaganda and information warfare. We witness pretty much every success the Ukrainians have, but only very few of the Russian hits. The Ukrainian "breakthrough" is still only about 10x10 km in size, and the mood still shifts back and forth all the time. Just a couple of weeks ago, many people were starting to doubt the Ukrainian offensive would ever go anywhere. Now the question is "why haven't the Russians collapsed already". I think the Russian leadership is still not panicking because they still feel reasonably confident that Ukraine will not reach the sea or even take Tokmak before winter. And they think the offensive will then grind to a halt.

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.

In my experience, you have to be pretty lucky to take out tanks with artillery, and especially with the smaller or medium sized guns. But yes, if they hit directly on the thin top armour, they can definitely knock out a tank. Had a game where I got desperate to clear out some Shermans from a town, and I plastered the place with 150mm.. several shells landing pretty much right next to the tanks. But they didn't get knocked out. Regarding this mission, if I remember right the enemy tanks are set to withdraw at some point, either if you reach a trigger zone or if enough time passes. I remember it as a pretty difficult scenario, and if it was really UH's first go at it, then he did very well. My first try ended in disaster because I tried to go the other way and line up my tanks to form a base of fire. The Panthers have much better LOF through those orchards than I thought they would. On my second attempt, I did pretty much what OH does in his video, apart from the shelling of the tanks.

Even as a kid, I always liked to play tactical strategic wargames. I just didn't have a clue what I was doing, and I always lost, but I found it fascinating. Then I started to get a bit older and figured out how to beat the computer. Thought I was a great player. Then I played my first game against a human opponent. It was one of the early Close Combat games, and the internet was a quite new thing, so I didn't know what to expect. But I just loaded up on Panthers. My first game, I got completely crushed because I sent my tanks into a town and they got taken out one by one. Being a child, I complained I didn't have enough tanks. My opponent replied "Tanks? My guys are armed with pitchforks". I read the message a couple of times. Then looked back at the game. He was right. I had around 8 Panthers and 6 of them were burning already. He had a couple of AT guns in keyhole positions and infantry hiding in buildings and fields. I had plenty of tanks, but I was losing anyway. I was losing because I was stupid, and my opponent wasn't. That's when I got hooked.

The best take on it of all time.

To be fair, back in late May, Zelensky also claimed that Bakhmut had not fallen. At that time, Ukraine only kept a couple of houses on the westernmost outskirts.

Like trenches?

I don't know how you define ethnicity in the USA. Personally, I'm going by this definition: Ethnicity a large group of people with a shared culture, language, history, set of traditions, etc., or the fact of belonging to one of these groups https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ethnicity

I don't think anyone considers the Tuvans to be ethnic Russians either. The question was about whether the Kadyrovites are held back for prestige reasons as "TikTok soldiers" or because they make for very effective blocking troops. For whatever reason. Ethnicity being one possibility.

I think I read somewhere that the reason the Kadyrov troops are kept behind the lines is not for prestige reasons but that they are basically blocking troops - since they are not ethnic Russians, they are used to terrorise the actual Russian troops and keep them in line. And since they are spared actual combat, their losses are low and their morale and allegiance are kept high. Any truth to that?

True, the line intersects the horizon just inside the picture frame. But I think it might be perspective playing in, as we're seeing a 3D scene on a 2D screen.

I'm no military expert, but it seemed to me that the shot came from off-camera to the right. The shooter is probably a tank in the dark treeline visible at 1:25.

I think it's the other way around - a HEAT shell coming from the front, hitting the wall, and the jet then continuing on, grazing the tank.

Not allegience to Putin personally, but to the Russian state.

This is because of the gently rolling nature of the terrain. If you play Mius Front, you'll really notice it. Even when you're on a hill, the curvature means that sight lines are often quite restricted. As you move forward on the curving slope, gradually more and more terrain rolls into view, but there's usually this "horizon" that prevents you from engaging very far. Only exception is when you're on the top of a hill - then you can target small areas of other hilltops far away, but everything between those points is dead ground.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-66599774 Kremlin silent as Wagner boss Prigozhin 'killed in plane crash' Yevgeny Prigozhin, who led a failed mutiny against Vladimir Putin, was on a plane that crashed in western Russia, say aviation officials Authorities say all 10 people on board were killed after the private aircraft came down near the village of Kuzhenkino They also say the passengers included Prigozhin, who is the head of mercenary group Wagner, and his right-hand man Dmitry Utkin. Alleged video of the crash shows a smouldering plane falling down vertically. Not what you'd expect from a normal crash. More like a plane blown up in the air, either by a bomb aboard, or by a missile. Video here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66601553

Russia's Luna-25 spacecraft crashes into Moon https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66562629 "The apparatus moved into an unpredictable orbit and ceased to exist" seems to sum up a lot about Russia these days.

I think SMGs are too effective at long range, but should be even more powerful at short range. It's not only about accuracy and bullet spread, but also about how you'd use an SMG at short ranges, and how it's not really modelled in the game. If you see an enemy soldier run across a road, you'd be able to start firing and then walk the fire on target while you hold down the trigger. And if you see an enemy run into vegetation, you could hose down several bushes with a long sweeping burst. But in the game, if the target is a running soldier, the SMG guy will adjust his aim but keep firing just behind the target. And in the case of vegetation, he will choose only one spot and then unload a long burst into the ground at that point. Then choose a new point and do another long burst, etc.

I think dismounting to scout was done in the real war - even by the likes of tank ace Otto Carius. In the game, it can be done, but rarely gives any real advantage. The advantage is not really that it makes you spot better, rather that it prevents you from getting spotted instantly yourself while moving your vehicle into position. But in nearly all situations, in game, it's better to use another infantry unit to spot, and then transfer their info to the vehicle.

Brutal video, but I wonder why there are two cuts in the video from the time he allegedly pulls the pin and till the grenade goes off? Not to save video time, because it should only be a couple of seconds.

Very interesting what the medic is saying at 10:15 "These victory stories demoralise us as a military"

I think that, behind the scenes, Western leadership is actually quite happy with the way it's currently going. Even though the calculation is very cynical: Ukraine is not losing, which would shift the global power balance in favour of Russia and China. On the other hand, Russia is not losing either, which would lead to dangerous escalation and/or potential catastrophic collapse of Russia. The lid is back on the pot that's been boiling since 2014. The conflict is contained. Inflation is coming down. Wall Street is happy.

I didn't want to start going over all the different interpretations of the wars in the Middle East, especially since I know some people here on these forums have been actively fighting there. But yes, there are many different ways of looking at those wars, and that was my point - when the survey asked "Would you be willing to fight for your country", then Ukrainians and people in Western Europe will think of very different ways of fighting for their country.

I think the reason is not "leftist education" but that Western European countries took very different lessons from the previous wars. Ukraine (and Russia) suffered horribly during WW2, but after the war, this was turned into a hero story and a source for national pride. Same with the USA. Fighting the good fight and winning is a lot different from being the bad guys - and losing. Also, I think a lot depends on what exact question was asked in the survey. "Would you fight to defend your own country against an all out invasion by Russia" is a lot different from "Would you be interested in signing a contract to go to Iraq or Afghanistan". During the recent decades, this is what many young people in the West thought about when they heard the word "war": Going far away to fight for reasons you don't really understand.

It's unfortunately an enduring problem with these games that the graphics don't always match up with what's actually there. So you get situations where troops can walk though walls like in your example, or the other way around - that they can't enter through doors that are clearly visible.