Bulletpoint

Not sure I agree that terrorism by definition can't be done by a government. Many of the groups labelled as terrorist groups are funded and controlled by nation states. The US has a list of four official state sponsors of terrorism, and I am pretty sure the real list is longer than that.

I don't think any of those acts are terrorism though, even though they are bad crimes in themselves. In the first example, civilians are killed, but they are not chosen by random. Would say that counts as political murders. In the second example, I would say that counts as extortion, not terrorism. Third example would be coercion. I think the confusion arises from many people using terrorist as a political label rather than a word with a specific meaning. In my view, "terrorist" is a specific adjective just like "murderer". It talks about a specific crime. You cannot apply it to a group without proving that all the members of that group are guilty of that crime. Organisations such as Hamas operate on many different levels, and we cannot just call everybody working for Hamas a terrorist, even though the organisation as a whole is heavily involved in terrorist activities.

If it's this guy, then I think you're selling him a bit short https://militaryhallofhonor.com/honoree-record.php?id=216819 Do you know if he was of Danish descent? His name sounds like it.

It is one of the most often misused words, but I still think this definition holds true: Terrorism is violence directed against random civilians in order to promote a religious or political cause.

Then France will be our new master.

Info does pass directly from infantry to tanks, but only if they are very close. In CM terms, infantry in the square the tank is on, or the square right next to it. If this doesn't happen, then it's the bug where the tank already has the info but it's not visually updated to the new location after the target tank has moved. The tank still gets the spotting bonus for having the info though.

Well I am ready to admit it if I am wrong. So in your experience, the Coalition tanks were crucial in Desert Storm?

Yes, unfortunately. At least AT mines are not going anywhere soon. But at the end of the day, those huge Russian minefields would not be able to stop the Ukrainians for very long if it had not been for modern drone assisted artillery and ATGMs killing anything trying to clear a path. It's both the response time, range, and accuracy that has improved massively and make clearing next to impossible. Anyway, that all belongs in the Ukraine thread. As for Gaza, I am not convinced the Israelis lost that many tanks. Even the bombs placed directly on the hull might not have worked - they are home made devices after all. I think if there had been several burning tanks, Hamas would have filmed at least some of them.

I think they were sort of right after 1973 though. Trying to think of any later conflict where tanks played a decisive role. Not bush wars, but major conflicts. Iran/Iraq war turned into a stalemate and was then won by overwhelming Iranian human wave attacks, as far as I know. Desert Storm was won by airpower and massive tech/resource advantage in ideal flat terrain. Tanks were not useless but not really necessary either. The coalition could have entered Iraq in APCs... When people talk about the death of the tank, they don't mean tanks can no longer participate in war. They usually mean that tanks can no longer play the breakthrough role they were intended to. And therefore no longer cost effective weapons. I'd be extremely surprised if we see countries reveal new tank purchases or development programs after the current war in Ukraine. What I do expect are large investments in drones and maybe some unmanned and lightly armed weapons platforms for direct infantry support. There might be an exception when it comes to Israel, but then again their situation is different, usually fighting poorly armed irregular forces.

One thing I've seen argued is that the APS doesn't work at the very short distances they are firing their rockets from. So I guess that would be your option 1. But I am also wondering how effective these attacks really are. I have not yet seen any videos of burning Israeli tanks inside Gaza.

I don't think they ever promised anything like that. What they did say was that they would like to do an updated engine that is better optimised. So, better performance and less weird graphical glitches. Which would be great. But it's still going to be the same game.

What are those shells fallng in the last seconds of the video?

Very interesting. Especially the part where he says the US intelligence estimated that the risk of Russians using nuclear weapons in the fall of 2022 went up to 'a coinflip'.

You're quoting Tass, a Russian state-owned news agency. Of course it's not true.

Does anyone know which colour on the Deepstate map corresponds to which kind of fortification? I did plenty of googling but haven't found the map legend anywhere. I'm thinking red lines must be infantry trenches, but there are also yellow and blue lines, as well as magenta dots: Yellow: dragon's teeth, blue: anti tank ditch? Magenta: artillery pit ?

I've been thinking about what Hamas and their backers are hoping to get out of this war. Because they must have known it would end up like this. They are fanatics and indifferent to human life, but I don't think they are stupid as such. Not really sure which explanation is more correct, but I think it must be one of these two: 1) It's basically one big suicide attack, involving the whole organisation. They are already used to do what they call "martyrdom operations", so maybe they thought they'd just all go out in a blaze of what they consider glory and take as many Israelis with them as they can. Also damage Israel's reputation by provoking them to attack civilian targets, which has already happened. 2) Or maybe Hamas actually think they can mount a proper defence against the Israeli army. The purpose of the hostages is to prevent Israel from simply flooding their tunnels, which would be their major weak point. And then Hamas thinks they can keeping fighting and ambushing their enemies inside Gaza for a long time. Maybe indefinitely, if they can keep supplies coming in through tunnels to Egypt? So basically moving the battle to a place where they have the home advantage.

People are usually complaining tanks spot nearby infantry too easily

My guess: Attacker victory in less than one month from the launch of the ground invasion. At least for North Gaza. Maybe another month for the south.

I'm just surprised some people still think this is a game in active development. Even after years and years of pretty much no progress, apart from a couple of content packs and CMCW which was basically a mod.

Whatever happened to the "Freedom of Russia Legion"?

No, that was last year.

First thought: He could in theory have evaded it long enough for the battery to run out. Second thought: He cold have shot it down if he had a rifle or a pistol. Third thought: Why didn't he have one?

Here is what seems to me to be a more balanced and impartial take on whether the siege of Ghaza should be considered a war crime. https://www.justsecurity.org/89403/the-siege-of-gaza-and-the-starvation-war-crime/ It's a long read, but the bottom line is that Goldfeder is wrong and AOC is correct, because it doesn't matter whether you are starving a civilian population in order to target enemy forces or not: Fifth, article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the ICC Statute is explicit in affirming that the war crime of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare can be perpetrated through the denial of relief supplies. Criminal liability attaches when a perpetrator deprives civilians of objects indispensable to their survival with the intent to starve civilians as a method of warfare (ICC Elements, p.21). The deprivation of objects to a civilian population is clearly underway. In assessing intent, it is important not to confuse mens rea with motive. Even assuming the ultimate goal is to coerce or starve out Hamas, those undertaking this siege are pursuing that goal through purposively starving the civilian population as a whole. As such, they are intending to engage in the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, whether they desire or lament the civilian suffering that will ensue.

Mark Goldfeder is the director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, so maybe not completely impartial in this conflict. Pretty sure if you ask a Palestinian advocate, you'd get the opposite answer. I'd like to read a take on the legality from a more neutral observer.

BBC is now reportiing on a "strike" on civilians fleeing in the designated escape route. Some blame Israel, but I doubt they would be that stupid. Seems more likely that it's Hamas bombing their own people to scare them from leaving. The more civilians remain in northern Ghaza, the more difficult the Israeli ground invasion will be, and the more civilians killed in the fighting, the worse image for Israel in the world and especially in the Arab world.