Bulletpoint

Sure. But this thread is about the barrel.

I use Windows Defender on Win10 and I have not noticed any problems with CM in that regard.

Calm down man. I was just making a summary of the claims made in the thread to help keep discussion on topic

I don't know for sure. But anecdotally, I have never noticed very small vehicles such as jeeps being more difficult to spot than large tanks.

True, but I've seen quite a lot of photos of knocked out tanks. They liked taking pics of them, and especially of curious and unusual damage. Several of those pics show barrel penetrations, but only from the side. I can't prove it never happened from the front at shallow angles, but I can only say I've never seen or read any evidence that it did. Possibly. That's what I assume. It's not that every shell digs into the barrel - it just seems to me that too many do, at too shallow an angle.

Which campaign is that?

I think it should be up to the scenario designer. In some cases, it would make sense to have reinforcements arrive immediately, or very soon after triggering.

We completely agree. My point is not that tanks should be invulnerable. I don't think anyone in this thread thinks so. And yes, there are a lot of tanks in most CM scenarios compared to your average WW2 engagement. My point was only that there seems to be a problem with the modelling of the way shells penetrate gun barrels at extremely shallow angles.

I'm not seeing a gun barrel penetrated in this pic. I'm seeing a damaged muzzle brake that would likely not prevent the gun from firing. You might want to read my post again. I was asking for pictures of gun barrels penetrated from the front, not damaged muzzle brakes. It is not helpful to dismiss feedback to improve the game by insinuating players are incompetent. Or by muddling the discussion with strawmen arguments.

Still witing for you or anyone else to show me a photo of a WW2 gun barrel penetrated from the front.

You keep missing the point. Nobody ever said extremely rare events ever happened.

I think it approximates QUICK

When I look at US foreign policy under the last three presidents, to me it seems more like basic incompetence than any realpolitik. The US seems incapable of setting a goal and working long-term to achieve it. You've lost so much credibility - from both friends and enemies - and accomplished so little. And just for the record, I am not anti-american. Bush: Showed the world that the US military is not invincible. It can invade a country but cannot win an occupation that turns into a terror war by proxy. Calling allies to war based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction is a card you can only play once. Obama: Showed that US "red lines" mean nothing. International rules of war - such as using chemical weapons - can be broken with impunity. Trump: Completely unpredictable. One moment he hates the North Korean dictator, next moment they're best buddies. Ready to scrap international agreements on arms control and withdraw from organisations such as the WHO that were important instruments of American soft power. Tore up the Iran nuclear deal without presenting any other real plan for how to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. There used to be an international order, and the US was the leader of that order. There were some years where Russia and China tried to fit in, which would mean democratic reforms, free trade, etc. Countries had a choice between accepting democracy and enjoy wealth, or languish in the swamp of socialism. Now, they realise the US has become a paper tiger, and they have also realised that it's possible to have economic growth without democracy. Not through socialism, but through good old autocracy. That's why they have now changed their strategy to be one of subverting the international order. This weakens the US and Europe immensely.

What article in The Lancet are you referring to? All I can find is an article that links Gulf War Syndrome to a substance given to soldiers as a preventive treatment for potential nerve gas, which was, as far as I know, never used by the Iraqis.

I tried downloading "A Rifle Behind Every Tree", but I get an error message - the file is no longer in the dropbox. Does anyone have the file and want to share?

I doubt the US has a current plan for the invasion of Antarctica... The US likely has plans for how to influence the China/India conflict, but probably not for a Himalaya airdrop.

Thanks @MOS:96B2P

True. And it's part of war to be unpredictable. If US intelligence found out that the USSR in fact did not have any plan for the Fulda Gap, then they wouldn't need to worry about it, and they could focus on other scenarios. Just like with American Football, sometimes both sides know that the guys they place in the centre won't make it far, because the opponents will do the same. But they need to place them there anyway.

Reminds me of the old quote that Einstein supposedly said: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”

I don't think their military leadership believed for a moment such a plan would ever work. For the simple reason that they knew the other side also had plenty of nuclear weapons. But they were told to make a plan, so they made a plan.

Actually now that I look at it again, I'm thinking it might be the same bug I reported a long time ago, where contact info is not shared if the enemy unit moves. I tested it with tanks, but it seems it maybe also happens with infantry. What happens is: An enemy unit is spotted, and info on its location is shared with friendly teams. The enemy unit then moves, but the updated location is never shared. Notice how all teams in your example have an infantry contact marker in the distance. That's probably the same unit that the HQ unit is now actively spotting in a different location. Here's the thread talking about the bug:

Many of the people posting on this forum are beta testers. They can report bugs, but they need to be aware of your post. @MOS:96B2P has a sharp eye for this kind of stuff and he knows a lot about how the info share system works. So I hope he will take a look at this and see if there's anything we missed.

Haven´t tested that in particular. Generally I stay clear (or try to) of any enemies potentially wielding HEAT ammunitions at their combat ranges. I´d be equally concerned sitting in a Panther vs. Zook or PIAT than I´d be sitting in a Sherman/T-34 facing Schreck and Fausts. Well, in the game at least, a Panther is much safer against a bazooka than a Sherman is VS the German RPGs. I believe the front plate can deflect a hit, and the skirts definitely work, too.

At least it was the case back when I tested it a bit some years ago. I did a 2-player hotseat and ran my troops around behind and to the sides of the Greyhound, and while buttoned, it never knew a thing.

Yes.