Bulletpoint

Can't argue with that...
From nato.int:
... So it was the US who made sure it is possible to "weasel out" of this. Hadn't seen that coming...

Gents, I can try to explain why the decision is like it is and I can give my opinion on what I think b the NATO treaty does or does not oblige an ally to do. If you just want to vent steam and do another round of (irrational) Germany bashing, look for someone else.

If they continue the timeline any further, we will play scenarios where we are marching disarmed German soldiers around in a POW camp.

Frankly, the community can be somewhat gatekeep-y when spotting troubles are brought up, sometimes resorting to Olympics levels of mental gymnastics to justify why fairly plain to see issues "actually make sense".
But a save file is necessary to help make sense of this @SDG. It looks strange based on your pics, but there could still be factors which really do explain it satisfactorily. Looking at the pics though I can see that at least one crew is Green. Most American crews are at Veteran skill in FB, that's a significant advantage right there already.

I don’t think anyone of serious power in the West wants a full Russian collapse.  The overall Western grand strategy since the end of the Cold War has been “stable status quo”.  We have spent the last 33 years pretty much working on all fronts to sustain “the system”.  We toss scarfs and hats on it but at its core is a central unchanging stability.  Why?  Because stability is good business.  The West, with the US at the centre built the scheme that “won” the Cold War and want that party to keep going because we get very rich off it.  The rest of the world makes our stuff for cheap, while also buying our other stuff.  
But pretty much from Day 1 “the others” pushed back.  First was the intra-war years, interventions and then terrorism.  Now this has upscaled to “revisionist states” and “power competition”.  Russia invaded Ukraine for several reasons but one of them definitely was to demonstrate that they are not going to be bound by western rules (Hell, Putin said exactly this in that speech back in Sep ‘22).  This puts the West in a dilemma, they can either do too little and Russia threatens the system, or they crush Russia…and it threatens the system.  So they appear to have chosen the middle path, which of course is getting hijacked by the internal movements who want to…wait for it…change the system.  MAGA, alt-right, nationalists, whatever, all disagree with “the system” even though it has made everyone richer.  The reality is that it did not make everyone equally rich so discontent is natural.  Worse, power spheres exploit this so they can get more powerful (and richer).  So Rust-Belt yokels eat this stuff up and start to dismantle “the system”, which includes democracy apparently.  The reality is Trump is a symptom, not a cause and I am not sure even they realize how dangerous this game they are playing is.
So Ukraine happens and becomes a symbol of a “war for, and against, the system.”  It isn’t about the fact that killing innocent Ukrainians is wrong - hell if morales like human life mattered we wouldn’t have Gaza.  No, Ukraine is all about “the system” and both sides appear to be waging it viewed through that lens.  Russia needs to show that they are going to play by their own rules, but not completely break themselves.  One could ask “why is Russia fighting this war by half measures?”  Do they enjoy a quagmire?  No, Putin understands what he has gotten himself into and is adopting a slow burn strategy, hoping we will get distracted and caught up in our own nonsense…and he might be right.
The rest of the West is trying to step up, but frankly we have grown awfully fat, dumb and happy on the back of the US - who now is having a bipolar fit.  In the end, we can live with a fallen Ukraine.  We can shore up the borders and lock Russia out.  We can live with a partial victory in Ukraine, do we really care about Crimea, LNR and DNR?  No, we did not in ‘14 and we don’t now.  We can’t live with a completely imploded Russia.  Those are where the real risks lie.  Too many unknowns that could really break the system.  So we wind up with a half hearted war designed to punish Russia for challenging the system but not destroy them.  Ukraine is, and I am being brutally honest here, is almost secondary to the entire conversation.  It was simply a very unfortunate country where both sides could try and prove a point.  We love Ukraine all of a sudden because they are an opportunity to show that 1) Russia was wrong to challenge the system, and 2) the system still works.  
I strongly suspect this is why this war is also so muddled in military circles.  We are watching a war to defend the system..that is demonstrating the weaknesses of our own military system at the same time.  So we put blinders on and try to pretend it isn’t happening.  Our military power has to still be relevant…otherwise how can we defend the system?
So to answer your question, “yes, the US and the West know exactly how important Ukraine really is and are fighting this war based on that calculus.”  The answer however is “somewhat important”.  We care and feel bad, but care much more about our own issues.  Putin read the short game about as wrong as one can.  He may have read the long game extremely well.  The way to beat the West is not outright confrontation, it is apathy.  2 years is forever for a culture addicted to clicks and flashing lights.  Putin’s off ramp is being able to draw a victory line somewhere of his choosing and he is shooting for that.  And we might just let him get there.
Now I would not start freaking out and worry about a second attack on Kyiv.  Something that dramatic might actually get our attention again.  No, this needs to become a boring war - I am starting to think Putin’s Tucker Carlson interview was smarter than we thought.  What better way to get Western audiences to yawn and start to change the channel than a history lesson?

Any reason why Mikey?
Oh, I see.

A lot has been said in this topic.
My issue and the bottom line of my argument is:
I know its a game, therefore there is uncertainty involved which is represented in the form of dice rolls BUT under certain conditions a unit should become spotted regardless of chance. It is completely unrealistic that:
- in broad daylight;
- within reasoable distance (900 m is nothing if the crew is using sights with magnification or the TC is using his bino)
- a not very well hidden/camouflaged tank
- that is shooting its main gun for several turns
- while also letting it rip with its 50 cal mg using TRACER (!!) rounds
 
can remain unspotted while 3 enemy TDs are closely monitoring the battlefield. And no I dont care if there are certain objects that partially obstruct my TDs view and they dont have a perfectly clear line of sight to the target. That tank should at least become detected to that extent that my tds at least have a rough idea as to where to put their AP rounds regardless of not gettin a full view of the enemy. 
 

Not that I have tested out or can prove. Just that in all my countless hundreds of hours playing these games, the only time I thought there was something seriously wrong with tank spotting was when a JpzIV sitting on a location with full view over a big field let a whole platoon of Shermans approach from 1500m till they were literally driving past. Weather was flurries, but that didn't stop other units from spotting the tanks.
Anyway, in this case, it's not Jpzs so it's off topic.
I don't see anything in these screenshots that suggest why those TDs should not spot a firing Sherman. Nothing wrong with the tactics either.
@SDG when you select one of the TDs and draw a target line to the Sherman, does it show you have LOF? Sometimes the game denies LOF for no apparent reason.
The low hedge in front of the TDs shouldn't block line of fire, especially since the target is elevated.

Something like this?
 
 

What TDs did you use? Jpz IV by any chance?
In any case, some screenshots would be great.

Something like this?
 
 

Something like this?
 
 

It's not just some amateur narrative, it's official Ukrainian policy.
Zelenskiy has always said the goal was to get the whole country back.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/20/zelensky-keeps-maximalist-war-goals-despite-gop-opposition-aid/

Yeah, that was Zelensky's and the West's mistake in the first place. To promote the counteroffensive with directors cut videos, to brag about the wunderwaffen Leopards, Bradleys, Himars etc and publicly promote the idea that the goal was to reach Azov and kick the Russians out of Crimea. 
Even Russians believed that and created multiple zones of defense on Crimeas bottleneck. 
The results (while not so disastrous) really discouraged the public in the West

I'm not sure about that. Two days ago I want to hear some more information about Nord Stream and after a few questions I become a lying pro-Ru hypocrite.
Understand better?

I don't think this is new information though?
There were two lines, each with two pipes (A & B). Nordstream 1 had both pipes destroyed, Nordstream 2 only had one pipe destroyed.
But, interestingly, there were four explosions. Nordstream 2 Pipe A was blown up two times at two different times, in two different locations. Leaving Pipe B intact. All this is on the Wiki.
To me , this suggests that whoever was behind the bombings intended all four pipes to be destroyed, but that they made a mistake and hit the same pipe twice. Probably because they were in a hurry and there was poor visibility in the water.

His body has probably already been cremated to prevent forensics. Just like Osama Bin Laden was "buried at sea" so nobody could check the official narrative.

His body has probably already been cremated to prevent forensics. Just like Osama Bin Laden was "buried at sea" so nobody could check the official narrative.

I think the discussion got a little heated because of the tone, not the subject itself. You've just presented a perfect example of how to phrase your point given compelling but not conclusive facts.
I will not reiterate my post and just remark that being rude and trying to discredit people with a different opinion as stupid and/or pro Russian instead of arguing their points is the very opposite of this style.
Can't speak for everyone here, I'd put it the other way round. I haven't yet seen enough evidence to completely dismiss other possibilities. I'm fully aware that "It was the US!" is a favorite topic in certain circles. E.g. our company forums can be a "fun" place at times and I'm telling those people the same thing (plus that I think that the US are among the less likely candidates, btw). That's something to keep in mind but I think we shouldn't fall into the trap of censoring ourselves because Putin fanboys happen to say something similar. If keeping an open mind in the absence of solid evidence sometimes helps Putin then so be it because the opposite would help Putin even more. It's a hallmark of autocracies to be told what's true (and to convict people without presenting evidence), after all.

I don't think this is new information though?
There were two lines, each with two pipes (A & B). Nordstream 1 had both pipes destroyed, Nordstream 2 only had one pipe destroyed.
But, interestingly, there were four explosions. Nordstream 2 Pipe A was blown up two times at two different times, in two different locations. Leaving Pipe B intact. All this is on the Wiki.
To me , this suggests that whoever was behind the bombings intended all four pipes to be destroyed, but that they made a mistake and hit the same pipe twice. Probably because they were in a hurry and there was poor visibility in the water.

You made a claim and were asked to back it up. How else should it work?
 
Nobody denied that the pipe wasn't blown as is still intact. Solid facts, as you say. Your conclusion was what was challenged.
But we don't have to. Sorry, but that is the established way of debating and gaining knowledge. The one who makes a claim has to back it up. Not the one who challenges the claim. You can make up your own rules but then please don't expect to be taken seriously.
While your facts are solid, they are not conclusive for the claim you make. For once, it is not Putins pipeline but a Russian-German joint venture.  I am not a conspiracy theorists but my government profited at least as much from the blown pipeline as Russia. In fact Russia didn't really profit much at all. The situation before was much more in their favor because Russia was able to blacknail Germany with gas deliveries and thus divide our society. Giving in to Russian blackmailing was an actually heatedly debated solution at that time.
Sure, I'd still count Russia among the prime suspects just for their demonstrated preference to do things others find unreasonable. I'd even say they are one of the likelier suspects. But they are not the only one and your facts are not suited to shorten that list.
That's a) whataboutism. We were discussing your claim, not someone else's. Your claim doesn't get any more credible by someone else making a claim he doesn't prove. And b) I don't discuss with the Russian public in general, I discuss with specific persons on this forum, so that's not a valid point. But if any Russian came here and made the claim the US were behind the blown pipelines I'd ask him to back up his claim, too.
 
Call me pseudo intellectual, again, but that is yet another rhetoric method aimed at discrediting a person's opinion instead of actually arguing his points. You are constructing a false dilemma here: A position is either fair judgement or pro Russian bias. This is false because obviously there can be a lot in between and also outside of that spectrum (for instance I could just be biased towards my line of argumenatation instead of making a fair judgement and still come to the same conclusion). But this way you make it look like everyone who doesn't share your view must be on the Russian side. Which of course discredits the person without having to deal with their points.
 
This deserves a quote...Well spoken Butschi.
Thank you

What lol? Each of these is worth over 100k? What a complete ripoff. Taxpayers are getting ****ed so hard. 

I think Butschi very good summarize your post. Read again.

You spelt Constantinople wrong:) I do not think that there has yet been the opportunity for Istanbul to fall, the name is in official use for less than 100 yrs.

Credible source, in the sense of solid evidence, that it was the Russians. The fact that one pipeline was not blown up can have all sorts of reasons and is not evidence of Russian sabotage.