Tenses

Yeah, just like their T-14 Armata

This. I am no expert but just look at the size of the blast compared to the truck, which was engulfed. It is monstrous. I am for a truck bomb but if Steve says this is 500kg then I don't want to see how bigger warheads work...

I think we are long past the moment, when Soviet U...Russian Federation used leftist movements as it's hybrid weapon. Nationalists are now top of the top in UIs. But Russia is of course just opportunistic so the more UIs it finds in some group the better it will use them.

What I think will be increasingly important is how Ukraine will cope with more and more of alcoholics at the borders with Russia. Russians might want to create pressure on the borders to displace UKR units necessary to push into occupied territories.

I see it this way. At least point 1) seems to be confirmed by Petraeus, not that he has anything to say in this matter anymore.

The rest of Kharkiv region should be liberated till the end of the week.

If there is anyone with any degree of sanity in Russia left, then only warhead Putler will see is going to start 20cm from his forehead and will travel at supersonic speed through his brain. Otherwise there is nothing what we can do apart from responding with full force to any nuclear escalation. There should be no discussion such as stepping back as this would mean the end of the World for 100%. If we fight back the chances are still high for this but there is some hope for happy ending.

This is actually quite common pyramid in Europe. Look at Italy, I think this is the "worst" one(in Europe). I guess that their unemployment problem will end too quickly for their liking.

Russians are definitly capable of sabotaging the pipes, they are the ones who monitor them and could have a reason to do this. So as have been said, this is possible that someone else did it, but not very likely. Possible reason is that some more sane fraction at Kremlin could want to push into normalization with the Europe/Germany. Well, they can certainly do this now...

This. It is a problem for the whole Europe and will blow it up if not stopped. And stopping it means giving a hand to your neighbor even if he acts strange and not in line with others. This breaks the chain reaction of distrust and builds mutual understanding.

Seriously as long as Western Europe will see Easterners as threat and not as equal partners, history will repeat itself.

Speaking of Iranian drones, is there any quick and easy to integrate into AFU fix to this new threat? It seems like the biggest single technology aquired by Russia since the start of the war and provides quite dangerous capabilities.

This is one of the reasons Putler actually started this war. Europe soon would cease to be good client for oil and gas, while in the east he has clients, which were not there 20, 30 years ago. Europe with fossil fuel demand was a stupid and good paying client, who gladly "sold the rope, for him to be hanged". In 15 years(if it survives in more or less current shape) it will be only another useless high-tech and high-standard of living collection of states, which is dangerous as some Russians might like this kind of life more than potatoes and vodka.

Well I certainly haven't taken much activity in the forums but I follow this topic from the start and consider it the best info out there thanks to it's "background diversity" and outstanding military knowledge of your's guys. Nevertheless I wanted to throw my two cents into more heated recent discussion. What I consider will happen if Russia is going to go nuclear depends on it's exact usage and this is confirmed by a couple of Western decision makers out there, that exact response "depends". I would bet on three scenarios in this regard: 1) Russia uses tactical warhead on some military gathering to stop offensive or get upper hand elsewhere. West(mainly US to be honest) responds with cruise missile/air force action on Ukriane territory, effectively deleting any stronger Russian presence there. This would be in line of previous actions, which were meant to even out odds or place Ukraine at slight adventage in comparison to Russia. 2) Russia uses strategic warhead on some big city(not really an option IMHO). Response is the same as before but on the entire Russian territory. Main targets are all nuclear capable military vehicles/structures. This might look like escalation but really, if you see a crazy guy killig a child just before your own eyes you don't think like "hey it's not my child, I don't even know it's parents", but instead you just beat the s**t out of him no matter what. This is what people do with crazy elements to keep the rest of society reasonably healthy. 3) Russia attacks nuclear any NATO member. Response to this is a mix of 2) with addition of own nuclear wherever necessary. I understand that even considering this kind of events is very disturbing but we must admit that we were never that close to this situation. Not even Cuban crisis was that close. Preventing all of this is very easy - we need to be crystal clear in commitment to support Ukraine with whatever force is necessary. All the power Russia has is from "fear terror" and as long as it has any chance that it can do s**t without serious repercussions, it will not stop. Russia understands strenght. Period.

What I wanted to say is agree with your statement but from the other point of view. The M10 were designed to engage tanks and only them. The shermans(at the beginning of the war) were designed to engage infantry and only that. What reality showed is that you can not choose your enemy and if you are not prepared it will cost you dearly. I consider moderate upgrade in armement a suitable solution to prevent situation where some unit can't even put up a fight. Imagine strykers catched in the open by enemy mechanized troops - this is what this upgrade is meant for. And it is absolutely possible in a conflict where you can't relay on full dominance in some area before rolling in towards objective.

I consider this as a most apprioprate way explaining, why additional weaponry is never a bad idea. Stating that some units are not going to do some missions is living in a reality where you can choose your enemy, time of engagement and if you are before or after the lunch. Shermans in WWII were to fight enemy infantry, so they did not need high velocity cannons yes? French aristocracy during 100 years war should perfmorm mounted charge on the enemy frontally no matter what, because this is what they always did? 30 mm cannons can be used in a variety of ways and they definitly improve performance of stryker brigades during execution of "normal" missions. And this could be between life and death, if they stump upon something like BMP-3s, which outguns them dramatically. Adding to this attached, integrated javelin, would make it even more elastic. Argument that better weaponry will make stryker commanders feel that they can destroy tanks effectively is very rude comment on these commanders intellect or training. What is great about adding more weapons is that it is very cost effective in comparison to adding more armour. This is why sword is eventually overcoming the shield in the long run.

Armour of Abrams tank is of course much better. Apart from just below the turret it is in fact very hard nut to crack for any adversary, which is not a case for lighter russian tanks. The thing is that even, if Abrams better optics and thermals put it at advantage over T90 in terms of spotting, it does seem to be too much of it. I don't count as strange driving out of cover, spotting enemy tanks and placing a shot in 4 seconds. What I consider strange is that tank put frontally 750 m away won't notice attacker after it drives out of cover, destroys it's wingmate, reloads and kills it too. Even with medicore optics this would be highly probable to return fire in this time. Regards

John Kettler, Is it really that M1 has that big adventage in terms of spotting? I haven't played CMBS, but in CMSF the spotting ability of Abrams is only marginally better than T90. It looks more realistic as for me and engagement between the two is not that one sided at all. Regards