DerKommissar

Are these the ones that were sunk due to u-boat attacks?

Suppression depends on the accuracy of the fire. So, MG fire that is right on top of the target, is more effective. MG fire that is not even aimed at the target, especially a target in a house, is of dubious suppression value. I'm sure it could fill the suppression bar half-way through, if the enemy is of poor quality. My experience with the .30 cals is that they take some time to pin the enemy under consistent fire, as opposed to the burst of an MG-42. Generally your targets are the windows of the floor of the suspected enemy. Little use shooting .30 cal at a cement wall. On the other hand, an MG rat-tat-tat-ing off brings a lot of attention. While this could be potentially dangerous for the MG, as mortars could be coming their way -- it could distract from the movement of a flanking team. Yet, this is quite irrelevant to the enemy squad on the bottom story. With 4.0 there's a documented tendency for troops to randomly lose it under fire. They could randomly reconsider their existence and try to run from the building, which is good for you. However, it's quite unlikely.

Random music videos are taking this thread by storm.

Newer T-72s? Will those bloody things ever go out of service? I am curious if this glacis armour has ceramics sandwitched somewhere.

The ERA just makes their silhouettes even more confusing. I have a Jane's tank identification book from the 2000s lying around somewhere, with really good photos. So, my knowledge of the Ukranian T-80 variants is from that, and could be outdated. So I decided to do some research: This is a diesel T-80U that entered production in Ukraine a few years prior to the collapse. After the collapse, these could not be made because they relied on parts from other ex-republics. So, around 320 of these were exported, in the 1990s, to Pakistan. That is when the new RF began exporting its T-90s, a customer of which, was India. The T-84 was designed as a completely domestic T-80. On this one, it is hard to see, but the new domestic T-84 had a all-welded turret. Each vehicle now had Shtora modules, as opposed to just the K (command) variants previously. Armament remained the same and the diesel engine was slightly improved. This one entered service in 1999, and saw further modifications (ie. diesel engine, armour modules). An Oplot is a T-84 with all-welded turret, Shtora, and new ERA. The new ERA are the distinguishing feature. The T-84s originally posted are T-84 Oplots. The question is: if you take a non-Oplot T-84 and slap new ERA on it, is it an Oplot? The development of the T-84 and the T-90 happened in parallel, and both competed for international sales. Who thought up the welded turret first, T-90A or T-84 Oplot? I do not know. This is the T-84 Oplot-M that we know and love. This one was first unveiled in 2008, and was ordered by Thailand and Pakistan. The first big difference is the panoramic thermal sight for the Commander, including new gunner sights, ballistic computer and FCS. It also has new ERA, new stabilizer (apparently) and "new" Shtora (Varta). Every source, including the Ukranian state exports site, say that they use a carousel type autoloader like the older versions and do not mention a turret bustle. In the early 2000s, Turkey was looking for a new MBT. When they stuck a 120mm "NATO-compatible" smoothbore gun and put the ammunition in the turret bustle -- it became the Yagatan or T-84-120. This prototype was not selected by Turkey, and that was that. New 120mm ammunition was developed specifically for this new 120mm gun, it also worked with standard NATO 120mm ammunition. That, my friends, is the tale of the T-84. Most info was taken from Military-Today, as you probably guessed. The RF will most likely shelf their T-80s, sooner or later -- but the UKR are moving forward with the design.

I am sure those are T-84s, but not Oplots. No thermals, and no bustle. I want my money back.

Interesting training aid. Why they didn't just use an old BTR for this? I'm guessing it's easier to shoot a MANPAD out of an open topped vehicle, as opposed to a top hatch. Is there an IR target up to the left. The half-assed Tetris camo makes me giggle. Now, finally -- a CM vehicle! I prefer the T-80 over the T-72, even despite the bad press. Glad to see the Ukranians modernizing and perfecting the design. If only we had Ukranian T-72s and RF T-80s.

Derp, clicked the wrong thing. It works now. Cool source!

A bad workman blames his tools? Most certainly. I am skeptical about the Bushmaster knocking out T-72s across the frontal arch, at combat ranges. I remember reading about a situation where recon Bradleys had to reload their TOWs in combat with Iraqi T-72s. Why bother exposing yourself, if a Bushmaster can get the job done? According to various sources (Steel Beasts, Gary's Place and International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons) the M919 DU round was not officially in-service during Operation Desert Storm. These sources do give conflicting dates -- all after '93. According to Steel Beasts, the M919 has a penetration of around 100mm RHA, its tungsten cousin, M791 -- 60mm RHA . The T-72 has a minimum of 300mm RHA protection across the frontal arch. I am skeptical about the large-scale use of DU munitions on the Bradley, during Desert Storm. Hypothetically speaking, even if they were in-service, and they were as effective as the M919, I do not believe they could penetrate the frontal armour of a T-72 at ranges of 1km to 2km. I do believe that the Bushmaster could achieve mobility kills, maybe even side penetrations. Luckily for the Bradley, she has 2 perfectly fine TOW missiles just for that occasion. Do I believe a Bradley could take out 2 T-72s (across the frontal arch, at 2km), or even more with slick loading? Absolutely. My sources do suck. I would welcome any better ones.

Doesn't work for me either, actually. I'm using Chrome.

I'm also very curious about this source. I read that the Bradleys had to rely on their TOWs -- even had to reload them under fire.

If it confuses me, it will confuse the Hun!

Oh wait, I thought it was the North Koreans? Must have last year's calendar...

Precisely what I am saying. This article is about computer games, in general. It features tactical, operational and strategic scale games -- turn based and real time. It also features a single game that does not focus on any level of command: IL-2. In IL-2, you play a pilot and fly wherever they tell you. I just found that odd. Genres, by definition, are vast generalizations. I was quoting Wiki to establish general definitions, that people have. I do not support their validity. My gripe was that IL-2 does not belong to either the Strategy or Wargame genres -- by any stretch of their meanings. That's it, really. Closest games I would compare to CM would be Graviteam games, Close Combat, Panzer Command and maybe Steel Panthers. Even then, Graviteam and Close Combat focus on turn-based higher level command and real-time lower level command. Steel Panthers is a hex-grid game. Panzer Command, on the other hand, is a shameless CM 1 clone.

CM is a Strategy game, especially on larger maps. You can control a battalion or so, much more units than Company of Heroes or Starcraft. CnC type games have you control each soldier, are they not strategy? Men of War lets you assume direct control of a unit, is it not strategy? That's what their developers and publishers define them as. IL-2 is marketed, and defined by any Wiki, as a flight simulator, because the focus is on flying planes. I believe you can adjust the rules of engagement, or formation, of a squadron, if you're squadron leader. I will concede DCS to you, because it has that JTAC DLC. You can also command tanks, but it's not marketed as a tank simulator. What I meant by "Need for Speed 1944" is that Need for Speed focuses on operating a motorized vehicle, just like IL-2. In Carbon, you even get to command another car that smashes cops or whatever. Why did they just not call it "Top 10 Best WW2 Games"? I mean, WW2 already has "war" in its initialism. Would you not assume that a WW2 game would be about a war? Now, I'm being facetious. I would just prefer if they compared similar games to one another -- not pineapples and potato mashers.

I just noticed that they added a muzzle break on the 100mm. Just so it doesn't do somersaults when firing. Speaking of which, what's with that RSO's muzzle break on that Pak 40? It looks like an improvised counterweight -- not a muzzle break, at all.

Cuban BTR 60s with custom T-54 100mm turrets. I bumped into this during a Red Dawn scenario in Steel Panthers. They wrecked a Patton tank. Not sure how relevant they are on a modern battlefield. I can only imagine how overloaded their suspension is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargame_(video_games) CM is considered a Wargame by Wiki, and a Wargame is a sub-genre of Strategy game. IL-2 is a flight simulator. I really enjoy it, but it doesn't belong on that list by any definition. May as well put Need for Speed 1944 on that list.

Can someone explain to me how IL-2 is a strategy game?

An electrical gearbox? That's some funk right there. We need a qualified AFV psychic. Considering we're on the topic of American AFVs: T-55 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage. A wheeled tank destroyer, fancy that? I'm afraid I do not know much history about this prototype. Why was it dropped at the prototype phase? Germans had the SdKfz 234/4, with a 7.5 Pak. I do not know how effective it was. However, the concept of a highly mobile gun sounds like it's perfect for scouting, finding and eliminating tanks. Put this thing in a treeline, or behind a hill and it's the perfect ambusher. Tanks try to hit them with the funky stuff and they're out of there.

You are absolutely correct. This is a gross generalization. This also assumes a perfectly flat surface (let alone tread tension or wheel inflation) -- which makes the whole model moot. Warning: do not design, manufacture or distribute AFVs based on my prior post. DerKommissar Enterprises will not be held responsible for any flawed designs.

Aye, pressure is Force / Area. Force is Mass * Acceleration due to Gravity. Less mass, and more area are the best way to prevent a track from sinking. This being said, if both mass and total track area are increased proportionately, the ground pressure would be the same. In other words, the heavier you are, the wider (and longer) tracks you need. I found a fantastic document comparing the ground pressure of various Cold War and WW2 vehicles! Here it is: Tracked Vehicle Ground Pressure. It seems Soviet vehicles, both in WW2 and after, put a heavy emphasis on reducing ground pressure. Also interesting to see that the HVSS was a significant improvement, as well as interleaved wheels on German tanks.

What about Minecraft, Terraria, Clash of Clans, CS:GO, WoW? Just to name a few games with massive audiences and inferior graphics. Betting your money on graphics is betting your money on a moving train. That's why a lot of similar FPS's become obsolete quickly, and often get abandoned. Even if we assume that the average consumer buys games based on looks. Is that the end of your revenue? Will they play it for 4 hours and stop? Getting them hooked is one thing -- the challenge is keeping them hooked. Companies try to make the bulk of their money, these days, on DLC, micro-transactions and loot-boxes. BF knows what their customers want, that's why they have lasted eons more than Postscript will. Their current audience will pay for upgrades, new titles and extended content. Stuff that keeps us hooked.

Welcome, friend! I struggled with those missions, as well. Recently, also struggled with parachute regiment campaign. The bocage is a two sided blade. A few tips: - Mortars are invaluable. I went into the game thinking that light mortars were pop guns mostly for smoke. By the end of the campaign I depended on them. Best way to deal with dug-in Jerry MGs on the other side of the bocage. Germans have mortars too (very good ones), relocate quickly if you see them landing around your troops. - The bocage is a formidable barrier. Never troops to an obvious entrance, the Hun has very effective heavy weapons trained -- in ambush. Look for imperfections in the bocage during deployment -- small gaps and pathways that are less accessible. - Nothing short of a satchel charge can make a hole. Do not waste valuable HE ammo shooting at it, or try to plow through it with a non-Rhino tank. Satchel charges, sappers and their trucks are worth their weight in gold. Breach the bocage in places the Fritz does not expect! - Artillery is the Lord of War, not Nick Cage. Off-map artillery is key to taking out trench systems and bunkers that can halt your entire advance. Heavier artillery can take long to call in, and long to call off. I often find it is prudent to call it in during deployment, to save time -- adjusting it, if need be. - Use smoke screens on bunkers! - Beware the STuG! You'll be facing more assault guns in the bocage, than anything else. A STuG hidden in the bocage is much more effective than a tiger in the open. It will spot your shermans and advancing infantry. It will kill both fairly quickly. Do not attack it head on, outflank it with bazooka infantry. - The bocage can also be your shield. Infantry and armour behind the bocage are very safe. Doesn't just provide concealment, but also deflects projectiles. Sprinting to an unoccupied strip of bocage can be wise, but be careful of cowering germans. Get close enough and taste the MP-40 and grenades.

This M3A1 Lee is from the United States Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. My hypothesis is that it was recently repainted to the "LuLu Bell" (weird name for a tank, what does that even mean?), because there's pictures of an unpainted M3A1 from the same museum: