DerKommissar

How many troops does the US have deployed in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
That's 35k total troops, 20k of them being land Army. Which is the biggest external deployment of the U.S. Army, more U.S. Army personnel than in all of Asia. I am guessing the U.S. would deploy even more troops, should something occur. 
I think the Bundswehr, from its conception, always relies on foreign troops, in case of fire. 
No more Wikipedia, let's get some real data. Here's Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2010-2017):
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf
Fancy that! In 2017, Germany spent 1.22 percent of its GDP on military. Estonia spent 2.14, Latvia spent 1.7 and Lithuania spent 1.77 percent. Canada spent 1.31. That's right. Canada. We only share our borders with the U.S.
If you're curious what the broomsticks are doing there. Well... check out Graph 4. Their equipment expenditures, relative to their total military expenditure, is 14.8%. Which is below the guideline of 20% and less than many smaller countries in Europe.
Bundswehr's a parade army. They're quite insignificant in comparison to the U.S. and U.K.'s commitment to regional security. I don't know why anyone is surprised.

How many troops does the US have deployed in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
That's 35k total troops, 20k of them being land Army. Which is the biggest external deployment of the U.S. Army, more U.S. Army personnel than in all of Asia. I am guessing the U.S. would deploy even more troops, should something occur. 
I think the Bundswehr, from its conception, always relies on foreign troops, in case of fire. 
No more Wikipedia, let's get some real data. Here's Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2010-2017):
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf
Fancy that! In 2017, Germany spent 1.22 percent of its GDP on military. Estonia spent 2.14, Latvia spent 1.7 and Lithuania spent 1.77 percent. Canada spent 1.31. That's right. Canada. We only share our borders with the U.S.
If you're curious what the broomsticks are doing there. Well... check out Graph 4. Their equipment expenditures, relative to their total military expenditure, is 14.8%. Which is below the guideline of 20% and less than many smaller countries in Europe.
Bundswehr's a parade army. They're quite insignificant in comparison to the U.S. and U.K.'s commitment to regional security. I don't know why anyone is surprised.

While I do not completely agree with the guy, but he does bring up some good points. Was oil what broke the Tiger's back? I doubt it. However, it did force the Germans to spend time and resources experimenting with alternative fuels, such as wood gas. This produced some funky modifications we probably won't see in CM:


Back on topic. Why did the Germans lose the war? Potentially infinite reasons. However, I think many people overlook the diplomatic work of the Allies. The Germans had dubious alliances with Japan and Italy that only got them into their wars. They tried to not share technology with their eastern European allies and generally had limited support. Yet, the Allies managed to bring men from Brazil to India, train, equip them and put them on the front line. They had, also, great success dissuading  Spain from getting involved and persuading the Italian King to put Mussolini behind bars.
While the German hegemony spanned from the Atlantic to Moscow, from the Arctic to Africa -- they could only rely on themselves. They either could not, or did not want to, raise many troops form their vast occupied territories both in the West and East. For some reason, they had issues coordinating with the Romanians, Italians and Vichy France and generally relegated all foreign forces to rear-echelon work. As soon push came to shove, their allies turned on them. I do not think it is necessary to mention the debacles that were Yugoslavia and Belarus.
Why were the Germans not popular on the world stage? Was it too much of the stick, and too little of the carrot? Was it the lend-lease food and Hollywood? That's a discussion for a different thread.
 
 

Those are some pretty convincing P. 3's by movie standards. It's also really good to see a model '41 T-34, most you see in movies are the 85s. Camouflage is a bit crazy, like CoH 2 micro-transaction specials. Much like actors and actresses in movies, tanks need their make-up. I am also glad that the Russian film industry doesn't shy away from certain historical symbols that are often associated with Germany of this time. I like that they got they used the right sights for the German and Soviet gun optics.
A pet peeve of mine are how tiny battles are in these movies. This one feels kind of silly, in that regard. Soviet village in the middle of nowhere, and everything happens within 50 square feet. A single T-34 by itself? Not part of a platoon or company? Lame. Tanks facing off like Nick Cage and Travolta within 5 meters of each other, and getting ricochets from the looks of it? I see we have Brad Pitt returning as bedraggled tank commander.
I'm guessing this is going to be a lone T-34 taking on an entire division? Nice infantry costumes, though! I probably won't see it, unless I have absolutely nothing to do. I saw White Tiger -- much of mystical nonsense and a few good tanks. Why can't they make movies like Liberation, or that film about the SU-100s? 

Well aside from the obvious silliness of two ways to play the game I don't think we realize what a truly realistic spotting system would be like. Have you seen any in combat footage (real not actors or reenactors)? I don't watch a lot but the theme that runs through it is you hardly ever see your enemy *at all* . I don't think the game would actually be playable.

It's a powerwheels. You know? For Kids!

Woops, accidentally posted the new Armata family vehicle.
In all seriousness, that's the BAE Black Knight unmanned ground vehicle.


Word on the street is that the project was canned. Not surprising, considering its turret is jammed up against its engine deck. How is it supposed to turn? If it's a fixed gun, why is there an obvious structural weakness of a gap between casemate and hull? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
So, pretty much, a modernized teletank with a 30mm and an GPMG. Except the 1930s Soviets got the rotating turret thing down.

 

As an edit Id like for the sake of argument present this reddit site that JK found. 
And I must admit nornally I skip JKs stuff but this was a fantastic read and basically strongly makes the argument that Pavlovs House was largely a propaganda created legend. There were other way more insanely tough battles and according to the articles author Pavlovs House was in a relatively quiet sector of the front in Stalingrad.  Again this isnt a condemnation of the Russian soldier but his government - you.ll note towards the end of the article that a Lt who was in Pavlovs House wondered where half the legends and stories etc had come from and this was only at a reunion in the late 40s.  Also the Soviets claimed the house was marked as a fortress on. Paulus' map. However German records show many buildings or note ferocious battles over many places in Stalingrad. But not Pavlovs House.  Basically Pavlovs House, the article argues, was created to showcase a multi ethnic geoup of Soviet soldoers heroically defending a building, and as an added bonus they werent all dead within a month of the battle.
 
 
EDIT:
Take Budapest! Kamen Kevinkin
Germany 1945 Dagmar Barnouw
Endkampf Stephen Fritz
Death of the Wehrmacht Robert Citino
Where the Iron Crosses Grow Robert Forzyck
Voices From Stalingrad Jonathon Bastable
Battleground Prussia Prit Buttar
SS Dirlewanger Brigade - The Black Hunters Christian Ingrao
Now do I have specific quotes? Certainly Endkampf, Battleground Prussia, and W. T. Iron Crosses Grow ( all about Crimea) certainly have relevant info. Am I going to dig up page numbers? No. So why put up a list? Especially since its only a fraction of what I own or have read? Just to hopefully show you that I have IMO a good diversity of books on the WW2 Ost Front and that you.re not just talking to some moron who watched WW2 From Space on the history channel and thinks hes an expert.
 

I've had this problem with other games -- something wrong's with the animation. I would recommend trying a clean re-install, too.

A baby Abrams.

You can't do AVREs without including the granddaddy:

I'd rather eat a fully cooked meal than one that is raw in the middle that "looks okay from the outside".
I've got the RT module well underway- The module is being worked on nearly every day, and has been for well over a year now. But there is still more to be done in order to show people something that incorporates the cool new stuff. Otherwise you get weird, untextured bits, bugs and weird game behaviors when you weren't prepared to show something. THAT causes problems, and opens up questions that are really a waste of everyone's time, because that's not how the game will look by release. 
Getting everything slotted in, in the right way takes a loooooong time and is a huge amount of effort, to say nothing of- planning the module, making the maps (the maps!), making the campaigns, building the scenarios, testing, 2D artwork, 3D artwork, testing, testing, TESTING everything. And so on.
PR may not seem to be the main effort (the crew is too small for that now)- but the games are. That may put some people off that like updates, and I do get it- but within reason. We all like to see the new stuff, I'm the same in that respect.
Really- I would love to show off some things we have nearly done or are complete. But there are other parts that aren't slotted in or in progress, so it would screw everyone up to see them in that state- and give an inaccurate representation of a huge amount of effort. I'm sure Steve would respond "When it's ready....", which is the best, most honest answer that can be given. You can take that as frustrating, or as a truly honest answer- but it is indeed the truth, regardless.
I think I've said all I can say at the moment. Hang in there. The games are coming, and the extra time isn't being wasted. There is constant work being done, to a very high standard on every aspect of the various BFC endevors.
 
 

On Iraqi T-72s:

The Iraqis operated the following types of T-72s:

T-72M
T-72M1
T-72A

The M and M1 models were both Polish sourced and otherwise identical to vehicles in service with both the Poles and other Warsaw Pact users of Polish production (inclusive the silly little fan the constituted the entire turret cooling system).  The T-72As were much the same, identical to T-72As of that 80's vintage from the Soviets.  

Basically the Soviets supplied some tanks out of the box (60ish T-72As if I recall correctly), then decided they wanted to pursue the Iranian market, so chose to pass the Iraqis as a client off onto the Poles (the remainder, T-72M and T-72M1).  Some of the T-72s from Poland were provided as "knockdown" kits which basically were plug and play assembly (by East German technicians) and did not use Iraqi components.

The "IraqI" variant T-72 myth comes from:

The Iraqis showcased a T-72 of some origin claiming it to have been indigenous production.  For a time the Iraqis certainly did explore the idea of being able to build their own tanks, but likely correctly figured out they neither could afford, or likely sustain such an operation

Some of these T-72s were modified with various indigenous or non-Soviet hardware.  Chinese EO jammers, exhaust diverters, etc all made appearances, which lead to the impression that they might be Iraqi production models vs modified Polish tanks given the earlier showcase display.  

The frankly disastrous display of T-72s during the conflict was at odds with the impression the tank was reasonably good. That these weren't "real" T-72s seemed to jive well with the earlier analysis.  

Tying into the previous comment, the re were still people trying to market and sell T-72Ms after 1991, and to be able to pretend that was all the result of some terrible not-actually-T-72s made by those Stupid Iraqis was helpful in sales pitches.

As to defeating a T-72 with 25MM, I've heard a fair enough of anecdotes enough to say I wouldn't feel confident doing it, but I've met people claiming to have:

1. Engaged T-72 Frontally from 1000 Meters with 25 MM HE (was attempting to suppressing tank while breaking contact).  Tank was unable to acquire Bradley in time to engage, wing Bradley fired TOW and destroyed target (1991).

2. Engaged T-62 frontally 800 meterish, claimed penetration and vehicle kill.  I asked him to confirm because I didn't hear him right.  Resulting conversation with other cav scouts sitting around brought up some vaguer stories about killing Iraqi tanks with 25 MM fire.  

Basically it seems like concentrated 25 MM has an effect on Soviet tanks of a certain generation, but at the same time I wouldn't feel supremely comfortable banking on the anecdotal stuff, and we were always told to hit tanks with TOWs from Bradleys.  

If I somehow were back in the Bradleyworld, I would initiate fires with a TOW if it was reasonable (or better, with a dismounted Javelin, then TOWs at the non-Javelin targets, mo' missile's mo' problems if you will*).  I wouldn't engage with 25 MM unless I was seen, or it was mission critical (basically it makes sense to seek the sure kill than it does to chase the 10% p/ks unless you have to).  

*What you really want to do is "mass" fires, in that your TOWs to their tanks are followed by 25 MM to the IFV/PC targets in the same formation once the missiles are on target.

Basically if you play the max range game (going by the book, using the "safe" book and 80% p/k answers vs what the system is capable of), you're putting out TOWs at the 4 KMish mark,  tank main guns and Javelin at 2.5 KM, then 25 MM around 1.5-2KM, followed by infantry small arms around .5-.8 KM.

This sounds cool, but the first eight (say it's a mech heavy combined arms team, so 8 BFVs, 4 tanks) TOWs accomplish kills....but the survivors now know what's up and are moving to not get wacked.  This makes everyone else's job a lot harder now.

What you really want is something closer to a 2-2.5 KM point to open fire, as then instead of 8 TOWs heading towards this formation....you've got 8 TOWs, 8 Javelins, and 4-8 tank rounds (first and second shots are likely going to be out before the enemy realizes what's up).  Assuming the 80% p/k at 2 KM, someone is now down about two companies of AFVs  in a few seconds.  25 MM and follow on tank shots work on anyone who's still got the fight in them, artillery comes in on pre-plots at the 2 KMish line (which also gives the team time to displace to follow on fighting positions).

Anyway.  Lengthy ramble, but there's a video gamism to seek kills that do not make a lot of sense in real life (or the value of a lost asset isn't well reflected in game, nor the "long game" of losing battles but winning the war sometimes.  

Tank platoon of four upgraded T-84 Oplot (not be confused with BM Oplot) departed for participation in Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2018.
10 T-84 were built in 2001, but MoD didn't pay for it and tanks turned back to Malyshev's tank factory. Sice some time four tanks were sold to USA. One moved to L'viv military academy  and four were stored in the boxes of 92nd brigade. In the end of 2017 remained tanks moved to Malyshev's factory again for repair and modernization. Five tanks already in service of 14th mech.brigade - tankers of this brigade won local Ukrainian tank competitions already three times. Sixth tank still under works. 
What new in T-84 Oplot mod.2018:
- "Nozh" ERA instead Kontakt
- tank commander and gunner have independent thermal sights
- back view camera
- some changes in the transmission, now T-84 can move backward with speed 35 km/h like BM Oplot
- new radio equipment (Harris)
- GPS navigation
- LWR sensors and Varta electronic-optical APS 
 
What T-84 mod.2018 differs from BM Oplot:
- "Nozh" ERA instead "Duplet"
- other construction of glacis protection
- T-84 hasn't panoramic PNK-6 sight
- FCS simplier 
 

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.

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.

The internal layout of tank T-80BVM, tankman friend said that  gunner's workplace is times better than T-72B3 tank, but the commander's place did not like it.
 
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3159376.html

Just a collection of the day

RUS SOF PR vid
 

Random music videos are taking this thread by storm.

One got damaged, and BelowTheTurret Ring has the scoop.

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2015/08/t-72b3-composite-armor-photo.html
While we're on the subject, here's some related info on theT-72B3 armor upgrades.
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2017/04/russian-t-72b3-receive-armor-upgrades.html
Regards,
John Kettler

You can achieve the same effect by dropping your knickers with your bum in the window. That “flash” will allow your men to storm the place effectively. 

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.

Looks like it might be armored, but it's seriously defective (wholly lacking) in the propulsion department. Kind of ingenious, though, and certainly no crazier than training US aerial gunners during WW II to fire while moving using shotguns from a moving truck.
Regards,
John Kettler

The myth of mild steel armor on Asad Babil is exactly that, a myth. The Iraqis used the same composition of armor steel as the Soviets themselves, mainly because the "locally produced" Asad Babils were basically just T-72M parts kits bought from the Soviets and put together in Iraqi plants. Asad Babil was functionally the same as other non-WarPac T-72Ms, because it more or less was.
The Iraqis had T-72s exactly as good as what their status of getting aid as a non-WarPac nation allowed them to. The various variations of T-72 they had were basically adequate tanks not really any different from the bulk of non-WP T-72s, the main issue with them being less with the tanks themselves, and more with the fact that 1) the Iraqis were terrible tankers and 2) they were issued with decades old obsolete ammunition.