"Thousands of old maps, models and projects hidden deep inside long-forgotten folders in between countless reference pictures never put to use and old text documents"
Unless the author is a putinbot, then it was intended.
Wow, this is amazing. Very realistic looking, maybe just missing some foliage, but I guess that's hard to make with default assets.
Which ******* cares about realism in Fast and Furious anyway?
They got people jumping from planes in cars and driving between skyscrapers for ****'s sake :P
SAA armour doctrine is just turd at this point. You can't dispute that. They are still refusing to stop parking tanks right at the frontlines and utilize infantry support. Apparently the have too many to spare - 150 ATGM launches in October alone and counting - let's see how long they can keep that up. At least those Shia PMU (which have interesting similarities to ISIS, just from the Shia side) have better cavalry-based tactics, hence why Iran brings them in together with Hezbollah, Hazara and their own officers instead of relying on the SAA.
And yet, they ran away at the sight of one tank, losing this village of Tell Bajer. So this is a succesfull assault. As I said. No matter how ****** the driver is.
As to personal bias, this is getting tiresome. You of all people trying to tell me anything about it is making me chuckle.
I guarantee you one of the first mods will be a skin-swap of "RF military" to "Militia" and "Militia" to "UA military".
Still a very effective attack actually, those Iraqi Shia PMU (not SAA) ran away at the sight of one tank (they actually hit the tank with an RPG at 1:something, but it did no damage), while Nusra unloaded infantry in the back to mop up and used artillery to hit them on the retrat simultaneously. It's pretty much a level above the typical SAA "park a tank at the frontline and get hit by TOW" tactics. Even with a noob driver and calibration knocked off by hitting walls with the barrel.
And the video production level is pretty much unreal, looks like some game replay.
Vladimir! Apply dank meme to burned anus!
But people can breathe inside the turret, amiright :P
Very good, this one looks pretty real.
Europe in general spends less and less on the army, and in the age of austerity it's often the first thing that gets cut. I'd wager you guys at least have some basic level of combat readiness due to having Russia on your side unlike Germany which has been downsizing for the past 25 years and is plagued with beurocratic ******** "scandals" which then lead to even more budget cuts. At least your politicians should have gotten their *** in gear (those in Germany did at least to some degree) with the Ukraine crisis after seeing what happens if you cut on your army for too long.
First SAA ground offensive with Russian air support against JaF fails - 24 tanks die, documented TOW kills: "http://syriancivilwararchive.com/Videos/FSA-create-Assad's-Army-Tanks-Grave-yard-with-more-than-24-tanks-destroyed.mp4"
Russia hype already dies off, really hoping they decide not to send in ground troops to help the SAA now, that would make Afghanistan and Chechnya look like child's play to them.
Well we're talking about the Russian intervention in Syria here right, so Russia is kinda relevant to the topic. And please don't try to tell me the level of propaganda encountered in Assad's Syria is normal or commonplace in any country, derailing relativism like that tends to kill any discussion. Same applies to the Russian media sphere where all of the sudden all state-funded news channels are 24/7 about Syria and the European refugee crisis being the end of the West. That's a whole different ballpark from the US government trying an embarrassing cover-up of a failed bombing which then gets picked up by their own Western MSM. However, that was not the actual point of the argumentation, but rather the simple fact that Assad's propaganda narrative of "me secular and moderate vs Islamist terrorists" is vital to his own survival.
As to the geopolitical fact, yes it's totally correct that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey are active in the region and support some opposition groups to various degrees. But I fail to see why that is relevant to my post about why the SAA and Russia are and will be mainly targeting rebels and not ISIS for the near future and the Russian intervention in general. As it stands, it's nothing else but Putin's own decision (of course Iran is surely glad he's here now but they cannot change Putin's mind) and he surely had some motivation for that. And originally I thought that would be getting his economy going again and improving relations with the West by wiping off Ukraine (since there's simultaneously suddenly a working ceasefire there suddenly). In light of recent event as I said I agree that's not the case, which unfortunately leaves my wondering what the point is at all, and why now and not earlier. After all I doubt Assad's rump state is worth more than Erdogan's cooperation - after all it was him who was hailed as "Russia's next big friend" for the past year or so and now complains about Russian invasions into his airspace.
As to Assad's "terrorist" definition, sorry but it's just narrative. Sure, you can dig enough dirt on just about any faction after four years of civil war, and JaN and ISIS are indeed Islamist scumbags, but the Assad regime lost any claim to being the legitimate Syrian government and certainly any claim of being "moderate and nonsectarian" with things like these being regular: http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=a8c_1356675683 , https://www.google.se/search?q=barrel+bomb+aftermath&oq=barrel+bomb+aftermath&aqs=chrome..69i57.6364j0j4&client=ms-android-oneplus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8,https://www.google.se/search?q=syria+chemical+attack+aftermath&oq=syria+chemical+attack+af&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.6906j0j4&client=ms-android-oneplus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 and Alawites running a crony minority dictatorship. People fighting that have a legitimate cause and have all the rights to be called an "opposition".
Hey, Putlerbot thanks for being so active on my profile, very devoted. Good to see you with Spudd now too, he seems to have devolved to the level of the Putin-loving "truth seeker" quite severely. But you must talk to me about "defending Islam" in Syria now, didn't you get the memo that Putler has a new toy?
It's much simpler - JaF has on the one hand dealt the biggest blow to the SAA this year by taking Idlib and then pressing on to Jisr-al-Shugur and the Ghab Plain which has put them at the gates of Latakia which is Alawite, and by extension regime heartland. They are more dangerous to the regime now then ISIS which is being bombed by over 60 countries and has been in dire straits on other fronts, even though the have made creeping advances against the SAA threatening Homs and therefore the Damascus-Aleppo lifeline as late as this August. The northern rebels are far beyond simple "raiders", especially after they have organized in a single operations room and this has shown in the swift and cohesive operation (something rarely seen in the region) which has documented over 300 regime tank and armoured vehicle losses due to ATGMs on video alone. Since Russia's intervention seems really to be about saving Assad (outside the rhetoric) they need to deal with that. Secondly, one of Assad's and now by extension Russia's goals has been the elimination of rebel groups so he can present himself as a " moderate secularist" fighting valiantly against ISIS. That's the only way he can survive, and his propaganda has been full of that since day one, calling all his enemies "terrorists". Russian media is now suddenly full of that as well, while Ukraine has miraculously disappeared from the front pages. And what they're doing now is simply trying to make that propaganda a reality.
Ah yes, the Beutepanzers. Love how the Germans even mounted a Flakvierling on it. Good site on that stuff: Beutepanzer.ru
Upgunning old tanks works to a certain degree, but sooner or later there comes a time when a new design must be built since the basic design philosophy of the tank cannot be completely renewed. This is one of the cases - a second-gen tank cannot be made into one of the third gen ones. Nevertheless, it's interesting to see all the design poorer states come up with, especially in the ME and the Balcans. However with the tactics they're using it's also painful to watch them die unnecessarily, often abandoned by their crew.
It was just a figure of speech, so far T-90s and 80s are the most effective Russian tanks, when Armata appears in sizeable numbers it will be too. I just figured most people here are from Western countries so not exactly on friendly footing with the Russian leadership and all.
The SAA is a disastrously bad fighting demoralized force at, and often even below militia level by now and besides some minor successes has only suffered defeats this year, including major ones in Idlib and Palmyra. Using them as a ground force won't work unless Iran sends in even more IRGC and Hezbollah units which seems unlikely. Additionally, the majority of the Russian strikes have been against the rebels in the north of the country who threaten Latakia and not ISIS despite the rhetoric. Which makes me scratch my head about the reasons for the Russian intervention at this point even more, just like the Saudi one in Jemen. At least in the beginning I though it would be some kind of "sanctions lift and forget Ukraine for our cooperation" type of deal, but simply propping Assad now, four years into the war when he is simply holding on to what he has and lost offensive capability is simply stupid, and will be nothing but a huge mess for Russian lives and logistics.
The only force actually being successful against ISIS are the Kurds who are competent ground troops and have good airstrike integration. Stupid conspiracy crap about "US destroying Syrian infrastructure" to legitimize Assad while he keeps barrel-bombing any are he lost into the ground are laughable. At least even the northern rebels have stalled an ISIS assault this year in northern Aleppo while all the SAA has done in Palmyra is a **** show of running away and then failing to recapture any land while announcing dozens of "counter-offensives". Only thing they have to show against Daesh (which is the same as ISIS BTW) is still holding on to Deir-ez-Zor.
Only 400 of those are T-90s, but knowing how Russia works I doubt the majority of those 10-15 thousand tanks are in a remotely good condition. Not even speaking of of the ones in "reserves" which are probably rotting away in some storage area. So the T-90s, 80s and (somewhere in the future) Armatas are the ones to worry about.
Yup, seems about right, this one looks like it has the back-mounted remote-controlled MG. The production model had a normal one at the commander hatch as it was too complex apparently.
What is this? Type 74? Or some version of MBT 70?
ахаха, ну и ватник, все еще опровергает присутствие войск рф в росии
вот как ваша "великая страна" со своими солдатами обходится, позор полный:
а покризису - у нас причина хотя бы война и потеря 10% населения, а у вас та что? гибнут ваши пацаны ради чего? зкономика у вас не лучше нашей ( Rosbalt.ruКризис/), путинок вас китаю продает, и постепенно к совку скатывает, а такие как ты все про "фошиздов" да "русский мир" вещают, хотя вы даже украину одалеть не смогли... радуйся что интеренет еще есть не "отечественный". рекомендую воспользоватся этим
Because I knew the guy's political viewpoints and it's pretty clear what his main reason for critizising the movie is. Has nothing to do with me, soviet fanbois are just common on this group (it used to be nothing but their circlejerks), he's known to be one of them, he got riled up because this movie shows the "evil USA" winning and decided to nitpick on it to show "how unrealistic it is". All of my points in response to him still stand, as usual all that got picked out by you was a single quote about the T-34 that somehow seems to "invalidate" my whole argument.
Well, at least we can agree on the rating I guess, 6-7/10 for me as well. I just don't get which "American nonsense" you are complaining about when the crew is shown executing POWs on several occasions and the movie implies they rape civilians. They're clearly not shown in an exclusively positive light, much closer to being anti-heroes. Wardaddy isn't even much of a likable character (and I hate Brad Pitt, too)...
Production values for the tank battles were top-notch, the fact that they used real vehicles instead of CGI really played out, and the movie completely fulfilled my expectations. Yes, it's not a documentary, and yes, it has heavy plot armour on the main crew, but the battles were well-done and the plot was decent. Unless you went in expecting it to be 100% true to "reality", (knowing that none of us here really has a clue how WW2 really was like) you should be satisfied.
That's exactly the kind of nitpicking that belongs on IMDB forums.
1) The scene was clearly intended for the aesthetic values, but a low-ranked officer moving alone in the general confusion of the collapsing German war machine in the last months of the war is clearly not unthinkable. Not every German officer had some kind of "bodyguards" assigned to him, especially not that late.
2. Yes, the end battle was unrealistic, and the tank would have been hit by one of the Panzerfausts in reality, but c'mon, plot armour is there in every WW2 movie. Up to that point we've seen many Shermans get demolished by Panzerfausts and that Tiger battle? What the hell do you not like about it? They had a ******* real, working Tiger out for the fight, and its might was very well represented by the fact that it demolished the Shermans while they tried to swarm it (hint: it didn't miss their tank only, and the Shermans missed the Tiger on several occasions). Yes, it might have killed Fury in reality, but once again, it's a war movie, the main crew has plot armour. The people complaining about that are usually lame whiners who feel that "it's unfair" that "evil USA" is winning, while neglecting all the aspects of the movie that actually show how inferior the Sherman was to German tech. It's no different, actually even worse in Russian war movies, where glorious T-34s bounce off Tiger shots, and steam-roll the German orcs back to Berlin.
3. The sex scene? Lol, woot. Yea, the movie is about the crew, and yes the crew is shown as morally ambigious, so what the hell is wrong with it? Only thing you found to complain about?
4. The quote? Oh, c'mon now, that's just the definition of nitpicking. I know you dislike the US and such, but it's perfectly fitting quote for Brad Pitt's character, who is a cynical, battle-hardened front-line sergeant. Your own political bias doesn't determine good and bad.
I guarantee you, it this was a Russian movie about a T-34 crew, you would be completely fine with it. Literally all the things you picked are complaints that can be directed on every war movie there is.
Not that bad of a movie actually, reminded me of Saving Private Ryan in a good way. Lot of the hate it got was from whining "dats not realistic" whiners who got their "expert" knowledge by reading wikipedia. Oh, and soviet fanbois, but that was to be expected.
It's called the "Streifentarnung" (stripe camo), mainly found on some very late-war panthers from the end of 1944. The "camo" was used because they lacked green/yellow paint and had to use the corrosion protection as part of the paint job.
Also, nice avatar ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
*ducks before wave of COH 2 haters hits*
So you play as Shephard, right? :D
also, some of the geometry in those shots looks simply gorgeous.
But I thought the Putin way was paying them off to become his vassals?
Needs more combine-looking stuff, visual design should be close to their consoles. And of course more interior decoration besides simple screens. Still, you're off toa good start here.