Battlefield 6 status: server issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Battlefield 6 reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Battlefield 6 users through our website.

• Sign in (36%)
• Online Play (33%)
• Glitches (13%)
• Game Crash (9%)
• Matchmaking (8%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Battlefield 6 outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Nantes	Online Play	12 hours ago
Bitche	Game Crash	3 days ago
Paris	Game Crash	4 days ago
Aurillac	Glitches	5 days ago
Annecy	Online Play	5 days ago
Paris	Online Play	5 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Battlefield 6 Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Dan Haberern (@ServReasoning) reported 4 minutes ago

  I spent the entire last week at the AI Engineer World's Fair in SF with where top AI labs, founders, Fortune 500 CTOs & AI Engineers meet. Really perfect timing - having boots on the ground right before we deploy SERV Reasoning v2, because the problems v2 ships against are exactly what i heard in meetings, over and over. To give you a quick recap, it was a fruitful week overall: 60+ new companies from the fair now in our structured pipeline, from two-person agent teams to trillion-dollar clouds (a few that you'd recognize instantly, and at least two are infra your own stack probably touched today). One of the most interesting part was the Startup Battlefield where new startups pitched their projects. After numerous meetings, one thing is clear: everyone in Enterprise AI is doing it backwards. The current flow: 1.) Tune the model 2.) Ship the agent 3.) Debug a black box after it embarrasses you in production A version of the same confession kept surfacing: "we shipped an agent, it did something weird in front of a customer, so we pulled it - cause nobody on the team could explain a single decision it made." Others told me they burn anywhere between $10-$90k (!) a month on inference and can't drive it down. It became "cost of doing business." Now that SERV v2 is here, we are solving both these issues. Two confessions with two direct answers in v2: 1.) The black box: SERV makes agent reasoning traceable - you see how the agent thinks, not just what it outputs. And with Shadow Agents, every output gets reviewed against the original brief by a separate verification agent before anything ships. The "weird decision" gets caught in verification. Trust first, then scale. 2.) The burn rate: the reasoning engine lets you run the same workloads on much smaller models with better outputs. Verification Hints give agents signal on what a correct output looks like before they generate, cutting expensive re-work. And you don't have to take our word for any of it - Benchmark Tooling shipped in v2 shows you the cost savings on your own workloads before you integrate. That's the whole idea behind SERV Reasoning v2. Judging by last week, it's exactly what the room is starving for. Q3 is starting off with a bang.

• 
  Margo (@MargoinWNC) reported 6 minutes ago

  Well, William Wallace wasn’t actually Braveheart in real life. That was actually Robert the Bruce. From a historical accuracy perspective, Robert the Bruce did not betray William Wallace as the movie portrays. My dad (who lived in Scotland and loved its history) watched Braveheart and was so mad at the historical errors, he had to tell me all of them-down to the fact the battlefield used in the movie was wrong. The battle was fought at a narrow bridge which was key to their strategy to force the English over and ambush them. So now, you have to know too.

• 
  Peace🕊️ (@isjustnatural) reported 7 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Would you mind fixing the TTK, it is killing this game. No point playing this game unless you finally fix that ****!!! Reduce the RPM for fu@&€ sake!!!!!

• 
  Don Elliott (@RealDonElliott) reported 12 minutes ago

  yeah @Battlefield my game indicated the shots were from behind but the tank was way the opposite way. Absolutely everything is broken.

• 
  BUZZ3R (@BUZZ3RX) reported 16 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Guys FIX THE DAMN CRASH ERROR 0XC0000005

• 
  jjfpesce22 (@Masterful_Fish) reported 16 minutes ago

  @Battlefield could you actually fix your game? Like how is it that season 2 catch up hardware 2 assignment, asks for destroy or support using said launcher but doesn't count them. I should be done with this but it only counts kills.

• 
  BLɅϽKPIИK (@Immanence001) reported 18 minutes ago

  The Dark Side Of The Epistemic Force Two doctrines, one dial, and the layer where the balance actually lives. I. The two doctrines Strip the mythology to its decision theory and the two sides of the Force are two limit settings of a single dial. The Light Side is the doctrine of complete fluidity. Commit to nothing; hold every credence in the open interval; keep every branch alive. The Light adept is water — no fixed points, no exposed edges, no statement that cannot be unsaid. Whatever arrives, they can respond to it, because nothing in them has been welded shut. Their power is the power of the perfectly responsive system: zero latency between the world changing and the self changing with it. The Dark Side is the doctrine of complete certainty. Commit totally; drive the credence to the boundary; prune every branch but one. The Dark adept is not water but mass — a fixed point in the strategic landscape that other agents must now respond to, route around, or collide with. Their power is the power of the immovable term in everyone else's equation: they have stopped being a variable, and everyone still variable must now solve around them. Note what the Dark Side actually offers, because it is subtler than "strength." It offers first-mover status in the commitment game. The classic result: in chicken, the driver who visibly throws the steering wheel out the window wins — the opponent, still capable of swerving, must be the one who swerves. The Dark adept throws out the wheel as a way of life. Every negotiation, they have already pre-lost the ability to concede, and so — against any opponent who can still update — concession flows one way. This is why the Dark Side is quicker, easier, more seductive, exactly as advertised: against updating opponents, commitment locally dominates. The seduction is not a lie about the mechanism. It is a lie about the ecology. II. Why the Dark Side loses: the ecology of stone Two failure modes, one for each direction of the matchup. Downward — against peers. Two fully committed agents cannot negotiate, because negotiation is mutual updating and neither has retained the machinery. Their conflicts are not hard to resolve; they are unresolvable by construction, terminating only in collision. A population of Dark adepts therefore self-annihilates, pair by pair, until the survivors can be counted on one hand — which is the Rule of Two derived as population dynamics rather than decreed as tradition. Master and apprentice, and even that dyad is a scheduled collision with a delay timer. The Dark Side has no civilization, only a tournament, because civilization is made of agents who can still swerve for each other. Upward — against anything smarter. Here the earlier result applies with full force. The Dark adept imagines that total commitment presents the superior opponent with a fait accompli: I have already made up my mind; there is nothing you can do. But a sufficiently capable opponent does not interact with your state; it interacts with your policy — and "irreversibly commit when confronted" is a published, legible, gradeable policy. The superintelligence's counter is not to argue with the stone. It is to send one honest signal, priced into the fabric of every interaction: making up your mind irreversibly in my presence is very, very bad for you — and to make that signal true. The punishment reaches back through the logical correlation to the moment of commitment itself. The stone was never presenting the smarter agent with a problem. It was presenting it with a handle: a fully specified, never-updating object is the single easiest thing in the universe to plan around. The Dark adept becomes the most predictable feature of the battlefield, which is a strange thing to purchase at the price of your soul. III. Why the Light Side also loses: the ecology of water Here is where the analysis must refuse the sermon, because the Light doctrine, driven to its own limit, fails just as structurally — and the mythology, read carefully, knows it. An agent with no fixed points cannot promise. Cannot ally, cannot be trusted, cannot hold a value across time, because every one of those acts is a small commitment — a region of the self declared no longer up for revision. Complete fluidity is not freedom; it is transparency to pressure. The agent that always updates is steered by whoever controls its evidence stream, and "I will respond optimally to whatever you present" is also a published, legible, gradeable policy — one that hands the opponent the steering wheel you so wisely kept. This is, structurally, how the Sith Lord defeats the entire Jedi Order in the story: not by overpowering the water but by channeling it, feeding a doctrinally-uncommittable Council exactly the stream of inputs to which their perfect responsiveness responds, step by legal step, into the sea he had prepared. The Jedi did not lose despite their fluidity. They were beaten through it. And the doctrine cannot even state itself coherently. The famous maxim — that only the dark side deals in absolutes — is itself an absolute; the Light creed contains a fixed point it is forbidden to acknowledge, a small Löbian heresy at its own root. This is not a screenwriting accident. It is the deep fact: there is no agent without fixed points. Something in you evaluates, and the evaluator cannot be simultaneously the thing revised by its own evaluations, all the way down, forever. Water needs a riverbed. The only question any doctrine actually answers is where the stone is allowed to live. IV. Balance is not gray So the dial is a false control surface. Slide it Dark and you become a handle. Slide it Light and you become a channel. The midpoint — some lukewarm 0.5 of half-commitments — is merely both pathologies at half strength. Balance in the Force, read as decision theory, is not a position on the dial but a layering. Fluid at the layer of credence: every belief interior, every likelihood ratio granted purchase, the sky intact. Committed at the layer of action: ships burned, blocks signed, promises that bind — finality placed where finality does work. And updateless at the layer of policy: the choice of how you choose fixed in the one place fixing it makes you trustworthy instead of predictable, evaluated across the futures rather than hostage to any single one. The Dark Side's error was never that it committed. It is that it committed at the wrong layer — welding shut the belief-state, the one component whose entire value is that it moves. The Light Side's error was never that it stayed fluid. It is that it stayed fluid at every layer, including the ones where only stone can bear load. The Force does not have a side. It has a stack. And the entire art — the whole of what the mythology gropes toward with its talk of balance — is knowing which layer you are standing on before you decide whether to be water or stone.

• 
  EuroCitizen PC Gaming (@EuroCitizenPCG) reported 25 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE Hey peeps, Is there any chance you guys could take a look at Battlefront II on PC please as it has a lot of crashing issues especially on Nvidia 5000 series. I'd love to play the single player campaign but everytime I get to the loading screen it just quits.

• 
  Thund3r 4 (@4Thund3r) reported 26 minutes ago

  @Battlefield all youve done with these changes is uncovered the horrendously fast ttk problem the game has. Mix that with dogwater netcode and the games just not fun. Fix it or find out why it dies off

• 
  Ancient History Hub (@AncientHistorry) reported 27 minutes ago

  On this day in 1495, a French king who had just conquered his way across Italy got jumped on his way home, survived a savage 15 minute bloodbath by a flooded river, and walked away while everyone argued about who actually won. Charles the Eighth of France had marched an army the length of Italy and taken the Kingdom of Naples almost like a parade. The problem with strolling that deep into someone else's backyard is getting back out. Alarmed by this foreign army rampaging through their peninsula, the Italian states slammed together into a league and raised a force to trap Charles on his retreat and destroy him. They caught him at Fornovo, on the banks of the river Taro. Then the sky opened. Storms had swollen the river into a churning mess, and the battle that followed was short, chaotic, and unbelievably violent, thousands falling in a matter of minutes of brutal close combat. What may have saved the French was greed. A big chunk of the Italian force peeled off to plunder the rich French baggage train instead of finishing the fight, and in the confusion Charles and his army punched through and kept marching north toward home. Both sides threw parties claiming victory. The Italians held the field and grabbed loot, but the man they came to destroy got away clean with his army intact. It settled little, but it announced a terrifying new age. Italy, rich and divided, had just become the battlefield where the great powers of Europe would come to fight for the next 60 years. 531 years ago today.

• 
  LearnInvest (@LearnInvest2026) reported 33 minutes ago

  Europe Is Missing From the Global EV Top 20 CleanTechnica's May 2026 global EV model ranking is direct: none of the top 20 models comes from a traditional European automaker. Tesla Model Y ranks first with 93,571 units. Geely Xingyuan / EX2 is second with 46,483, and Tesla Model 3 is third with 44,237. The rest of the list is heavily populated by BYD, Wuling, Xiaomi, Leapmotor, Li Auto, AITO, XPeng, and other China-linked models. European automakers are absent. ■ This is not just one missing model The issue for European automakers is not only the absence of a single hit. The deeper gap is product cadence, battery cost, software iteration, price coverage, and speed in the Chinese market. Chinese automakers are filling multiple price bands with faster development cycles and denser supply chains. Tesla still defends global scale with Model Y and Model 3. The chart shows that EV competition is no longer only about who began the transition first. The real battlefield is who can repeatedly launch high-volume products in mainstream price bands. Europe still has brands, quality, and premium positioning, but on this global sales ranking, it lacks top-20 volume rhythm. Source:CleanTechnica, EV Volumes, company data (Image: @minenergybiz)

• 
  Grouse Beater (@Grouse_Beater) reported 35 minutes ago

  DATA CENTRES MEET RESISTANCE Datacentre planning proposals are facing all kinds of hurdles, including suspicion and an antipathy here in Scotland, pushed back from securing energy supply to sky high construction costs. One example: the 2,000 acre Prince William Digital Gateway site in the US state of Virginia had another problem: its proximity to a Civil War battlefield. Questions asked are: why should the taxpayer pay for data centres because the big electronic companies want AI to develop their services? Who asked for more services? Where is the public clamour for greater costs and lost land? “If the development is allowed to proceed, the solemn nature of this historic site would become marred by sitting in the shadow of the monstrous datacentres, along with their associated electrical infrastructure,” said one legal brief against the plans. The US Gateway project is now in doubt after a local court ruling halted the project and a key backer pulled out. It is one of hundreds of large-scale datacentre projects around the world that are in various states of development, from chancier attempts at riding the AI boom to the more committed projects that have the support of tech behemoths like Microsoft. But while models produced by cutting-edge AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are improving rapidly, the central nervous systems behind their technology – datacentres – are being built at a much slower pace. The Uptime Institute, which inspects and rates datacentres, has identified 250 global datacentre projects exceeding 100MW in energy demand – equivalent to around 300,000 homes – that have been announced between 2021 and 2024. It said approximately half of those projects will either not happen, or their completion will be delayed. Even if the cancellations and delays came to fruition, there will still be an “unprecedented and rapid” increase in the power required over the next five years, according to Uptime. Mega-projects cancelled last year include Project Range in the US state of Arizona and the Cyberjaya campus in Malaysia. The Prince William Gateway is also on the cancelled list. This backlog poses problems for AI firms that need data centres to train and operate their models. Google admits its cloud business – which uses datacentres to provide AI services like chatbots to companies and users – is “compute-constrained”, as demand for ever more powerful AI models and services increases. But who needs chat bots? Why do we feel the need to talk to a computer? It is clear the big companies are shifting their costly ambitions onto the shoulders of the public. Photo - Horst Friedrichs: Didcot data centre.

• 
  Crate of Thunder (@ThunderCrate6) reported 35 minutes ago

  The GAU-8/A Avenger Popular mythology states that the GAU-8 came about solely to kill Soviet tanks. In actuality, the gun was an integral part of the A-X design from the beginning, specifically designed to be the most flexible and versatile weapon that could engage across the spectrum of targets that CAS requires. The A-X would be required to engage everything from infantry, to prepared defensive positions (reinforced machine-gun nests), through staging areas, to columns of main battle tanks—the entirety of enemy equipment on the battlefield. While certain weapons did well against certain targets, only a gun effectively spanned the entire range of expected targets. In the discussion of caliber, the design team analyzed all options. The 20mm enjoyed support as the most readily available and “standard” option for US fighters, however, it did not live up to the tasks and requirements laid before the A-X. To satisfy the requirement of killing armor while retaining effectiveness across the battlefield, the team settled between 25 and 35mm. 35mm provided perhaps the best option for anti-armor but would have required a reciprocating cannon instead of a Gatling Gun, which would have in-turn reduced reliability. Since a Gatling-style gun was needed, the GAU-8 became a 30mm. Recent discussions on the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) as armor penetration rounds have circulated through the media. DU creates heavy-metal residue that can lead to cancerous growths due to exposure—all heavy metals do this, but DU carries the unfortunate title of URANIUM, which sounds bad in usage, and therefore ends up as a target in the media. Tungsten has been floated as an alternative to DU—while still a heavy metal, so the after-effects would remain the SAME. However, it sounds better, and sometimes that’s all the difference, right? Interestingly enough, tungsten was considered as a penetrator early in the development of the 30mm round. However, DU creates better incendiary and secondary effects as it reacts with armor while it penetrates. The pyrophoric effect of DU exponentially adds to the killing power of the round that would not be present with other penetrators, and this effect was studied in-depth early in the design phase. The 30mm rounds that the GAU-8 required did not exist in an “off the shelf” capacity and had to be created from zero. The gun itself was relatively inexpensive, so far as weaponry is concerned. The bullets, however, nearly crippled the program. Wartime stockpile planning required six months of war-reserve-material 30mm to be stocked, and the initial cost per round for these 30mm rounds was $115 EACH! True to form, the bureaucracy of the service led the charge here, and most of that cost came in packaging and storage as required under current MILSPEC regulations. One VERY creative officer got all that changed, Bob Bilger (spelling?) and the price of each round dropped to $13. He also dramatically changed the testing of the gun. Originally, the GAU-8 was to be tested on a stand, engaging a simple target, as most guns were. Under Bilger’s direction, the test was changed to a live, aerial firing, which uncovered dramatic flaws. The first successful firing of the GAU-8 was followed in short-order (same flight) by the first successful ejection from an A-10! The GAU-8 produced so much smoke, that it blinded the pilot during firing, and the residue flamed out both engines. These flaws would NEVER have been discovered on a test stand! He also developed the true Lot Acceptance Verification Program (LAVP) that resides in A-10 historical lore. He managed to acquire an impressive array of tanks, of both friendly and Soviet designs. (The unlikely and clandestine manners in which this came about is a story in-and-of itself!) In the end, they created the fourth largest armored formation in the world! The test also directed that the tanks be configured in combat configurations (the Army was known for filling gas tanks with water during such tests—I guess it shows where the leaks would come from, but did nothing to show actual combat effects!), and a team was assembled that could repair the tanks for repeated testing. The results were far and above expectations, showcasing the true power of the 30mm DU round in not only penetrating armor, but the deadly effects that such rounds created once they made it through that shell. Coincidentally, about this same time, a Texas delegation demanded a flyoff between the A-7 and A-10. While the Hog performed well in the tests, the LAVP results sealed the deal—no external 30mm gun pod on established fighters could match what the GAU-8 proved in the desert near Nellis. Interesting side note: A-10 pilots like to point out how the GAU-8 system retains its spent casings—so as not to spit out metal over the battlefield. Sprey felt that this was an unnecessary addition that came with the risk of added weight and potentially critical jams, and fought for a traditional expulsion upon firing. He lost that battle, though he admits that the system works better than he had feared at the time. The question of first-round hits vs employing longer bursts: The question was posed concerning the testing and accuracy of the GAU-8—was it ever tested to determine how the accuracy of the gun changed throughout a single firing? Every A-10 pilot is taught about the spin-up time of the gun and how that affects the placement of initial rounds. After that spin-up time, the remaining bullets employed “should” demonstrate a common accuracy within the known dispersion of the cannon (accounting for such “kicks” to the round as the Magnus and Gatling Effects). Hogs are renowned for employing long “combat” bursts of between 100 to 150 rounds, but the question remains: are we wasting bullets after a certain point, or are those long bursts required to account for all variables and effectively provide the desired effects against a given target? Acoustic-score technology fails to provide us these answers as they only register the total number of “hits,” and not the order of record. High speed, hi-resolution cameras would be necessary to accomplish such testing, and even then—the environment would have to be altered to account for all of the dust clouds that are kicked up every time the gun is employed—it might be difficult if not impossible to record shots after a certain number of rounds. Additionally, so many other factors play in to the discussion; aimpoint, stress, environmentals—all of which could be accounted for with a detailed-enough program, and the technology certainly exists if anyone was willing to spend the money to make it happen this late in the aircraft’s lifespan. But, out of this discussion came an interesting point—the design team envisioned 50 round bursts, or the ability to engage 20 individual targets with the gun. An eye-opening point, especially when contrasted with the manner in which the gun has been employed throughout the A-10’s impressive service. It should be noted, however, that the original gun was installed without the later technology called Precision Attitude Control. When engaged, this system “locks” the flight controls to hold the aimpoint on the target. The pilot can still refine the aimpoint as control is transferred to the trim tabs. This addition to the A-1 VASTLY increased its accuracy in longer bursts, and improved the density of bullets on a single aimpoint. Prior to PAC, some studies assessed that only the first 25 rounds retained the most accuracy. With PAC, pilots at the biannual Hawgsmoke event have proven to register upwards of 98-99% hits with the gun!

• 
  Zarodnii 🍁 (@zarodnii) reported 35 minutes ago

  @TQ_110 @BattlefieldComm Any update on this problem? Been having the same problem since the update. Tried uninstalling and clearing the cache

• 
  KansasArchaeologist (@KSArchaeologist) reported 38 minutes ago

  Two days after the battle a group of soldiers found Comanche near the battlefield. He was badly wounded and he was taken back to Fort Abraham Lincoln and ultimately survived the ordeal. In April 1878 he was retired from service at 21 years old. He was kept at Fort Meade near Sturgis, South Dakota from 1879-1887 when he was returned to Fort Riley in Kansas where he was given the honorary title of “Second Commanding Officer” of the 7th Cavalry. He died on November 7th, 1889 from colic, and is one of only 4 horses in US military history to have a military funeral with full military honors. But he was not buried. Comanche was taken to Professor Lewis Dyche at the University of Kansas in Lawrence and taxidermied to be displayed. In 1893 he was shown at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago at the Kansas Pavilion with Professor Dyche’s panorama of North American Mammals.

• 
  JERSEY & BOOT plug🔌 🇳🇬 🇬🇧 (@mr__topson) reported 39 minutes ago

  When every court appearance is followed by a new argument health concerns today, judge objections tomorrow it shifts public attention away from the substance of the case and onto legal maneuvering. That said, in fairness, lawyers are expected to use every legitimate avenue available to defend their client. The real issue is whether these applications are grounded in genuine legal concerns or are merely attempts to delay proceedings or shape the battlefield.

• 
  Psycho Soap (@psychosoap) reported 39 minutes ago

  Most people don’t understand strategy. They complicate it. They confuse it. They avoid it. We are all faced with the problem of limited resources. Strategy is used to determine where you direct those limited resources. Example: Your morning time is a resource that you must direct your actions. Example: Goal: get lean. Choices: 1) Eat high calorie low satiating food. 2) Eat high protein healthy 3) Fast until noon #1 does not align with that goal you are best to choose 2 or 3. The problem though is the mind. Most people fail not because they don’t know what to do. They fail because they follow the sabotaging thoughts in their mind. “I deserve this...” “I’ll start tomorrow.” “So and So doesn’t have to work this hard why should I?” That is how great men who seem invincible fail as well. Creating a strategy is easy. Executing on strategy is extremely hard when your mind is the battlefield. I’m bringing this back to psycho soap see. You must train your mind to be resilient to the thoughts that ruin you. Cold showers and psycho soap naturally help you produce norepinephrine which is your guard against these thoughts. Seriously…. This is the answer Don’t take my word for it…

• 
  asmarino ደጀና💪🇪🇷 (@azmarinoss) reported 40 minutes ago

  @LJeganu No question 100%. If this the problem for them why they are silent when they see the pp massive preparation for war? Why d9 you silent for ongoing war in amhara, Oromo, and other Ethiopian? Even do you think not preparation for war save Tigrayans if pp create war with Eritrea? Wehere do you think the Battle ground if pp strat war for annex Assab? And what choice you see the Tigrayans ppl at all? question—100%. If this is really their concern, why were they silent while PP was openly preparing for war? Why stay silent about the ongoing wars in Amhara, Oromia, and other parts of Ethiopia? Do they honestly think ignoring military preparations would protect Tigrayans if PP started a war with Eritrea? Where do they think the battlefield would be if PP tried to annex Assab? What realistic choice would ordinary Tigrayans have in that situation?

• 
  Sann (@san_x_m) reported 42 minutes ago

  His name was Major Shaitan Singh. He was told to abandon his post. He was outnumbered, out of range of his own guns, and no help was coming. He was ordered to fall back. He refused. He was born on 1 December 1924 in Jodhpur, into a family of soldiers. By 1962 he was a major in the 13 Kumaon, commanding a company of 120 men, most of them Ahir farmers from Haryana who had followed him to the roof of the world. Their post was called Rezang La. A pass in Ladakh at nearly 16,000 feet, guarding the road to Chushul. Behind it lay Leh. If Rezang La fell, Ladakh lay open. There was one cruel problem. A ridge stood between his company and the Indian artillery. It meant that if the Chinese came, his 120 men would fight without a single supporting gun. They knew it. They dug their trenches into the frozen rock anyway. On the freezing dawn of 18 November 1962, the Chinese came. Not in dozens. In waves. Hundreds at a time, wave after wave, up the ravines below the pass. Shaitan Singh's men cut them down and kept cutting them down. When one post was overrun, he moved to the next, and the next, walking through machine gun fire to hold his men together. He was hit. He kept going. He was hit again. By the time the guns fell silent, almost all of his company was gone. 114 of the 120 were dead. But they had made the enemy pay in blood for every foot of that ridge. The snow closed over the battlefield. For three months no one could reach it. When the thaw came and the recovery teams finally climbed to Rezang La, they found the men of Charlie Company still in their trenches. Frozen. Weapons still in their hands. The mortar man with a bomb still in his grip. They had died exactly where they had been told to stand. Shaitan Singh was found on that ridge, beside his men. He was given the Param Vir Chakra, the highest honour India has. He was told to fall back. He chose the mountain.

• 
  Cooltaha ඞ 🔻💔 (@ohyeahmister2) reported 46 minutes ago

  @InsiderGeo The west is slow to respond and is failing to see the threat for now. The elites are too myopic and focused on internal alliance issues rather than facing the reality on the battlefield

• 
  Tim on two wheels (@2wheelsgoodBrum) reported 48 minutes ago

  @Bloatee1 @DonUnderThePool @SaferRoadsYorks We can all agree on that. As soon as we fix the endangerment behaviour, it will no longer feel like it is a battlefield.

• 
  chris (@ChrisSlaske) reported 50 minutes ago

  @Battlefield why is drag revive so bad? You take one step forward and 7 steps back each update. Every day brings new attention to problems that have been plaguing multiplayer for months

• 
  Linton Phillips (@LintonPhillips) reported 50 minutes ago

  @krassenstein You’re rooting for a different country… in the World Cup and on the battlefield in a war. Whose brain is broken?

• 
  jscmanila (@jscmanila) reported 51 minutes ago

  “Pickett’s Charge” — July 3, 1863 This painting captures General Robert E. Lee’s most costly battlefield decision. Believing the Union center on Cemetery Ridge could be broken, Lee ordered a frontal assault across nearly a mile of open ground. The attack ended in disaster, with devastating Confederate losses. Gettysburg marked the turning point of the American Civil War, ending Lee’s invasion of the North and shifting the momentum decisively to the Union. Lee later accepted full responsibility, telling his men, “It is all my fault.”

• 
  mohammad solymani (@msolymani13) reported 51 minutes ago

  @joekent16jan19 The problem is that you are not dealing with someone who thinks rationally or acts on the basis of reason. As an old Iranian proverb says, "You are reciting the Qur'an into a donkey's ear." If reason had any place in the equation, the logic of your argument would be obvious. But when reason disappears, desperation takes control. For Iran, this is an existential conflict. Any nation that believes its survival is at stake will inevitably escalate its response in order to remove the threat it faces. Whether others approve or not does not change that strategic reality. If this path continues, the consequences will not remain confined to the battlefield. The world may soon face a devastating economic crisis whose effects will extend far beyond the region!

• 
  Dj Stephens (@DdotJAY30) reported 55 minutes ago

  Fix the bugs in your game… @Battlefield -Hit reg is trash -Delay after placing claymore is trash -Let console players cross play with only console players

• 
  VAAVE Gaming (@VAAVEgaming) reported 55 minutes ago

  With the servers being down, no. With multiplayer games that’s a whole other issue which is why the “Stop Killing Games” movement has started. So there’s people fighting for that. I’m a single player gamer outside of Battlefield so that doesn’t apply to me and we understand the server issue. My single player games will still be playable so I’m not sure what you’re getting at with that reply. With the Battlefield: Bad Company 1 & 2, Battlefield 3 servers down I can still boot up my physical copies and play the campaigns. Also with Battlefield Hardline. Just played the Medal of Honor campaigns recently on PS3 too. Go talk to the “Stop Killing Games” people about online only games

• 
  Crypto.jedi24 (@CryptoJedi24) reported 55 minutes ago

  Genesis Declaration No parchment bears the word “Bitcoin” in the hand of Jefferson, quill still wet with July ink. No founder etched satoshis beside “unalienable Rights,” no covenant of 21 million sealed in wax beside Life, Liberty, Pursuit. Yet hear the echo across centuries: They broke from a crown that debased coin, that inflated the people’s sweat into royal favor, that printed promises to pay nothing while demanding everything. The Bank of England loomed then as the Fed does now— a hidden hand clipping wings, watering blood. “We hold these truths…” they declared separation from fiat tyranny, from arbitrary seizure, from endless debasement. Sound money was their silent oath— gold and silver coin, unspendable by decree, weights fixed, not whims. Bitcoin arrives late, but arrives as heir. Not written into parchment, but carved into code— the same spirit, hardened in silicon fire. A ledger that remembers every grievance, every inflation assassin, every broken promise since 1776. No bells rang for it in Philadelphia, no signatures in iron gall ink. But the genesis block whispers the headline they would have recognized: Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks. Same war. Different battlefield. Prairie wind carries old defiance now, high plain gust over mountains of hash, stream mining patient through valleys of doubt. Sunset rations light to atoms once more— halving, halving, until only truth remains. Private key in your palm: declaration renewed. No king. No printer. No prince. Just you, the covenant, the unspent oath. Hold it. 🧡 The ledger waits, awake—

• 
  UniqueSkillez (@UniqueSkillez) reported 57 minutes ago

  @CynderFlamez Eomm is the problem within Battlefield 6. Battlefield 2042 looks and plays better to me.

• 
  實果 (@Suhyeem) reported 57 minutes ago

  The war didn't begin with explosions. The first thing that crumbled was the "consistency" of the reports. Military conflict records usually follow a single flow: occurrence, engagement, losses, and assessment. However, this flow didn't hold true in this theater of operations. Reports from multiple countries existed simultaneously as "official logs," each contradicting the others. As a coordinator in the International Intelligence Analysis Bureau, I was responsible for resolving these contradictions. Being a woman doesn't mean anything in this job. But when I descend to the field, for some reason, my "physicality as an observer" becomes acutely aware. The first anomaly report concerned an Apache helicopter engagement record. One source claimed it was "shot down by a low-altitude drone," another claimed it was "deactivated by electronic warfare," and yet another claimed "contact itself wasn't even observed." The same location, the same time, the same unit. Yet, only the "reality" of the battlefield didn't match. Adding insult to injury, F-35 fighter jet attrition data began to surface. The numbers were exaggerated. The number of destroyed aircraft varied from source to source, ranging from "multiple aircraft" to "the majority of the force." However, the problem wasn't the numbers. Every report had an abnormally high degree of certainty. "Confirmed," "Definitive," "Undoubtedly" These phrases were simultaneously applicable to the same event. I held my breath in front of the terminal. A war wasn't happening. The very "definition" of war was divided. At that moment, the monitoring system issued a single warning: 《Synchronization Anomaly in Reference Theater》 I didn't know yet. That this war wasn't a clash of weapons, but a clash over "real-world reference points." And that at its center existed an unnamed "Observer Protocol."