Jotte

Test firing of a Swedish RBS-56 BILL anti-tank missile against an old Centurion tank filled with fuel and ammunition, seen from two different angles.

I would be incredibly surprised if it wasn't NVA/Bundeswehr (plus, I'd love to see a professionally done version of my mod!)
I have his book, Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland. I'll see if I can dig anything interesting from his maps.
Edit:
Found a map. He was in V. Armee so naturally his data is about its role in the "united armed forces" as he puts it.

Oh some translations to help you guys:
GSSD = Gruppe der Sowjetischen Streitkräfte in Deutschland, Group of Soviet Forces Germany
OK = Oberkommando, High Command
GdMSD = Garde-Motorisierte-Schützendivision, Guards Motor Rifle Division (likewise MSD for w/out guards)
GPD = Garde-Panzerdivision, Guards Tank Division (likewise PD for w/out guards)

Polish forces were also earmarked for the invasion of Denmark, so Danish troops should be present in a module featuring Polish paras and marines.

I serve the Soviet Union!

Been lurking for a while and decided to sign up for the forums and hopefully add to the discussion since I'm all hyped up for CM:CW!
I was browsing the Googles and found this bibliography file of 10 Cold War related books and figured I should share. I believe almost all of these have already been mentioned, but I like the brief description for each book. 
I'd like to make it clear that I did not make this list - I'm just sharing (and formatted and edited it a tiny bit to make it easier to read!).
https://img.lib.msu.edu/general/events/contest/2006/2006GrevstadBib.pdf  written by Ted Grevstad-Nordbrock
For those who don't want to click away: copy/paste below the break - book names are in bold, author names in italics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Ten Literary Accounts of a War that Was Never Fought”
Ted Grevstad-Nordbrock
Bibliography List:
- World War 3. Bidwell, Sheldon, ed. (1978).
Though non-fictional, Sheldon's work takes on an air of fiction when it hypothesizes about how a third world war in Europe might realistically start, and how it would play out. Like other books in this collection, slogging but indecisive conventional warfare inevitably leads to the use of nuclear weapons.
- Red Storm Rising. Clancy, Tom. (1986).
Clancy is, of course, the best-known author of the group included here. This work, one of his earliest, describes a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict on land and on the seas.
- Armor at Fulda Gap: A Visual Novel of the War of Tomorrow. Cook, J. L. (1990).
Cook's illustrated work is an unusual mix of fact and fiction-of real-world armaments that would have been used to fight a third world war as well as fantastic imaginings of what the near future might hold. The title of the book makes reference to two common themes in the theory and literature describing a NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontation in Europe: the Fulda Gap, a historical passage-a "gap" in the otherwise rough terrain-from eastern Europe to the west, named after the German city; and armor, the tanks and mechanized vehicles that would contend for this strategic region.
- Team Yankee. Coyle, Harold. (1987).
This best-selling work intimately chronicles the efforts of an American tank platoon in defending a small swath of West Germany during a Warsaw Pact invasion. The story is based on the Hackett's The Third World War: August 1985, which Coyle acknowledges in his introduction.
- The Third World War: August 1985. Hackett, John, General Sir. (1978). 
This influential account of World War III is told by a British general. The illustrated edition features images of the battles, including the two terminal moments of the short war: nuclear strikes on Birmingham, England and Minsk.
- The Third World War: The Untold Story. Hackett, John, General Sir. (1982).
 Hackett's follow-up fleshes out and expands the narrative begun in "August 1985."
- First Clash: Combat Close-Up in World War Three. Macksey, Kenneth (1984)
First Clash offers a Canadian take on NATO's efforts to repulse the Red Army during its invasion of West Germany. That this fiction is based in fact is emphasized through the use of annotated maps, images, and text boxes that contain discursive notes on tactics, armament, military organization, etc.
- The War That Never Was. Palmer, Michael A. (1994).
Written after the Cold War ended, this book describes World War III on a global scale (a war that "never was"), as told by a fictional Russian character to his old enemy and new ally: an American.
- Red Army. Peters, Ralph. (1989).
Peters's book is unique in that it tells the story of a conflict in Europe from the perspective of soldiers in the Red Army. This is perhaps one of the best written of the books of this genre.
- Red Thrust. Zaloga, S. J. (1989). 
Though no less fictional than any of the other works included here, Zaloga's text reads almost like a casebook. He offers a series of hypothetical NATO-Warsaw Pact battle scenarios in Western Europe, each with an accompanying postmortem: tactical strengths, weaknesses, and what might have been done by military leaders to affect a different outcome.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope this helps some, and also thanks for all of the recommendations so far. I currently have a few of these on the way!
-RT

Almost like it was designed that way 😉.  We avoided 1983 not due to any real equipment issues (as noted there was some ammo introductions) but more to avoid the organizational changes that happen in the US military.  The J series Inf Bns (and a couple ‘interim’ structures) TO&E begins to emerge in the 83-84 timeframe and we frankly had enough on our hands trying to untie all that.  So 79-82 gave the best window but players can easily tinker a year or so on either side and still be completely accurate.

I mean, I'm not going to be that jerk to throw a "RTFM" at anyone ... but that has been a feature for some time (since Engine 2 or 3?) - see CM Engine Manual v4.00 (page 91) or A Scen Design AAR PDF Book (page 32). 😁
The manuals are really worth the read for anyone making scenarios - some kind soul put a good effort into those works. 👍
Here's what a "Ditch locked" tank position looks like on flat ground:

As much as I'd love the Swedish forces inclusion in a module, it would only really make sense as a part of a north Norway scenario where the Soviets does a "south hook" through nothern Finland and Sweden to flank the NATO forces in northern Norway.
USMC, UK & Dutch Marines and Canadians along with Finnish and Swedish forces. Soviets get Naval infantry and VDV. Biggus Modulus that one. 🙃
Sweden as a seperate module timeline; When hell have frozen over thrice.  But reasearching the TO&E isnt a showstopper at least... 😁
Danes could be included along with BOAR as they had tasks in northern Germany iirc. Same module could have the Polish forces, including their Naval infantry.

Sinse the mid of 70th 82 mm BM-37 mortars were out of service of motor-rifle units and remained only in air-assault units. Soviet motor-rifle battalions, especially BTR-type used 2B9 or PM-43+2B9 in own batteries. New 82 mm 2B14 appeared again in motorrifle units only since 1984-1985

From what I understand, they did some thinking-outside-the-box and labeled the extended tube a 'bipod' so so when the weapon is deployed the 'bipod' (e.g. extended tube) appears. One of those things that's obvious only after someone first thinks of it.

♫ ...and a partridge in a pear treeeeeeee ♫

Sorry for butchering the BAOR acronym 😁
I mearly ment the Danes were neighbouring British forces so it would be logic to include in the same module. 🙂
Did the Danes have forward tasks south of the Danish border so to speak or am I remembering that wrong?

Maybe we should take that in pm's as to not derail this thread? I'd appriciate tips on reading on the subject. 🙂

Heaps of people who served in BAOR do exactly the same - don't worry about the BOAR thing.
The image below, although having US III Corps reinforcing NORTHAG which was a role that evolved towards the end of the Cold War, pretty much sums the deployment piece on the Central Front.  There are of course better and more detailed maps out there but this one was easy to find and gets the message across.

I can guarantee you that in the time frame of the game - the only Brits you would have seen alongside the Danes would have been 6 Field Force/1 Infantry Brigade/UKMF which as I said earlier and the image illustrates, would have come from the UK.
Prior to 1975, and I haven't researched that in detail because it is irrelevant to the time frame of the game, 3 (UK) Division apparently either had a role in Denmark/Schleswig Holstein or there was talk of it having one.
If you are interested in BAOR barracks, this is a good starting point:
Barracks (baor-locations.org)

It's possible the name gives a hint as to the vest's purpose.  

Well I think I can answer some of these questions.  First off, let me say that the experience levels in-game are already a pretty soft concept to begin with, so trying to figure out what a "realistic" experience level is for anyone side is accepting a level of abstraction from the start.
So first, the in-game context as outlined by the backstory.  This is a desperate Soviet gambit, they are on a very tight schedule to break through West Germany as quickly as possible before the West can 1) move reinforcements to theatre or 2) collectively decide on a nuclear response.  As such the Soviets are going to put good troops in the initial attacks (as seen in the Soviet Campaign) and their best troops in the break out, which occurs during the US Campaign.  So basically these are the best troops the Soviets have in the entire theatre in this break out push down Route 66 to the Rhine (that is why you see T80s later).  This fits with Soviet doctrine, as well as the strategic/operational picture on the ground.  
The US side is different.  The US put its best troops (in this region, the 11th ACR and 3rd Armd) forward as a screen and held second ech in depth.  This makes sense as the strategy was not an offensive breakthrough but attrition and delay until the West could build mass (or agree on WMDs).  In the US Campaign the player has troops from the 8th Inf Div, that was very deliberate as this division was always considered a depth division in the grand scheme of things.  It had lead elements forward but that is not the 28th Inf Regt, which was actually based west of Frankfurt.  That is why the 28th get M60A1s and not A3s to M1s and is also reflected in troop quality - went with Regular-High-Fit.
So right off the bat, in this what-if universe (remember this is a fictional timeline) there would likely be qualitative disparity between Soviet break out forces and in-depth US ones as portrayed in the campaign due to strategic/operational context.  Now how does that translate to CM?  Good question, probably closer to Reg-Vet, but considering that the vast majority of combatants on both sides have never seen combat and none/very few (perhaps some that observed the Arab Israeli conflict) have ever seen mechanized warfare on this scope and scale, we would realistically be seeing a whole lotta shades of Green.
Then there is play balancing.  The campaign is single player, which means that a human brain is playing a machine.  As strong as the Tac AI is in CM it cannot compare to a human player, so to offset this very real abstraction, a level of tweaking had to be done to make things challenging.  So for some scenarios we went with Crack Soviet troops to ensure that the very unrealistic fact that this is not two human players did not throw things out of whack too far.
Hope that answers your question somewhat.

Sometimes it's hard to believe that that kind of stuff is even real. The four sniper teams I had in that scenario took down 14 Germans by the end though.
 
Anyway, I am very glad I got Fire and Rubble when I did, because soon afterward my internet got knocked out for a week due to storms. I didn't have much else to do but play it. 
The Night at the Opera campaign is good. Very atmospheric. Seeing green tracers flying across Konigsplatz was bringing back Red Orchestra memories.
The amount of firepower that the Soviets could bring to bear is kind of terrifying. My biggest concern in this campaign so far is not casualties but ammo usage. 



 
A Soviet assault team comes over a rise only to run right into a couple squads of Fallschirmjager at close range:

 
The fight didn't last long though. After a couple seconds of heavy shooting, a 122mm shell slammed into the building, killing or wounding several Germans. Five of the Germans surrendered after that.

 
That was a typical encounter. Germans would reveal themselves only to be completely plastered by a massive storm of bullets and explosions. My casualties haven't even been that heavy, but I'm going into the second mission of the campaign with ammo problems. There are multiple entire platoons that are basically out of ammo. I also should have conserved my artillery ammo, because now I don't have anything to blow up the Reichstag with. Except tanks.

Love the new buildings, especially the churches. 
Volkssturm looks good. Didn't expect that.
New vehicles are amazing, all of them.
Winter conditions look superb.
Gorgeous maps, scenarios and campaigns, well done, guys!
Huge compliment to the Fire and Rubble team. Looks very polished.
 

Check this out:
 

Weighing in here a bit, first off criticism accepted and we can always do better (our unofficial motto).  Anytime one does something creative and then puts it out there with a price tag, one has to be ready to accept criticisms by paying customers.  Some is useful, some less so but one does have to take it into account moving forward.  In this case, I do find it both odd and ironic that the original poster's main complaint seems to be poor briefings which impact in-game experience through lack of clarity, while at the same time the criticism itself is also lacking in clarity but let the healing begin.
So first questions - how did the briefings impact your game experience?  Were they distracting or did the issue mislead or create for poorer in-gameplay, if so how?  If you could pick three scenarios to fix, which one would they be?  Some scenarios/campaigns are written from a stylistic point of view.  The US Campaign, for example, is written from a personal in-the-field journal style, so a lot of writing conventions are going to be removed to emulate the style of a scared, tired leader in-combat.  Some briefings are written from a Soviet point of view, which is stark and minimalistic.  Further many others are written in what I would call a deep-military writing style, this could very well explain the "incomplete sentences", which emulates Frag Os and the type of written orders veterans recognize from the field.  So if we could separate style-decisions from honest errors, that would be a first good step.
As to the typos etc, well we can go back and correct the most egregious, particularly if they mislead the player.  Moving forward, I am thinking we will move to 1) putting all briefings in Word docs first, before moving them to the in-game text docs and 2) hiring an editor to review all briefings before release (I have the hook and very good one) because right now the content team of contributors (nice alliteration Capt!) is basically totally unsupported, so that is on us.
And finally, as always you are free to exercise the BFC return policy if you are unhappy with the product and same will apply with Steam etc.   

Muphry’s Law right there.

This is a good point. I will see if I can get a note added into the game manual to let players know about the limitations of the TOW missiles despite having thermals. 

Jesus Christ...don't bring that sh*t here. There's twitter and tumblr and facebook and a thousand other places for the oppression olympics.
As for the question...THERE'S HUGE diversity, unless of course you think all "white" people are the same. We have Americans, Canadians, British, Germans, Russians, Ukranian, New Zealanders, South Africans,  French, Poles, Dutch, Italians, (along with skins for black and brown citizens of those nations where viable) as well as Brazilian, Syrians, Indians, Sikhs, and plenty of portraits for Maori, Gurkha, Goumiers, Algerians, Japanese Americans, Druze, Assyrian, Palestinian, and Shi'ite. Hope that's enough "diversity" for you.
EDITED: CMBB and CMAK also had Finnish, Romanians, Hungarians, and Australians.
Burn it before it lays eggs...
Mord.
 

So it is important to know that the BMP-1 has much thinner armor (especially on the sides) than the BMP-2 does. The .50 cal can easily slice through the side armor of a BMP-1, even at combat ranges of 300m+. The BMP-2 will be a bit harder to kill at ranges beyond 300m, but it can still be done. 
Another quick note on the .50 cal. In the other two modern titles (CMBS and CMSF2) the .50 cal is firing modern SLAP rounds, which are very effective against light armor, including BMPs. Those SLAP rounds did not come out until 1990, so are outside the timeline here. 
For me the biggest thing that comes readily to mind was a minor change to the way aircraft work. I wanted to implement a change for aircraft that would allow them to release multiple munitions per pass. So for example, an F-16 could fly in and drop all its cluster bombs at once on a single targeted area. Same goes for any unguided munition, like dumb bombs. 
Unfortunately there just was not enough time in development for that change to be implemented, tested, approved and shipped. Maybe at some point in the future though.