pnzrldr

Yeah, maybe.  Unlikely you would have time, but many Iraqi crews chose this route in 2003.  However, the 25mm is a very powerful gun.  In real life, if I hit that T-90 like LT Upham's crew did, I'd give it a 50/50 chance of disabling the vehicle.  A good gun or gun mount hit, a serious hit to the sights, a turret ring hit, drivers hatch, etc...  All are vulnerable to one degree or another on any MBT, even from the front.  I have friends who did just about exactly what Upham did in 2003 versus suddenly discovered T-72s, but with diametrically opposite results.  With 30+ hits, you get a lot of chances for a lucky hit.  You also have the strong possibility that the MBT crew won't hang tough to complete the engagement. 

LOL.  Well, I cannot address Harry Potter invisibility cloaks.  I'd say that either that is what the Soldier in your video has, or else the vid is simply doctored.  Scene is obviously an older, early war one, as the US response makes no allowance for secondary devices.  I know of no working, practical 'invisibility cloaks' that are effective against naked eye.  However, there are several fairly easy passive ways to offset thermal detection.  Much more feasible for men, rather than vehicles, although modern design does take thermal signature reduction into account.  Simple 'reverse polarity' tape that we use for target ranges affords fairly good outline disruption if cut into strips.  Doesn't mask ambient heat that soaks around it, but effective at moderate to longer ranges.  I quite literally assumed that our sniper teams (who have thermals of their own) are cognizant of this and have created suits that allow them to remain hidden.  However, such things are not in the game.  Maybe in a module.  I think there should be some sort of icon or UI indicator for thermal equipped units in game as well, but again, maybe in the module.

Thanks Dan.  Perhaps I will.  I'm already a grade ahead of Harold Coyle I think - didn't he get out as a Major?  I actually read Team Yankee as a pre-release review copy when I was in high school, hence, Armor officer today.  I was already well on the way though.  My Dad was the Regimental SIGO for the 2nd ACR in Nuremburg back in the day.  Took me to Graf to watch the Regiment shoot a Combined Arms Live Fire exercise.  When I saw the tanks shoot I was hooked!    If I ever do write I might be crazy enough to try Sci-fi.  I corresponded with David Drake once upon a time.  If anyone out there hasn't read "Hammer's Slammers," let me make a shameless plug for it.  Best tanker Sci-Fi ever written, and top 10% in military sci-fi in general.  Someone had a 'reading list' thread floating in here somewhere if I recall.  Perhaps I should go lurk on it a bit.

Present.  What do you want me to say?  You don't want your tanks to back up?  Don't get lased!  
 
US Army has no relevant doctrine for this yet, as we don't currently have LWRs on our vehicles.  Like the APS, the LWR is a postulated add-on that is commercially available and we can reasonably assume would be added to front line US units if we had say six months of warning to spool up prior to actual hostilities.  If it was 'come as you are, right *** now!' we would not (currently) have this kit.  At current defense budget levels we will likely field an APS sometime in mid 20s and a new tank long after I am dead <sad face!>  
 
Though our acquaintances in the IDF do have LWRs (I think I recall) on their systems, their threat is vastly different and so any doctrine they have hashed out against Hez/Ham threats would not apply to an adversary with MBTs and numerous different precision anti-armor threats.  In the absence of extensive use at our combat training centers (which would require a very substantial overhaul of our training equipment, as well as the LWRs applied) we must assume that we would be determining tactics/techniques/procedures through combat Darwinism/evolution.  If I was on a tank and the LWR so much as twitched, I would take immediate action.  While that might not include launching smoke, it would almost certainly include seeking cover.  Only difference is that I think running for cover forwards would be more frequent, as the crew is usually oriented that way on the offense, and it would be easier than trying to stop then reverse.  However, would be tougher on the TAC AI to get this behavior, so we've got what we've got.  My advice is...
 
Low ground is your friend.  Just because your Abrams is a rolling deathwagon does not mean you are invulnerable.  Move tactically.
If you cannot avoid it, consider using indirect-delivered smoke.  It doesn't stop thermals, but does a job on lasers.  Lack of direct-fire emplaced obscuration is a major gap in US capabilities.  One that I am literally hoping to rectify. 
Use overwatching vehicles.  Don't move if you don't have a friend covering you.  Keep bounds short enough for mutual support, but don't become overly robotic.  Flow like water over the terrain.
On the defense, look to array forces in depth, but focused into a defined killing zone (engagement area) with overlapping coverage.  Try to not allow the temporary withdrawal of a single platform unhinge your whole plan.  
 
Just my $0.02  Enjoy the game.  

So - haven't played CM in literally years, but was beta tester and wrote some of the missions on CMRT and CMBS.  However, I am now a die-hard IL2 addict, playing the latest IL-2 Great Battles series (IL2 BoX ie. Battle of X - Stalingrad, Moscow, Kuban, Bodenplatte and the upcoming Normandy).  IL2 BoX has some issues, but to say that the visuals are astounding is an understatement.  Flight models and damage models are a very close second to DCS for realism.  Online multiplayer is superb.  With head tracking and HOTAS, it is completely immersive, and I am only awaiting the right VR headset to take that plunge.  FWIW I believe the summer sale is still on, with most of the titles (minus the brand new ones) available at 50-75% off.  Note:  IL2 also built "Flying Circus" onto the base of "Rise of Flight" to simulate WWI aviation and it is an amazing sime and lots of fun as well.  Also of note, the IL2 Cliffs of Dover - the Battle of Britain sim that was the immediate predecessor of IL2 BoX (came after IL2 1946) is coming out very soon with IL2 Tobruk, which will feature a truly incredible level of aircraft, both existing and new, modded for the North Africa campaign.  If you are into flight sims at all you should check it out.  Cliffs and Tobruk are only on Steam (I bought BoX direct from 1C Games, to ensure the devs got all my dollars).  I think Cliffs of Dover is currently $6 and change.  For a taste of IL2 BoX look up either Der Sheriff https://www.youtube.com/c/SheriffsSimShack or iFlyCentral https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg6U2wqGyO2APRoFJwOoztA- both Youtubers - who post great content.  Not a cheap hobby, but I am consistently amazed at the quality of the community and sometimes have fun just flying formation or doing acrobatics - its that realistic and beautiful.  

***   Spoilers ***   Didn't get to this during Beta, but just played it through as RUS and liked it a lot.  Restarted after misunderstanding a note in the briefing so I had a little intel, but played honest otherwise.  My only gripe is that I strongly dislike small maps that have usable/critical terrain right on the boundary.  The road on the left (from RUS perspective) is a critical avenue of approach, but the attacking Russian player has no concern for his security to the left side of it as that is all off map!  Introduces an artificiality that is just never there in real life, esp. in urban combat where 360 security is a constant issue.  Other than that, the AI plan was obviously very well thought out, the forces were fairly well balanced, and I got ground up pretty good before winning.  Key to victory was direct-fire 30mm support from the BTRs.  Their autocannon is so bloody destructive it hurts.  In one instance I meant to target/briefly, but screwed up and used target, when suppressing a small UKR element. Wound up dropping the whole top floor of the building, a vantage point I had actually wanted to use!  **spoiler**  I was also lucky in that I anticipated the sniper team in the church and guessed right on the floor they were on.  They got a face full of 30mm from my setup zone before ever firing a shot.  Never did get the mortar mission into play, which is silly as I could really have used the smoke, but was fixated on just the limited HE ammo and trying to conserve until needed.  I used a LOT of the BTR and INF laid smoke.  Critical factor.  Wound up killing the tank from behind with a BTR's 30mm, after running out of ATGMs and missing several times with RPGs.  It had counterattacked (painfully) to a point overwatching the bridge, but then lost morale and tried to run away, right past a BTR I had maneuvered around the whole back side of the map.  Overall a fun game, good small fairly fast scenario, that rewards good reconnaissance and  methodical urban combat techniques.  

Bil -
 
My primary comment is echoed above by Bulletpoint - this type of system could be effectively hard-coded into the game (with significant effort no doubt) to create a realism level above those currently offered.  As such, I view it as an 'alpha' build that could form the basis for an add-on system, but until/unless you/we convince Steve and Co. to pursue it, I doubt it will gain much traction.  In assessing its marketability, it would make a substantial upgrade for tactical grognards, but might only appeal to them - I don't have a marketing assessment of the overall audience, so cannot say whether you could argue for its development from a profitability standpoint.  Without coded-in development, I doubt many will do much more than tinker with it briefly, despite the effort and thought you are applying. 
 
One thing that such a system might allow would be expanding the actions of the TAC AI somewhat.  For example, adding in movement to cover as an automatic reaction to enemy fire independent of any player input, with direction of movement based upon current task.  Perhaps even with an 'auto-split' for squads taken under fire, half returning fire and half bounding to cover.  Player takes over control again once unit completes immediate action.  Actual reaction (run for cover, ground in place, return fire, bound to cover w/or w/o covering fire) could depend upon unit type, morale, training, etc...  Would automate some of your system as TAC AI actions, and place other aspects under player control.
 
Highlights one glaring issue to me in CM C3 rules and that is prevalence of sound powered phones on WWII battlefield.  Could easily be simulated under your system by designating locations that HQ units start scenario in on defense as having phone hookups - anyone who goes there for a turn is 'in C3' like radio comms.  Would also note that when we look at CMRT it highlights the need to apply your settings based on nationality as well as other factors.  Russian doctrine obviously/famously allowed for infinitely less initiative than other nations.  German and US were not identical either, though more similar. 
 
Just initial thoughts - I'll keep percolating.

Bil -
 
My primary comment is echoed above by Bulletpoint - this type of system could be effectively hard-coded into the game (with significant effort no doubt) to create a realism level above those currently offered.  As such, I view it as an 'alpha' build that could form the basis for an add-on system, but until/unless you/we convince Steve and Co. to pursue it, I doubt it will gain much traction.  In assessing its marketability, it would make a substantial upgrade for tactical grognards, but might only appeal to them - I don't have a marketing assessment of the overall audience, so cannot say whether you could argue for its development from a profitability standpoint.  Without coded-in development, I doubt many will do much more than tinker with it briefly, despite the effort and thought you are applying. 
 
One thing that such a system might allow would be expanding the actions of the TAC AI somewhat.  For example, adding in movement to cover as an automatic reaction to enemy fire independent of any player input, with direction of movement based upon current task.  Perhaps even with an 'auto-split' for squads taken under fire, half returning fire and half bounding to cover.  Player takes over control again once unit completes immediate action.  Actual reaction (run for cover, ground in place, return fire, bound to cover w/or w/o covering fire) could depend upon unit type, morale, training, etc...  Would automate some of your system as TAC AI actions, and place other aspects under player control.
 
Highlights one glaring issue to me in CM C3 rules and that is prevalence of sound powered phones on WWII battlefield.  Could easily be simulated under your system by designating locations that HQ units start scenario in on defense as having phone hookups - anyone who goes there for a turn is 'in C3' like radio comms.  Would also note that when we look at CMRT it highlights the need to apply your settings based on nationality as well as other factors.  Russian doctrine obviously/famously allowed for infinitely less initiative than other nations.  German and US were not identical either, though more similar. 
 
Just initial thoughts - I'll keep percolating.

Bil -
 
My primary comment is echoed above by Bulletpoint - this type of system could be effectively hard-coded into the game (with significant effort no doubt) to create a realism level above those currently offered.  As such, I view it as an 'alpha' build that could form the basis for an add-on system, but until/unless you/we convince Steve and Co. to pursue it, I doubt it will gain much traction.  In assessing its marketability, it would make a substantial upgrade for tactical grognards, but might only appeal to them - I don't have a marketing assessment of the overall audience, so cannot say whether you could argue for its development from a profitability standpoint.  Without coded-in development, I doubt many will do much more than tinker with it briefly, despite the effort and thought you are applying. 
 
One thing that such a system might allow would be expanding the actions of the TAC AI somewhat.  For example, adding in movement to cover as an automatic reaction to enemy fire independent of any player input, with direction of movement based upon current task.  Perhaps even with an 'auto-split' for squads taken under fire, half returning fire and half bounding to cover.  Player takes over control again once unit completes immediate action.  Actual reaction (run for cover, ground in place, return fire, bound to cover w/or w/o covering fire) could depend upon unit type, morale, training, etc...  Would automate some of your system as TAC AI actions, and place other aspects under player control.
 
Highlights one glaring issue to me in CM C3 rules and that is prevalence of sound powered phones on WWII battlefield.  Could easily be simulated under your system by designating locations that HQ units start scenario in on defense as having phone hookups - anyone who goes there for a turn is 'in C3' like radio comms.  Would also note that when we look at CMRT it highlights the need to apply your settings based on nationality as well as other factors.  Russian doctrine obviously/famously allowed for infinitely less initiative than other nations.  German and US were not identical either, though more similar. 
 
Just initial thoughts - I'll keep percolating.

FWIW - from a tanker. I've been in a Sherman, though never fired the gun, I've seen sights and the stadia reticle. I've fired M1IPs and M1A1s using the GAS (stadia reticle, ala 1944). At 100m or less I would say that the chance of burst on target gunnery resulting in a hit (round entering bunker through slit) by the third shot exceeds 90%. Based on my experience with 105mm and 120mm, I would describe a 75mm cannon as roughly equivalent to shooting a .30-06 with a scope - it is after all a rifle with a good optical scope bolted to it. The big difference is you can nearly always see where the 75mm round hits, and adjust that hit onto your desired target for second and following shots. How many rounds would you need to hit a pie plate at 100m with your favorite rifle? This assumes the tank gunner and TC have 30 seconds or so to concentrate on his three shots and sense each round. If you cannot hit a pie plate at 100m with an tank cannon, you will have no hope whatsoever of hitting a tank at 1200m. Parralex might make you miss the first shot (because you are so close and boresighted your gun at 800-1200m), but not the 2nd and 3rd. By 20 you would have put 15+ into the bunker with certainty.

As to behind armor effects, the bunker would be unlivable with AP entering from the strike on the rear wall kicking spall and dust. Concrete dust lingers - dark - cannot see out. Decent chance of killing or wounding occupants (leaving aside the real likelihood of hitting someone in the chest with the round itself) Any HE detonation, whether on the rear wall or embedded deep in it, would incapacitate everyone inside. You simply cannot overstate the magnifying effect of enclosure/compression on HE. They might not be dead, but they would be out of the fight with near certainty. A single hand grenade that gets through the slit and isn't kicked into a grenade sump would do just about as well.

However, I have had a 25lb plastique IED go off three feet from my right foot - with just armored HMMWV between me and it - and I wasn't more than rattled and made viable combat decisions within 3 seconds. Armor (or concrete) directly between you and BANG is GOOD! So I presume hits on the outer glacis, even from decent sized HE, would have limited effect. If the concrete is less than 2 feet or so, you might get penetration with AP - folks with hard pen data on the historical rounds would know more. If it doesn't penetrate, net effect is near zero ("yark, that was close!") but if it does penetrate, it is worse than a rear wall hit, as spall will be much more significant and you may get the actual AP round to fragment as it comes through.

Bottom line - whether a bug or a modeling glitch, the circumstance described in the beginning is extraordinarily unrealistic and detracts from gameplay realism. I just played the Casa Nostra scenario though, and thought the bunker model was fairly good overall. Hit one from behind on the door with a bazooka and caused partial fatalities on crew. Hit one from direct rear with a demo charge and KIA everybody. MGs from front penetrated about every 3rd burst or so and caused decent suppression. Will hope for a patch that helps with cannon vs. bunker model. Also concur with the post regarding visually acquiring bunkers. Worth noting that not every engineer deserves the title and some bunkers stick out like sore thumbs. However, some like the VC or Japanese on Guadalcanal you don't see until you literally trip over them. Would expect the game model to cover the gamut.

Lastly, I'm curious about the direct fire model in CMFI. I'm a newb to CM, and haven't thus far seen direct fire weapons doing "burst on target" (BOT) gunnery. First round miss, adjust, second round bracket or hit. Does the game model this? Most common form of direct fire gunnery training in WWII, and a underdeveloped skill in our Army's current gunnery training (because we now have sexy sweet ballistic computers that make us lazy - until they break). Anyone got a link to a thread on this?

Hi all.  Overwhelmingly happy to see this thread.  Couple points. 
 
1.  Chris and I had opposite viewpoint (or simple miscommunication) on allocating easy/hard mission.  He wound up giving hard mission to folks who do poorly in preceding one.  I thought they should get an easier ride, and folks fresh from overwhelming victory should have to suck it up.  Either use a utility (one on GaJ's board?) to decompile the campaign, run through and deliberately throw the preceding mission, or perhaps I'll hang the 'hard' version out there on the repos for a challenge game.
2.  Ravens CAN get shot down, esp. by Tunguskas.  They are harder to engage though.  Not quite sure if SAMS/MANPADs can, but TGs for sure.  As stated, GE is immune if observing only.
3.  *Spoiler*  hard version features Russian Air, US Stingers, and Russian mobile ADA systems, plus slight decrements to US force mix to up the resource management challenge.
 
Have had some folks say that the Russian mech elements pile up too much, and they don't enjoy the Kuwait/Falaise Pocket "highway of death" aspect.  However, one of the US' key concepts is to use Joint Fires to provide the lethality that our limited numbers cannot generate.  This is a test of that concept.  It highlights the difficulties inherent in going with only GPS precision guidance on many munitions, of getting observers in obsolete 'scout' vehicles to accomplish their missions, and of the challenges inherent in neutralizing an integrated air defense system.  I challenge folks to imagine what it would be like if some of us betas had prevailed in our attempts to get vehicle/soldier small arms applied into the AAA equation!  But it is fun, trying to take out a MECH BDE (-) with a Stryker PLT and a handful of scouts. 
 
Heck, this was so much fun I may have to build another like it to apply the experience from making this one!

Nah, just found out it didn't make the release.  I am working w/ Bil to modify each side a tad.  Then have to cut up the AI somewhat.  Map is the same.  Probably take a little bit though.  Will keep you posted.

If there are any on the forum from this storied outfit, please shoot me a PM.  IG invited me and other Betas to help develop a post-release campaign to highlight your unit, and would appreciate any first-hand experience and insight.  Not an invite to participate in development (yet), but would like to at least open dialogue.  No, lotsa love for you All American folks, but this is specifically a request to make contact with the Vicenza crowd.  PM me and/or Imperial Grunt.  Thanks.  
 
To all non-173d types, expect a new campaign on the repository as fast as we can get it done.  Hopefully this post-release beta-developed content will enhance your pleasure with the game!  
 
IG / Pnzr

To bring it back down onto the street, a little elaboration on the plight of the Shia woman who apparently started this whole discussion.  I didn't actually relate the entire story. 
 
So, her father was a Shia doctor, who helped people in Baghdad, regardless of their sect or issue.  The Sunni insurgents had presented him with 'get out of town' warnings which he chose to ignore.  They abducted him, drove him around for a bit.  Stopped in the middle of a busy main street and put him out of the car.  They put a revolver in his mouth and pulled the trigger until it was empty.  We showed up about ten minutes later.  She arrived a minute or two after us.  
 
She was hysterical - who wouldn't be?  Her father had just been murdered.  She spoke fluent English, which was a bit unfortunate.  Hysterical behaviour in a foreign language is much easier to remain aloof from.  No one is immune to their emotions when seeing the results of such a killing.  Combat experience encourages keeping a lid on these emotions in order to remain focused on the job.  Deal with the emotion later in a safer environment.  Every member of our patrol felt a degree of compassion for this woman.  It would have been much easier for us to treat it as just another part of the job ("Best job I ever had...") if we could have treated her grief as background noise.  Not possible when she addresses you in your native tongue.  We did what we could to help and console her.  
 
Her remarks to us were all over the map.  Her main accusation was that we had invaded her country, assumed responsibility for its stability and we were doing a piss poor job.  Why were we allowing things like this to happen?  Where was the security that was needed in order to truly rebuild?  I really cannot defend against this; she was correct.  Even the following year when we began the "surge" we only had perhaps 1/3 of the personnel necessary to actually stabilize a place like that with a simmering ethnic hatred beginning to boil over.  We literally needed to have a squad on every street corner, learning the language, knowing the names and faces of everyone who lived there, and knowing who was actually doing what.  Driving around in heavy armored vehicles based out of mega-FOBs specifically designed to insulate us from the (hostile) population was sort of the exact opposite of what was needed.  However, I also have no desire to see the US commit the truly necessary 750,000 or so Soldiers  that were truly needed for US forces to stabilize Iraq.  Had we done so, we would still be there, and our 5k KIA would seem paltry in comparison to how many would have died actually doing the job right.  America didn't create the instability; we just catalyzed it by removing the oppressive regime that was keeping a lid on it.  The problem is the Iraqis themselves, not us.  
 
Once we had respectfully placed her father's remains in a body bag, and loaded him (at my direction) in the back of HMMWV, I asked her what she would like us to do.  At her request, we took him to the local Iraqi hospital.  After some hesitation ('can I likely survive being seen riding in a US HMMWV') she accepted our offer to ride with us. When we finally left her at the hospital, she was thankful for the little we had done for her.  My guys really were a bit miffed that I had created a gory mess that they would have to clean up in the back of the truck.  Their casual bitching about it was part of them trying to cope, to make it seem less tragic than it really was.  
 
In my minds eye, I can still see her eyes flash when she spoke to me, and the way she alternated between impotent rage and overwhelming grief.  I feel for her to this day, and hope that she survived.  If she stayed, and if she survived, I am confidant that she is doing something to help the situation, not further hinder it.  No real basis for this, just a feeling.  

I'll pile in here.  Please note:
 
1.  US forces not currently equipped with LWRs, so we have no existing doctrine.  Behavior modeled in CM TAC AI is extrapolated/presumed.
2.  Vehicles in game DO know the azimuth of the lasing unit, and will normally (but not always) orient their armament / thickest turret armor, towards it.
3.  Lasers detectable by modern LWRs include:  laser range finders for tanks / IFVs, laser range finders for other weapons (recoilless rifles, sniper systems, etc...), laser designators for precision artillery, CAS or Attack Helo ordnance, and (importantly) lasers for beam-riding ATGMs.  Beam riders (eg. Kornet) are different than beam-designated ATGMS (Hellfire, for example) and have the potential to not set of LWRs, depending upon beam-width and spillover.  However, there is significant chance (increasing as the missile approaches target) that the beam would spill over onto the target and activate the LWR.  BL:  sabot rounds will usually follow LWR action within a couple seconds, but ATGMS could be as much as 20 seconds away. 
4.  Modern LWRs can discriminate between 'real' lasers and run of the mill laser pointers, etc... intended to spoof them.
5.  Active Protection Systems (APS) include both 'soft-kill' and 'hard-kill' components.  Both are tied to multi-spectral sensors, including LWRs.  If your LWR goes off, your 'soft-kill' system kicks on automatically, and that usually includes your smoke grenade launchers.  The smoke-popping isn't necessarily cowardly crews, but rather an automatic system response to a threat.  Crew could turn it off, if desired, but not necessarily allowed to.  Backing up, however, would be a crew level action. 

As the designer (in conjunction w/ Chris and several multi-run playtesters) I am looking forward to your video on mission 2.  It served as a bit of a test to see how close to 'right' CMBS gets US Joint fires capability.  Very curious what you and the rest of the community think of it.

I am in fact here, but have been tied up with a variety of tasks.  Have taken time to do some posts on other topics, but just could not compile the energy to keep after this.  I will make the effort to finish but not immediately.  As reported on Bil's side, we were forced to call the scenario due to technical difficulties with the older beta build we were using.  Bil conceded defeat, though after inflicting more casualties.  Think I am down 3 Brads from where I left off.  However, Bil is down several more BMPs including one that Brytva 21 took out at near point-blank range!  Will have to post vid from Russian side, because he couldn't save that turn and send it back to me!  Thanks for your attention here, and the encouragement.  Will make the effort to compile as a .pdf, and may do something similar front to back.  Was toying with the ID of doing this sort of write up for a scenario against the AI, as it would turn faster.  We'll see.  
 
While this scenario does not appear in the release, look for it in modified form on the 'new' repository, coming soon to a BFC.com near you!  

I am in fact here, but have been tied up with a variety of tasks.  Have taken time to do some posts on other topics, but just could not compile the energy to keep after this.  I will make the effort to finish but not immediately.  As reported on Bil's side, we were forced to call the scenario due to technical difficulties with the older beta build we were using.  Bil conceded defeat, though after inflicting more casualties.  Think I am down 3 Brads from where I left off.  However, Bil is down several more BMPs including one that Brytva 21 took out at near point-blank range!  Will have to post vid from Russian side, because he couldn't save that turn and send it back to me!  Thanks for your attention here, and the encouragement.  Will make the effort to compile as a .pdf, and may do something similar front to back.  Was toying with the ID of doing this sort of write up for a scenario against the AI, as it would turn faster.  We'll see.  
 
While this scenario does not appear in the release, look for it in modified form on the 'new' repository, coming soon to a BFC.com near you!  

I am a believer.  Our political leadership is not.  The official US Military policy, from our CiC is that we will comply with the stipulations of the Ottawa treaty, and will phase out all stocks of munitions not in compliance.  The fact that this relegates us to fighting with our hands tied behind our backs against militaries which choose non-compliance is... regrettable.  While we are seeking alternative munitions which may be acceptable, they are quite likely to be cost-prohibitive in our current fiscal environment and will take a very long time to develop, field, develop doctrine and integrate into our tactical capabilities set.  2017 happens to fall fairly nicely into the seam between discarding DPICM and development of a replacement.  Not entirely certain why we didn't include CBMs for Russia though, as you are correct that they would dramatically enhance IDF lethality against armored vehicles.  However, Russian artillery doctrine still does not utilize the level of direct response to tactical targeting that we use, so is more abstracted in CM.  Perhaps we can adjust in a future patch/ module.  Worth continued discussion, as it would provide further balance to US direct fire superiority and protection.

To bring it back down onto the street, a little elaboration on the plight of the Shia woman who apparently started this whole discussion.  I didn't actually relate the entire story. 
 
So, her father was a Shia doctor, who helped people in Baghdad, regardless of their sect or issue.  The Sunni insurgents had presented him with 'get out of town' warnings which he chose to ignore.  They abducted him, drove him around for a bit.  Stopped in the middle of a busy main street and put him out of the car.  They put a revolver in his mouth and pulled the trigger until it was empty.  We showed up about ten minutes later.  She arrived a minute or two after us.  
 
She was hysterical - who wouldn't be?  Her father had just been murdered.  She spoke fluent English, which was a bit unfortunate.  Hysterical behaviour in a foreign language is much easier to remain aloof from.  No one is immune to their emotions when seeing the results of such a killing.  Combat experience encourages keeping a lid on these emotions in order to remain focused on the job.  Deal with the emotion later in a safer environment.  Every member of our patrol felt a degree of compassion for this woman.  It would have been much easier for us to treat it as just another part of the job ("Best job I ever had...") if we could have treated her grief as background noise.  Not possible when she addresses you in your native tongue.  We did what we could to help and console her.  
 
Her remarks to us were all over the map.  Her main accusation was that we had invaded her country, assumed responsibility for its stability and we were doing a piss poor job.  Why were we allowing things like this to happen?  Where was the security that was needed in order to truly rebuild?  I really cannot defend against this; she was correct.  Even the following year when we began the "surge" we only had perhaps 1/3 of the personnel necessary to actually stabilize a place like that with a simmering ethnic hatred beginning to boil over.  We literally needed to have a squad on every street corner, learning the language, knowing the names and faces of everyone who lived there, and knowing who was actually doing what.  Driving around in heavy armored vehicles based out of mega-FOBs specifically designed to insulate us from the (hostile) population was sort of the exact opposite of what was needed.  However, I also have no desire to see the US commit the truly necessary 750,000 or so Soldiers  that were truly needed for US forces to stabilize Iraq.  Had we done so, we would still be there, and our 5k KIA would seem paltry in comparison to how many would have died actually doing the job right.  America didn't create the instability; we just catalyzed it by removing the oppressive regime that was keeping a lid on it.  The problem is the Iraqis themselves, not us.  
 
Once we had respectfully placed her father's remains in a body bag, and loaded him (at my direction) in the back of HMMWV, I asked her what she would like us to do.  At her request, we took him to the local Iraqi hospital.  After some hesitation ('can I likely survive being seen riding in a US HMMWV') she accepted our offer to ride with us. When we finally left her at the hospital, she was thankful for the little we had done for her.  My guys really were a bit miffed that I had created a gory mess that they would have to clean up in the back of the truck.  Their casual bitching about it was part of them trying to cope, to make it seem less tragic than it really was.  
 
In my minds eye, I can still see her eyes flash when she spoke to me, and the way she alternated between impotent rage and overwhelming grief.  I feel for her to this day, and hope that she survived.  If she stayed, and if she survived, I am confidant that she is doing something to help the situation, not further hinder it.  No real basis for this, just a feeling.  

To bring it back down onto the street, a little elaboration on the plight of the Shia woman who apparently started this whole discussion.  I didn't actually relate the entire story. 
 
So, her father was a Shia doctor, who helped people in Baghdad, regardless of their sect or issue.  The Sunni insurgents had presented him with 'get out of town' warnings which he chose to ignore.  They abducted him, drove him around for a bit.  Stopped in the middle of a busy main street and put him out of the car.  They put a revolver in his mouth and pulled the trigger until it was empty.  We showed up about ten minutes later.  She arrived a minute or two after us.  
 
She was hysterical - who wouldn't be?  Her father had just been murdered.  She spoke fluent English, which was a bit unfortunate.  Hysterical behaviour in a foreign language is much easier to remain aloof from.  No one is immune to their emotions when seeing the results of such a killing.  Combat experience encourages keeping a lid on these emotions in order to remain focused on the job.  Deal with the emotion later in a safer environment.  Every member of our patrol felt a degree of compassion for this woman.  It would have been much easier for us to treat it as just another part of the job ("Best job I ever had...") if we could have treated her grief as background noise.  Not possible when she addresses you in your native tongue.  We did what we could to help and console her.  
 
Her remarks to us were all over the map.  Her main accusation was that we had invaded her country, assumed responsibility for its stability and we were doing a piss poor job.  Why were we allowing things like this to happen?  Where was the security that was needed in order to truly rebuild?  I really cannot defend against this; she was correct.  Even the following year when we began the "surge" we only had perhaps 1/3 of the personnel necessary to actually stabilize a place like that with a simmering ethnic hatred beginning to boil over.  We literally needed to have a squad on every street corner, learning the language, knowing the names and faces of everyone who lived there, and knowing who was actually doing what.  Driving around in heavy armored vehicles based out of mega-FOBs specifically designed to insulate us from the (hostile) population was sort of the exact opposite of what was needed.  However, I also have no desire to see the US commit the truly necessary 750,000 or so Soldiers  that were truly needed for US forces to stabilize Iraq.  Had we done so, we would still be there, and our 5k KIA would seem paltry in comparison to how many would have died actually doing the job right.  America didn't create the instability; we just catalyzed it by removing the oppressive regime that was keeping a lid on it.  The problem is the Iraqis themselves, not us.  
 
Once we had respectfully placed her father's remains in a body bag, and loaded him (at my direction) in the back of HMMWV, I asked her what she would like us to do.  At her request, we took him to the local Iraqi hospital.  After some hesitation ('can I likely survive being seen riding in a US HMMWV') she accepted our offer to ride with us. When we finally left her at the hospital, she was thankful for the little we had done for her.  My guys really were a bit miffed that I had created a gory mess that they would have to clean up in the back of the truck.  Their casual bitching about it was part of them trying to cope, to make it seem less tragic than it really was.  
 
In my minds eye, I can still see her eyes flash when she spoke to me, and the way she alternated between impotent rage and overwhelming grief.  I feel for her to this day, and hope that she survived.  If she stayed, and if she survived, I am confidant that she is doing something to help the situation, not further hinder it.  No real basis for this, just a feeling.  

To bring it back down onto the street, a little elaboration on the plight of the Shia woman who apparently started this whole discussion.  I didn't actually relate the entire story. 
 
So, her father was a Shia doctor, who helped people in Baghdad, regardless of their sect or issue.  The Sunni insurgents had presented him with 'get out of town' warnings which he chose to ignore.  They abducted him, drove him around for a bit.  Stopped in the middle of a busy main street and put him out of the car.  They put a revolver in his mouth and pulled the trigger until it was empty.  We showed up about ten minutes later.  She arrived a minute or two after us.  
 
She was hysterical - who wouldn't be?  Her father had just been murdered.  She spoke fluent English, which was a bit unfortunate.  Hysterical behaviour in a foreign language is much easier to remain aloof from.  No one is immune to their emotions when seeing the results of such a killing.  Combat experience encourages keeping a lid on these emotions in order to remain focused on the job.  Deal with the emotion later in a safer environment.  Every member of our patrol felt a degree of compassion for this woman.  It would have been much easier for us to treat it as just another part of the job ("Best job I ever had...") if we could have treated her grief as background noise.  Not possible when she addresses you in your native tongue.  We did what we could to help and console her.  
 
Her remarks to us were all over the map.  Her main accusation was that we had invaded her country, assumed responsibility for its stability and we were doing a piss poor job.  Why were we allowing things like this to happen?  Where was the security that was needed in order to truly rebuild?  I really cannot defend against this; she was correct.  Even the following year when we began the "surge" we only had perhaps 1/3 of the personnel necessary to actually stabilize a place like that with a simmering ethnic hatred beginning to boil over.  We literally needed to have a squad on every street corner, learning the language, knowing the names and faces of everyone who lived there, and knowing who was actually doing what.  Driving around in heavy armored vehicles based out of mega-FOBs specifically designed to insulate us from the (hostile) population was sort of the exact opposite of what was needed.  However, I also have no desire to see the US commit the truly necessary 750,000 or so Soldiers  that were truly needed for US forces to stabilize Iraq.  Had we done so, we would still be there, and our 5k KIA would seem paltry in comparison to how many would have died actually doing the job right.  America didn't create the instability; we just catalyzed it by removing the oppressive regime that was keeping a lid on it.  The problem is the Iraqis themselves, not us.  
 
Once we had respectfully placed her father's remains in a body bag, and loaded him (at my direction) in the back of HMMWV, I asked her what she would like us to do.  At her request, we took him to the local Iraqi hospital.  After some hesitation ('can I likely survive being seen riding in a US HMMWV') she accepted our offer to ride with us. When we finally left her at the hospital, she was thankful for the little we had done for her.  My guys really were a bit miffed that I had created a gory mess that they would have to clean up in the back of the truck.  Their casual bitching about it was part of them trying to cope, to make it seem less tragic than it really was.  
 
In my minds eye, I can still see her eyes flash when she spoke to me, and the way she alternated between impotent rage and overwhelming grief.  I feel for her to this day, and hope that she survived.  If she stayed, and if she survived, I am confidant that she is doing something to help the situation, not further hinder it.  No real basis for this, just a feeling.  

Thanks much.  Passionate about making this game as good as it can be.  To all who gripe about features not present or in need of adjustment, please believe me that the Beta Team's strident noise has in almost all cases preceded yours.  We fight a continuous battle to convince the designers what issues need to be addressed.  They have to prioritize what they CAN actually change, against the time/effort required to get it done.  Their priority is to get an 80% great simulation of modern warfare into your hands as quickly as possible, and then to refine as time permits.  They make their livings (a few at least) doing this, so it is hard to argue with their decisions.  If you want to pay us back, every scenario designer LOVES feedback, even negative feedback.  Hit us up by PM, post a scenario-specific thread, get dialogue going on actual scenario features, maps, force mixes, balance issues, etc....   Building our experience in crafting scenarios is definitely in your collective best interests.  Glad you are enjoying the game and look forward to hearing more.  

To bring it back down onto the street, a little elaboration on the plight of the Shia woman who apparently started this whole discussion.  I didn't actually relate the entire story. 
 
So, her father was a Shia doctor, who helped people in Baghdad, regardless of their sect or issue.  The Sunni insurgents had presented him with 'get out of town' warnings which he chose to ignore.  They abducted him, drove him around for a bit.  Stopped in the middle of a busy main street and put him out of the car.  They put a revolver in his mouth and pulled the trigger until it was empty.  We showed up about ten minutes later.  She arrived a minute or two after us.  
 
She was hysterical - who wouldn't be?  Her father had just been murdered.  She spoke fluent English, which was a bit unfortunate.  Hysterical behaviour in a foreign language is much easier to remain aloof from.  No one is immune to their emotions when seeing the results of such a killing.  Combat experience encourages keeping a lid on these emotions in order to remain focused on the job.  Deal with the emotion later in a safer environment.  Every member of our patrol felt a degree of compassion for this woman.  It would have been much easier for us to treat it as just another part of the job ("Best job I ever had...") if we could have treated her grief as background noise.  Not possible when she addresses you in your native tongue.  We did what we could to help and console her.  
 
Her remarks to us were all over the map.  Her main accusation was that we had invaded her country, assumed responsibility for its stability and we were doing a piss poor job.  Why were we allowing things like this to happen?  Where was the security that was needed in order to truly rebuild?  I really cannot defend against this; she was correct.  Even the following year when we began the "surge" we only had perhaps 1/3 of the personnel necessary to actually stabilize a place like that with a simmering ethnic hatred beginning to boil over.  We literally needed to have a squad on every street corner, learning the language, knowing the names and faces of everyone who lived there, and knowing who was actually doing what.  Driving around in heavy armored vehicles based out of mega-FOBs specifically designed to insulate us from the (hostile) population was sort of the exact opposite of what was needed.  However, I also have no desire to see the US commit the truly necessary 750,000 or so Soldiers  that were truly needed for US forces to stabilize Iraq.  Had we done so, we would still be there, and our 5k KIA would seem paltry in comparison to how many would have died actually doing the job right.  America didn't create the instability; we just catalyzed it by removing the oppressive regime that was keeping a lid on it.  The problem is the Iraqis themselves, not us.  
 
Once we had respectfully placed her father's remains in a body bag, and loaded him (at my direction) in the back of HMMWV, I asked her what she would like us to do.  At her request, we took him to the local Iraqi hospital.  After some hesitation ('can I likely survive being seen riding in a US HMMWV') she accepted our offer to ride with us. When we finally left her at the hospital, she was thankful for the little we had done for her.  My guys really were a bit miffed that I had created a gory mess that they would have to clean up in the back of the truck.  Their casual bitching about it was part of them trying to cope, to make it seem less tragic than it really was.  
 
In my minds eye, I can still see her eyes flash when she spoke to me, and the way she alternated between impotent rage and overwhelming grief.  I feel for her to this day, and hope that she survived.  If she stayed, and if she survived, I am confidant that she is doing something to help the situation, not further hinder it.  No real basis for this, just a feeling.  

As the guy who built Mission 2 for the US Campaign, my advice is, don't use them.  They are battlefield taxis until we can get remote/elevated sights from hulldown into the game engine.  Looked at hard, but engine limitations are what they are right now, and it just was not possible.  Maybe in a future upgrade, or next gen engine.  
 
You can use them against adversaries not equipped with thermal sights from a reasonable distance, but against Russians (ie. in the US Campaign) you will need to be extremely cautious with them. However, their Mk19s and .50 Cals are quite useful for suppressing any infantry that your scouts run into.  I keep them full vehicle down and let the dismounts do the looking.  Have even dismounted their crews and used them for spotting before.  They are full up scouts, not chump truck drivers.  Would be interested in any feedback on second mission.  It pits your scout platoon, with some minor reinforcements, against the better part of a Russian mech BDE.  Have fun!