Bydax

I'd be very careful concerning this last point. You cited FM-100-2-1 for this, where it does say:
First is the provenance of this idea. In the 1976 DIA Defence Intelligence Report, Soviet Tank Company Tactics, Section C (page 5), we have:
Almost the same but somehow an 'extreme' was added to the Field Manual's rendition without a clear basis. In Chapter 5, Section B (page 14), we have:
It's possible to designate targets without using the radio, such as by shooting tracers at the target. But how the platoon commander is supposed to express this long order except by radio is unclear.
Second, I'm not sure if the Russians have been informed about this.
The platoon commander at 21:15 here is using the radio, as is his deputy. Does this look like an 'extreme' emergency (even simulated) and is commanding his own vehicles 'requesting support'? Also, in Panzer Destroyer, there's no shortage of times when radio is used below the company level:
It even comes out to say:
Let's go to another book, Red Army Tank Commander.
How is he going to manage that if he isn't allowed to use the radio…
In Suvorov's Aquarium, we even have:
Or even, in this description of Soviet squad tactics by a Soviet officer:
http://army.armor.kiev.ua/tactik/mso_nastup.php
The R-147 is a handheld radio weighing less than 1kg. It's not clear how many squads actually got a R-147 or equivalent, but at least no one is telling them not to use it.
Third, game-making consideration: if you try to simulate the downsides, you have to be even more ready to simulate the upsides. Can you? Because FM100-2-1 is really missing the forest for the trees.
The fundamental difference between the Soviets and the Americans comes down to one assumption – is a battalion still something a commander can directly control?
Because the Soviets answer Yes to this question, the 'troop management' system is geared to support this. First, the subunit is a little smaller than its American equivalent. Second, he's supposed to work out from a Command-Observation Point, where he can observe as much of his AOR as possible, both friendly and enemy. Third, the battalion is placed on one net so he can personally hear as much of the battle as possible without delay.
Though I've argued FM100 really exaggerated it, the limitations on platoon and squad use of the radio are likely true to some extent. Those are the inevitable side effects of putting 30+ subscribers onto one frequency – you just have to ration airtime out and so the platoons and squads won't squawk nearly as much as their American counterparts.
However, once anything is on the radio net, every subscriber including the commander will have the opportunity to learn of it. The commander's orders will also be promulgated without delay within the battalion.
There's nothing Combat Mission can do in the orders bit since the player can set orders down to his squads. However, the reporting bit might be represented by eliminating limits on horizontal and vertical propagation up to battalion level. This:

Immediately becomes this:

And you dare to claim that somebody "hijacted" topic after posting the walls of wikipedia quotations?🤣
I suspected that your knowledge doesn't go beyond wikipedia articles, but now my suspicions are confirmed. 
I was in process of writing exactly that when I saw this post. 
To make evaluation of Soviet Cold War might based on Iraqi permormace in early 90s is really amateurish level of expertise. Some guys are really "traumatized" by Gulf War - now every war is Gulf War, including imaginary wars with USSR in 70s or Russia in 2010s. It's endless repetition of beating child in CMSF.
Iraq war was a milestone in military art and marked a really historical event when US showed new age warfare potential. 
For sure it was not old t-62 vs modern Abrams collusion. Mainly the war was won due to overwhelming advantage in technologies and numbers of all sorts, but primary - advantage in aviation. Modern M1 and M2 which not surprisingly were far better than export variants of old Soviet tanks engaged already demorolized and bombed to the ground forces. This situation doesn't say anything about t-62 in Soviet Army during Cold War period. 
If anybody would like to dwell into Soviet\Western equipment performance, including t-62, they would undoubtedly turn to Iran-Iraq war that lasted 8 years and ended in stalemate. At least this war featured relatively equal sides. 

If you really took the year 1991 as a baseline to measure the T-62s performance, then it's no wonder they underperform since they were built for the 1960s.
You measured it to the M1A1 Abrams which were manufactured from 1985. T-62s were manufactured from 1961...

"Hijacked"? I merely discussing the content of the above-mentioned video. 
What happened is Soviets were crushed due to the lack of spotting abilities. 
The video itself is the evidence that you so crave to see, but you won't because you are as blind as t-62. 
I really don't have any naive illusions that you will change anything, because all the failures of the game are by design. But that won't spare you of well deserved criticism. Enjoy. 

From their perspective it was.....Sevastapol is massively important to Russia.
But I suspect you know that full well and that you are being disingenuous.
If China sponsored a Hawaiian revolution threatening Pearl Harbour, how do you think the US would respond?
PS - Once again, I felt that I should point this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
Saying the Crimea is not historically Russian or that Sevastapol does not reperesent a vital strategic interest for Russia is lunacy, plain & simple. 

Well, it boils down to fact that in CM universe it is so. What Battlefront actually says is Soviet\Russian equipment is bad. 
Hilariously enough, at the same time they try to make an impression of some competition and challenge between fraction in CMCW (and in CMBS). 
My main claim is that Soviet equipment is represented in the game in a way that immediatly raises question, because units don't see something that they must see. 

And maybe if he sent those 3 companies on the left flank they would be mercilessly slaughtered by invisible enemy? We are engaging in pure speculation at this point.
What are the facts? The facts are Reds were demolished, scattered to pieces and blown away by enemy, who they didn't see. 
What should we discuss? We should discuss this spectacular failure and draw the conclusion that Reds are blind.
What they are discussing? "How Soviet dictrine works". 
It would be easy to put all the blame on clumsy mr. Hapless and his "wrong' decisions and save the face of the broken system. But would it be fair? I believe that his major mistake was to select Red team instead of Blue.
What amuses me is that this thread and post-game discussion are framed in deductive reasoning, which is basically pre-Enlightment method of thought. Discussion goes from concept (Soviet doctrine works in CM normally) to facts (the fact that Halpless failed is him to blame). 
Where as post-Enlightment method is inductive, e.g. to construct concepts based on facts (the fact that Halpless's units couldn't see anything means that something is wrong). 

The thing that M60s sometimes don't see something doesn't change the fact that on average all Soviet tanks are much, much worse in spotting than their American opponents, and it makes them really uncompetitive. 
Your "Deathride to Schweben" video clearly illustrates it. 
Basically it shows just that: in present state Soviets in CM are doomed to fail. If you read comments section on Youtube, you'll see that they don't hesitate to speak out this obvious truth. 

If those videos teach us anything it's that "Soviet dictrine" in CM doesn't work.
Halpless virtually lost most of his tanks early in the game simply because they couldn't see enemy. 
Those theories on "Soviet doctrine" look nice and clever on paper, but the simple truth is if your units can't see enemy which is right in front of them they can't win.
Competition of blind and sighted person is predetermined. 

I like the Graviteam games a lot.  They bring in a lot of tactical combat from WW2 east front.  The armor model is every bit as accurate as CM2.  And they provide a lot of the background behind the armor model in-game.  The battles are generally on larger maps so there is more room to maneuver.  The battles can last long enough that resupply and minor repairs are relevant.  It also has the operational layer if you want make battles more relevant to a broader campaign-like environment.  They also provide the option of very detailed orders or having the AI take general orders and handle the details.  The AI is pretty good at it.  There is also an event viewer so you can maintain situational awareness.  You can have the event take you to the unit or pause the game as an option.  Something that keeps me from playing CM more.
The downside...its too realistic sometimes.  Forgetting to string comms wire or cutting of comms wire means your units are sometimes on their own.  This can be set up in the options, but only before the battle.  Its also focused on very narrow battles and the scenario builder is not very flexible.  The do cover battles that CM will never cover, but its still feels limiting.  The ability to give very detailed orders makes the interface seem overly complex for micromanagers.  But if you are more hands off and like to give general orders, its actually simpler than CM.  There is no wego, but there is an active pause that be set to pause every X seconds.  And there is no replay.  To me, thats why I still come back to CM now and then.  But the AAR is very detailed in showing shots, hits, damage, and destruction.
Overall, I play it and Steel Beasts much more that CM because of the tools you have available to manage the overall battlefield.  CM's inability to take advantage of advancement in technology also plays a role.

Lol wut

ROFL! 
It was all going so well, but you just couldn't help yourself, could you? 

There is no need to make it personal. 
Can we look at the "RL data" that was used to make spotting system in CMCW the way that it is now? The thing is we don't know how spotting actually works in CMCW (beyond some vaguely phrased description). Nor we have any kind of real life data to support that your understanding is accurate. 
Well, @Haplessdid Youtube video recently using Steel Beasts to show how hard is to spot things from AFV. This video was highly acclaimed and received good reviews, it was even used to show me that I don't understand how tank spotting works. But apparently now it is wrong to compare CM and Steel Beasts.
But Steel Beasts and CM do have something in common. Both of them claim to be not just games, but simulators, e.g. they portray reality as close as they can. As you rightly said they both are used in military training. I don't compare Tetris to Diablo 2. I compare two AFV and ground troops tactics simulator. They both have common reference point - reality. 
What you are saying, I'm afraid, shows that you absolutely have no idea how Steel Beasts works. Vehicles in SB also have AI and spotting mechanics. As I said, 2 games have a lot in common, with Steel Beasts having tactical and personal - simulating crew members - layer that is lacking in CM.
The issue here is quite obvious. 
Both mission are created with ideal conditions - flat earth, daylight, the target is directly ahead. 
In Steel Beasts tank behaves very natural. It is pointed in the direction of the target from the very start, so it takes crew only 2 second to see tank in the clear daylight in front of them. Basically, it's the only thing that is there, nothing attracts their attention except of it. 
What happens in CMCW is absolutely counterintuitive and unexplainable. The tank also pointed in the direction of the target, it's flat earth, no obstacles, no smoke, nothing distracts the crew... But minute after minute goes by and nothing is happening. Why? How can you explain it? Are they sleeping? Are they arguing with each other? Why don't they look at their optics and see the first thing that is right in front of them - the enemy tank. 
I would like to hear your explanation of this particular situation. 

It doesn't require any additional evidence to understand that optics of Soviet tanks in late Cold war period could easily detect targets at 2 km distance during daylight under perfect weather conditions. 
In fact everybody can spot tank at 2 km in the open field using cheapest binoculars, not to mention tank optics that costs dozens or hundreds thousands in USD.
 
 

Steel Beasts is a tank simulator that is used in several countries to train military personnel. 
Combat Mission Cold War and Steal Beasts have a lot of things in common, so it would be interesting to compare how two games simulate combat. 
In order to do that and to make as precise experiment as possible I put t72A (m1) tank that is featured in both games against M60 TTS tank that is also present in both of them. 
To keep experiment clean I used default "flat map" and the same weather and time conditions - clean weather, the time is June the 1st, 12:00. 
In CMCW I had to use additional "formation" units of observers, but I put them behind tall walls, so they didn't interfere in the process. In CMCW skill level of both of the tanks was put on "regular". Steel Beasts doesn't have skill level feature. 
Under created conditions t-72A looks directly at M60's side. It is oriented from South to North, M60 - from West to East. The distance between them is 2 km. The conditions are the same in Steel Beasts and Combat Mission Cold War. 
That how it looks like in Steel Beasts: 

How it looks like in CMCW:

What T72 gunner sees from his position from the very start:

As you can easily notice, M60 is immediately and perfectly visible from gunners sight.
The same with T72's Commander's sight:

The results:
In Steel Beasts t72's AI spotted M60 almost immediately, which is not surprising, taking into account that it has perfect view on the target. It took t72 about 2 seconds to spot the opponent and about 18 sec to hit and destroy it. 
In CMCW something opposite happened. I ran several tests and t72 couldn't spot m60 once.  Its optics was not enough to spot the tanks directly ahead of it at the distance of 2 km during clean daylight.
In fact, every time M60 spotted t72 first and killed it. It took about 2-3 rounds and from 1,5 min to 5 min to kill t72.  t72 didn't see the opponent despite m60 was firing at him. 
How it ends in Steel Beasts:

How it ends in CMCW:

The CMCW test scenario is attached.
You can make your own conclusions. 
 
 
T72VISION TEST.btt

Ah its a Russian campaign, so beta testers weren't interested.

If we have these big obstacle belts, then we can also have proper mine clearing vehicles as well, like the Soviet UR-77 Meteorit.

Okay, so what happened.
He was able to hit the Bradley with his 11th shot. That's right, *eleventh* shot. All 10 grenades fired before that missed. No incoming fire, no harassment at all. There's your regular Russian soldier.

LOL not just, spotting is beyond parody sometimes. 
I saw tanks virtually driving around invisible vehicles on the road that blocked the road but they couldn't see. 

Oh well. IMHO it is very badly simulated, but this is just me.

There's been a lot of discussion about the poor effects of Russian PGMs in particular and artillery in general on AFVs, notably Abrams & Bradley.....A significant number of us agree entirely with the points you raise. 
That tank should be as dead as a dodo. 
Not after he's been pounded with heavy artillery he doesn't:
Trophy's protective shields wouldn't stop those fragments, the radar would be junk, the APS would OOS. 
Not to mention the concussion effects on the crew, assuming the tank weren't actually blown to bits.....Which it would be.
Yes, but don't waste your time.....Typically you'll immobilise it at best and strangely although all the sensors are often displayed as being trashed they never seem to be blinded or even significantly degraded in real terms. 
I've used nine 122mm precision munitions on a Bradley and it survived, still mobile and apparently fully functional, or sufficiently so for it to then defeat a T-90A (that knew exactly where it was) in a head on engagement immediately thereafter.
Utterly ridiculous.
 

Yes, they are. It's a real shame that they have such bias in the game. 

You make it sound like some kind of project not even the smartest engineers at Google could pull off
Meanwhile, in other wargames I won't mention here, formations and convoy movement are pretty normal features that work mostly as expected.

Don't mix politics with history. You don't like Stalin, it is understandable, but if he was a bad person - it doesn't mean that all his decisions were stupid, he was hated by everyone e.t.c. 
"He had no plan for how to handle a German mobile offensive."
It was no good plan while Germans had huge mechanised forces, 4 tank groups. (France was conquered by 1) Rifle units on foot would be outmaneuvered anyway. Defense in depth? They would be beaten by parts. And Soviet tank units had organisational problems, not enough trucks, artillery tractors. Industry couldn't produce enough of them. That's why Soviet tank counter attacks often lacked artillery and infantry support. Not because "oh, they didn't know that combined arms attack is more effective", but because of industry limitations. That's why German 88s could destroy KVs, T-34s and infantry easily throw charges on them. Everything has rational explanations, without this "ideology".

Again, not the same thing.
Under the convetion of the law of the sea, the right of "innocent passage" is subject to many restrictions, for example, it can't be done for propaganda purposes or pose a threat to the territorial integrety of the coastal state or be done for intelligence gathering purposes and has to abide by all the laws and regulations of the coastal state.
The HMS Defender mission did not meet any of those criterias to qualify as an "innocent passage".