Kaunitz

Here is a quick and dirty translation:
Note that most of it is phrased in a very fragmented, brief way. Sometimes there are just catchwords, incomplete sentences. 
[title page]--------------
Combat training/instruction for Panzergrenadiers
A set of combat exercises for the armored as well as unarmored squad with 2 light MGs, to be used by the instructor of recruits in combat training
By Helmut von Wehren […]
Including 28 colored sketches
[p.67]------------------
Exercise 6: The armored squad in the attack
Goal of the exercise: Squad (armored) in the attack
Regulations [a list of regulations/field manuals that are refered to in the subsequent text very often; I have left out the citations in the text below]: Mounted combat (H[eeres]D[ienst]v[orschrift] 299/4a, Ziff. 36-47), Dismounted combat (H.Dv. 130/2a, Ziff. 268-285), Combat instruction (H.Dv. 472, Ziff. 57-91) with motor vehicle
 [p.68]--------------
II. Principles of training
a) Mounted combat
1. As much as the enemy’s fire, the terrain and the task allow it, the squad is to stay/fight mounted on the vehicle. 2. The primary purpose of the board-MG (either mounted on the swivel or resting on the shoulder of [another] soldier) is to fire during short fire-stops at ground or air targets. But it’s also possible to fire while the halftrack is moving. (especially if an enemy already deemed defeated comes to life again [“Wiederauflebender Feind”, term used below in one of the tasks]) 3. The riflemen may take part in the fire fight during an assault or against targets of opportunity at short ranges. They shall also contribute to the effect of the automatic fire by throwing smoke-grenades. Running the enemy over [with the halftrack] can also be effective. 4. Proper usage of terrain, quick transition between fast movements and short fire-stops. Coordination with heavy weapons, artillery and fire support from the own unit. 5. Accurate, effective fire is only possible from a halted halftrack. Firing from a moving vehicle (short bursts of fire at short ranges) forces the enemy to seek cover and prevents him from using his own weapons (exploit moments of weakness!). A subsequent fire-stop for aimed/deliberate fire (“Abgabe von Zielfeuer”), raises the morale. 6. Fire position (“Randstellung” – vehicle is masked from the enemy’s view) – frequent change of position – covered advance. If enemy presence is suspected in terrain that is hard to oversee (high grass, short trees, grain fields), a small corridor (e.g. two hand’s widths right of that bush) can be designated and be sprayed/taken under preemptive fire [“abstreuen”]. Enemy MG and rifle fire needs to be passed through/overcome at high speed. Anti tank weapons or minefields may force the squad to dismount or to cover the halftrack in smoke to allow it to retreat into cover.  b) Dismounted combat
1. Clever behavior of the MG and riflemen as part of the squad, especially proper usage of terrain, selection of fire positions, camouflage, recon, assessment of ranges, handling of the sight, point of aim, coordinated maneuvering between the MG and riflemen and adjacent/neighbouring squads. 2. Each individual soldier in the squad acts according to the task at hand, as an individual according to the intention of the squadleader. [p.69]----------------------
3. Constant observation of the battlefield needs to be the basis for leading the squad, directing fire, usage of munitions and resupply. Achieve fire superiority. Effective employment of fire is more important than cover. 4. Commitment of light MGs and riflemen. The latter can be assigned a limited amount of ammunition [“Munitionsaufwand”] if their effect can be predicted. [? I’m not quite sure about this one. Perhaps it is referring to a fire order, e.g. that the riflemen are supposed to fire X rounds each; one would need to look that up in H.Dv.130] 5. Transition from dismounted to mounted combat in coordination with dismounted parts of the squad. Combat training with the halftrack. 6. Always take the easiest and safest path -  the skill level of the driver will increase over time -  when the squad is fighting mounted on the vehicle or dismounted in coordination with the vehicle. 7. Combined efforts of the crew and the vehicle to overcome obstacles. III. Enemy – To set up the enemy, you need:
1. [This just tells the reader that everything should be prepared according to the tasks outlined below…] 2. Take note that it might be hard to hear the blanks fired by the [mock]enemy when the halftrack is moving. Therefore, an umpire may be used to signal the effect of enemy fire by waving a flag.  IV. Situation/Briefing
An enemy in prepared positions is defending along a general line (“allgemeiner Linie”) (point it out in the terrain). The company – its flanks are secure (“beiderseits angelehnt”) - attacks this enemy mounted, breaks through and takes the high ground (show them). Width of the company [misleading, the following information probably tells the participating squad its position within the company/platoon]: 1st platoon right, 1st squad in the center of the platoon  V. Special instructions, given by the instructor
The halftrack is in its starting position. The other halftracks are represented by sidecar-motorcycles or trucks. A sidecar-motorcycle equipped with a flag represents the platoon leader’s halftrack. The squad needs to orientate on it. The training starts with the blow of a whistle.  VI. Sequence of the exercise
The instructor needs to rehearse the tasks/situations with the recruit-private who will be leading the squad so that he will not make the wrong decisions whereby the objective of the training would be compromised. [so the main purpose here is to drill the members of the squad then, not decision making by the squad leader…] The training starts with the blow of the whistle. The squad leader gives the order “March!”. The tank rolls up.  [p.70]------------------
[…]
1st task
“Over there, at 1000m distance, you see smoke and small clouds of dust raise. You can hear projectiles/shells whistling by, hitting the tank.” Execution: Halftrack keeps going, makes a fire-stop, after calling out the target the squad leader orders the gunner to open fire, or, to fasten things up, the squad leader may fire himself [so this would leave out the complicated calling out of the target], followed by a wide leap/advance (200m), keep heads down. The squad leader and the gunner are observing the front. The grenadiers who are to be specially assigned to this task observe the flanks and the rear. The instructor checks whether the squad keeps up good observation of the battlefield. Observation must never be compromised even when in full cover. The halftrack makes fast leaps/advances, a short fire-stop and advances in bounds and mutual covering fire with the neighboring halftrack  2nd task
The first enemy positions taken, all of a sudden anti-tank projectiles are coming in. You can identify the AT gun further back, in the enemy’s rear area (“in der Tiefenzone”). Distance 700m. The company commander gives a signal, thrusting his arm upwards several times and points at a slight depression in the ground to your front. Execution: The squad leader gives the driver two bashes on the back and gives him the order “Quicker, forwards, into that hollow ahead of us” The instructor checks the driver’s shifting of the gears which ensures fast acceleration of the vehicle.  3rd task
Now in a covered position in the hollow, the company commander gives the signal to dismount and orders an assault. Execution: The squad leader orders the squad to dismount. “We will assault the anti-tank gun” The instructor checks whether the squad dismounts quickly, takes weapons and ammo along, and forms up for the attack immediately. Mingling around the halftrack must be avoided. The co-driver immediately takes over the board-MG, visual contact to the “Kfz.-Staffelführer” [? motor car squadron leader], close the doors! He [the Staffelführer, the instructor?] explains that the platoon-leader-halftracks [note: in the next task, we get the information that these have larger caliber guns] will approach the high ground carefully to suppress the anti-tank gun and provide covering fire for the squad.  4th task
The attack is progressing well, the anti-tank guns of the platoon-leader’s halftracks [!] are engaged in a fierce fire fight with the enemy anti-tank gun. The attack against the anti-tank gun is successful, it is silenced/suppressed/knocked out [“niedergekämpft”]. A few rifle bullets are incoming. The company commander and the platoon leader give out the signal “halftrack, come here/approach”. Execution: The squad stays prone in its cover. Only the squad leader waves the halftrack nearer and gives the order to mount. The mounted squad will keep attacking. [p.72]---------------------
The instructor checks whether the halftrack approaches correctly. The co-driver opens the door (unless blocked by canisters and ammunition). The soldiers must never run backwards to mount the halftrack, instead, the halftrack drives forwards at a slow speed and the soldiers are to catch up to it and mount while it keeps going. The co-driver stays on the board-MG until the crew has fully remounted and is ready for action. Only then will he get back to his seat, and MG-gunner 1 take over the board-MG. Immediate 360° observation.  5th task
The mounted attack has reached more [enemy] positions, drives over/passes through trenches and obstacles. The enemy comes to life again behind the halftrack Execution: The squad leader orders “Fire at will!” and points in the direction. Everyone fires to his side of the vehicle/from his current position. The instructor checks the distribution of fire, the grenadiers are supposed to reload/chamber rounds in the cover [that the halftrack provides], pop up out of cover very fast and fire immediately and then get back down into cover quickly, etc. Enemy positions at close range are to be destroyed with grenades. Be aware of enemy grenades, block them with your hands [!]. If they fall into the halftrack, you will have troubles finding them in time. Casualties. Special attention/observation to the rear of the vehicle. By signals and squeezing the driver’s shoulder, the squad leader informs the driver about the driving direction: Squeezing the left shoulder – drive left; the right – drive right; Push on the head – stop; the neck – slow down. Push/tap on the back – speed up.
 6th task
The attack is stopped by a deep anti-tank ditch. The halftracks stop, you see how the company commander and your platoon leader are dismounting and giving out the signal “March!”. The second platoon is advancing dismounted over there. Execution: The squad leader orders “Jump off! [note: I’m not really sure whether the instruction differentiates “jump off” and “dismount”] We continue the attack! Halftrack get into cover, Co-driver establish contact to the Kfz. Staffelführer [? as above…], side-car (platoon-leader) [! makes no sense to me; remember that the platoon leader is represented by a side-car-motorcycle], Squad, march!” [Instructor-check: Dismounting procedure – same as above]  
7th task
The dismounted attack is progressing well. You see how the halftracks are catching up, the enemy anti-tank gun is no longer firing. By means of digging off and the usage of “Knüppelrollen” [obviously something to fill up the ditch…], the halftracks were able to cross the anti-tank ditch. The company commander is remounting, the platoon leader is waving his halftrack nearer. Execution: The squad stays prone in its cover, the squad leader signals the halftrack to approach and orders “Mount!”, the squad will continue the attack mounted. [Instructor-check: Re-mounting procedure – as above]  8th task
The mounted attack is progressing well. Over there you see your neighboring halftrack rocking over difficult, undulating terrain Execution: The squad leader orders “Halftrack, stop! Covering fire for halftrack on our right, fire at enemy MG over there in the bush!” (time leap) [!]  9th task
The mounted attack is progressing well. Then you encounter another anti-tank ditch. The company has dismounted and overcome the ditch. The Kfz. Staffelführer [? as above] is busy digging off the ditch to bring the halftracks across. “Your squad is close to another enemy position. Heavy enemy rifle fire. You see the halftracks advance, spread-out in line (“in breiter Front”). The co-drivers are firing their board-MGs over your heads. Now the halftracks are passing through your squad. The enemy’s fire fades. Your platoon leader gives you the signal “March!”. Execution: The squad leader orders: “Up – March! March! Huzzah!”. The halftracks and the dismounted squads assault. Mop/roll up the enemy position. The instructor checks whether the assault is quick, and the squad en bloc makes a determined sprint, MG readied at the hip, throwing of grenades, loud cheers. Break through the position, halftracks join in.  10th task
The enemy is defeated, all resistance has faded. Over there, the platoon commander is waving the halftracks nearer. Execution: [re-mounting procedure, as above…] [here, the training ends, short debriefing by the instructor] 
[p.74]---------
Besides the above-mentioned tasks, the following situations may be trained:
 Situation 1: Frontal fire from enemy MG position, distance 300m. / Execution: Suprress/knock out the MG from the stationary halftrack (“fire-stop”). / Check: Has the gunner identified the target and is his aim correct? Situation 2: Halftrack takes fire from the rear by a position of enemy riflemen. / Execution: The rear-MG opens fire immdeitately. / Check: Does the rear-gunner open fire immediately, on his own initiative, without order? Do the riflemen open fire if the MG jams? Is the jam fixed in the cover of the halftrack? Situation 3: Halftrack takes fire from an enemy MG position at 150m. / Execution: Race towards the enemy position, roll it over / Check: Has the gunner identified the target? Does the driver race to the target? Is the enemy position knocked out in close combat? Situation 4: While crossing a trench/ditch, the halftrack takes SMG and rifle fire from both flanks. / Execution: Fight the two enemy position with all weapons available. / Check: Does the crew on the right side of the vehicle target the enemy position on the right flank, the crew on the left the position on the left flank? Are the grenades on target? Is each soldier who is about to throw a grenade covered by a rifleman? It’s also important to check whether the co-driver, manning the board-MG, is adequately covering the jump-off/in and dis/re-mount manouvres of the squad.
 

4. What about peeking (or even shooting - with one man) around a corner in urban settings? I assume it would be incredibly hard to get that into the engine and might be consiedered a bit too "micro" for the engine's scope. But I think it would be nice if a unit positioned at a corner would get some LOS around the corner - it could very well be low quality LOS, only giving you suspected contacts, not confirmed ones. The current method - moving the whole unit "around" the corner blindly and potentially exposing them to devastating fire - has little appeal. 
5. I applaud CM to the relative spotting- and also the information-sharing system. As we all know, however, it can't be brought to full effect because the player can still let units area-target spots without good reason (the firing unit has no suspected contact-marker there). The player = god problem prevails. So I still wonder if the whole information-thing could be enforced to actually produce effects and have a high influence on how the game is played. There is such an awesome communication-system under the hood, yet players don't really have to pay attention to it if they don't want to. I guess it has been discussed ad infinitum, but why not allow area-targeting only on/close to spots with suspected contact markers? For precautionary fire on suspected positions, players could make use of target reference points. The maps are not that huge so that a few TRPs should suffice to cover all the obvious spots on the map?
 
Or else, what I'd like even more: give area-fire directed at a spot at which a unit has no "suspected contact-marker" a chance to be directed at an adjacent spot (instead of the original target) or make the fire much less effective to simulate the same effect.

Not directly related to the game itself, but a small collection of youtube links that might be pretty usefull for people like me who are not very familiar with warfare after WWII. There are probably many more videos out there in the vast spaces of the world wide web, so this list is far from complete. 
 
British instructional videos (1980s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1qgSrv1emo (recon patrol, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB7cKWK5nH0 (recon patrol, part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuQJTLv2jV0& (fighting patrol, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJoshHLU4v8 (fighting patrol, part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy0zu1oXRro& (field craft)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMDdsXmkshA& (fighting in the woods)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgV5LY7oBpU (An unthinking moment)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24LRnE6HwVo (snipers, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbq9NMoZv2c (snipers, part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEKOku3jxmM (finding the enemy, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBmz3zhzqms (finding the enemy, part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrubDDcygb4 (effect of artillery fire)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zo5f6l-ZP4 (troop platoon tactics [tank + mech inf], part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDAQV4fMaUk (troop platoon tactics [tank + mech inf], part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciFnTiacaDU (section fire and manoeuvre, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0mIm50Od8U (section fire and manoeuvre, part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB9LzziqfA (section fire and manoeuvre, part 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW5Qem8AHsk (map reading)
 
 
(West-)German videos 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3OB7sfGTEM (camouflage, 1993, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2i1tkd_qaE (camouflage, 1993, part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hof5V126f3U (camouflage, 1993, part 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQaFyxNxZm8 (camouflage, 1993, part 4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHicBQFFHIQ (anti tank team, 1988, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhdK6V9Wn6k (anti tank team, 1988, part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UZT-Y0Ziog (anti tank team, 1988, part 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlMZZMxMqxc (anti tank team, 1988, part 4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEdbK3K2ctk (fighting in built-up areas, date?, chapter A, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqY1C0zW30Q (fighting in built-up areas, date?, chapter A, part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wicsKnklv9A (fighting in built-up areas, date?, chapter C, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bugWXzfjUo (fighting in built-up areas, date?, chapter D, part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_XJrNGKglk (fighting in built-up areas, date?, chapter D, part 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6bvlDNrqGA (fighting in built-up areas, date?, chapter D, part 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdqClaVV_Uc (fighting in built-up areas, 1980s?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj2bjhgDlIU (tactics for the individual tank, 1957 - slightly out of our timeframe )
 
USA
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpCmJcw6W5Y (individual camouflage, 1967)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUTW4ktu798 (sniper employment, 1992)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF2wCUaLH8s (map symbols, 1966)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAK8h4mqFsM (map reading, 1966)
 

They are prefab mass graves or drainage ditches, not resembling any fighting position known to man.
This is what a slit trench and LMG bunker (foreground) looks like. These are dug by infantry in a few days using only basic local materials (sandbags, logs and earth).
South perimeter of Eliane 3 (A1) position, Dien Bien Phu (Viet Minh hills 'Chauve' and 'Fictif' are opposite)

One interesting thing about forest is that in reality, the inside of an old forest often has very few bushes, because the trees are big and block the light. So, visibility inside a "heavy forest" is often actually pretty good. It's on the outside of the forest that all the shrubs grow.
In the game though, big forests are usually represented as loads of heavy forest tiles, with light forest towards the edges. One could say it should be the other way round!

And just to follow up on my post on the numbers, I do agree with Slysniper on one point: you don't need to know the exact numbers and no one should construe these tests to be an argument that you do. The numbers are just there to inform your tactical decisions, or to inform map-makers. Do you need to know that a grass AS with a tree in it provides 20% cover while a light forest AS with no tree provides 10%. No, you do not. But knowing the general relationship can make your decision tree more accurate and showing the numbers is simply a means to that end, and I would argue that this is useful to the extent that some of these relationships are not intuitive.

Besides all the detailed discussions of some of the suggested points, I thought it would be usefull to offer a compilation of all the suggestions so far. If I missed something, please let me know!
Compilation of improvement suggestions so far (not including obvious bugs such as the "leave the trench"-issue)
 New orders/options for the players
Ability to chain together several “target briefly”-orders in one turn. This should allow some weapons to suppress a larger front than just 8 meters per turn=minute (at the cost of reduced suppression intensity/reliability, of course). For some weapons (HE, MGs), firing at a 8-meters target for a full minute is an overkill  and waste of ammo. Giving these units the option to spread out their fire would make them far more usefull in supporting an attack. For vehicles only, a very tedious work-around is to use multiple very short waypoints and plot target commands on each of them. The suggested feature would would contribute to the game in a slightly similar way as the feature that allows us to split up our squads: it reduces problems caused by an imbalance between "unit size/weapon capability", "grid size/resolution of space" and "turn intervalls/resolution of time". [Idea for implementation: "clear target" --> deletes all target orders given so far; target briefly --> adds a new target briefly order that gets triggered once any former ones have expired. Visually, a number could be added to the "target briefly" text] Option to lock a stance in order to let an infantry unit keep its LOS on a particular area – soldiers randomly go prone, which might lead to a loss of LOS on an area Dis- and remount orders for crew-served weapons (uses: “Shoot and scoot” for AT weapons – don’t pack up if you see that the tank is aiming at you!; Seek cover in artillery shelters/dugouts for weapon-crews, etc.)  Editor & Scenario Design
Fixed artillery fire-plans, set by the scenario desginer Option to leave some "friendly" troops under AI-control (or at least immobilize them), so that the player takes control only over a part of the friendly forces present on the battlefield Some option for scenario designers to disallow the attacker to creep along the edges of the map (movement restricted zones?) Quickbattles (including force selection)
Ability to move units/formations up/down in the OOB Ability to copy/paste a formation/unit Right indent for units that are part of formations For modern titles: Electronic Warfare Strength should be chosen secretly by each player? A setting to give some initial recon to the attacker (not just in assault type engagements). Maybe the attacker could buy some “recce patrol” marker he could place on the map, and get a suspected contact if there is an enemy unit somewhere within the radius of the “recce patrol” marker.  The quality of a recce patrol could have an effect on the "radius" of the marker. Ability to buy reinforcements (the later they arrive, the cheaper they are) “Typical only” toggle  - if on, XP/morale stats of units are locked for the players. They need to deal with what they get Ability to create your own units from smaller pieces ("OrBat creator/editor for quick battles, and maybe even campaigns. / Make your own battalions, companies, etc. per point count and then use them -- like tabletop.") Option to save and load OOBs  New equipment/units/mechanics/features
Flares Trenches and field fortifications in general (narrow slit trenches, gun emplacements, pillboxes in more varied designs, hesco walls + nato wire for modern titles, fighting positions for vehicles, etc) Fluff / Aesthetics
Some way to evacuate wounded soldiers (and reward it) When zooming in (Z/X hotkeys), the game should render the zoomed-in area in high detail Unit-icon toggle (alt + I ) should also toggle on/off target reference points More visible fog if the weather condition is “dense fog”. Windmills for Final Blitzkrieg  Minor stuff (specific to individual weapons, units, etc)
M40 GMC should switch to 155 HE if out of HEAT rounds, but still firing at tanks. Even that  size HE shell would destroy enemy tanks. Ability to disembark from a bunker/shelter and let the unit move on in the very same turn Larger field or angle of fire for prone MGs – right now, the muzzle can only be horizontally traversed within a very narrow angle, which means that the gunner as a whole needs to move and reposition the gun. If prone, this takes lots and lots of time as the gunner is typically crawling to the new position. The shadow of the sandbags on top of the wooden shelter is missing/broken (?) in Final Blitzkrieg Slow velocity/curved trajectory weapons should be allowed to target reverse slopes (like mortars).

Thought I´d throw that in here. It´s from a german Panzergrenadier training manual as of January 1944. The given chapter (6) deals with Panzergrenadier mounted attack situations, figured worth to be trained in the training schools. Unfortunately I lack time to make the translations, but maybe someone else can extract the more interesting and revealing info?

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms.
Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire.  Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun.  Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck).  For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon.  Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings.   Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases.
Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire.  They are either towed or self propelled.  Can get really big calibers.  Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements.  Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure.  Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM,  and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition.
Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness.  A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example.  Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled.  Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide.
In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone.  The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint.
The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements.  Bigger is better.
Call or response times are not weapon dependent.  They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question.  Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground.
Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability.  Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above?   The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities.  For example,  most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well.  A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will.  This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game.  So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that.
Hope that answers your questions.

Blackmoria's answer, unsurprisingly, is the one to pay attention to.

Some more points and an illustration:

Mortar vs. Howitzer vs. Field Gun - the interesting thing is where they overlap.

The main practical difference, in all CM games, is how organic each asset is. In WW2 titles, US infantry have 60mm mortars at the Platoon level - this means they are available for the platoon leader to call down, and that they are going to be quick to respond to changing circumstances. 81mm mortars exist at the Company level, and most formations attach their artillery at higher levels than that, and often these larger assets are only available to Forward Observers. 

In CMBS (and to a less extent CMSF, but we'll have to see exactly how this is modelled in CMSF 2) , the modern US infantry rifle platoon can have embedded Forward Observers, and may also have access to small drones. The rifle company also typically has 120mm mortars, which are gettng to the point where they're no longer really "miniature artillery", since they can do some real damage. It's also notable that the US 155mm and 120mm mortars both have a limited amount of precision-guided rounds, which allow you to call in "precision" missions. In the modern titles, Forward Observers often have dedicated vehicles, which cut down their response time even further.

- Having a bunch of slots you can use to save your quick battle force selections.
- In the editor/units selection panel,  when you click on a formation to expand it, the resulting display of the units belonging to this formation should be indented to the right so it stands out from the other formations below.
- In the editor when designing a scenario, it would be useful if you could have some units either locked in place (not just for the set up phase but the duration of the whole battle) or simply make it so the player can't give them any orders at all. The goal would be to simulate static units not part of the force commanded by the player, who would be manning a part of the front while the player is attacking another sector for instance.
- Flares.
- As far as trenches and foxholes are concerned, I couldn't agree more with Kaunitz. As it is now, it is one of the weakest feature of CM2. The previous posters have already mentioned how trenches are too wide and stick out above the ground too much but there is also the problem that soldiers inside have pretty much only their lower halves protected. I mean just look at the soldiers closely next time you play. In a game where fire is not abstracted but where the ballistic of bullets is modeled, they are way too exposed. Has everybody forgotten how trenches worked in CM 1? It took a lot more to get rid of a squad in a trench than it does now.
My memory is a bit hazy on this one, so it is entirely possible I am wrong, but didn't Battlefront slightly lower tank leaders models inside the tanks at one point to make them less vulnerable to small arms fire when unbuttoned? I have always thought they should try to do the same with trenches/foxholes and just lower the pixel truppen inside a tiny bit even if that means having their ankles clip through the ground. It is probably not as easy as i sounds but I'd like to think that if Battlefront tried to tackle this issue seriously, they could fix this and make trenches more realistic.
 

Thanks for the tip. I will see if it works tomorrow. I was planning to test the trench primarily with hiding enabled (you need to hide to get any protection from the current trenches).
I don't share the "crazy good protection" impression for units hiding in trenches. Yes, hiding ("taking cover") offers the protection you would expect from a trench against shells that land outside of the trench. If your head is below the ground level and you have a good helmet, arty can't knock you out that easily unless it lands really close or fuses/air burst ammo is used (more an issue in CM:BS were trenches are even more futile for this very reason). The suppressive effect and the effect on morale is modeled in the game though and I have no problem with it at all. My issue with trenches is that they're too big a target so too many shells score a direct hit and physically knock out your position. In fact, in the first test I ran, 3 shells (of 3x medium mortar tubes, heavy mission) directly hit the trench in the first minute of the salvo. I didn't mention it because it's not representative and just an anecdote, but it really confirmed my gut-feeling (there was at least one direct hit in the first round of all tests I've made so far). So, there is certainly no "total protection" for troops in trenches. My impression is that a trench can be knocked out in 1-2 minutes of accurate (direct mortar) and/or concentrated and/or very heavy calibre shelling. And that strikes me as unrealistic. Trenches (and by that I mean slit-trenches) should be harder to hit and require more shelling or be taken in an assault (with arty contributing suppression rather than physical damage). It will be interesting to take a look at more representative data (how many direct hits a trench suffers from battery type x in time y) once I figure out how to make my soldiers stay in the trench. The community can then discuss if the numbers are plausible. 
Another minor issue I have with the current trenches is that as they stand out from the ground so much, flat trajectory HE weapons (tank guns, AT guns) have a large target to fire at. If trenches were a smaller/lower silhouette target (as they should), these weapons would have a much smaller margin for error/inaccuracy and more of their shells would land farther off target (where they can't contribute to the suppression). Right now, tanks are incredibly effective against trenches as they can fire directly at the embrasure (which can sometimes - in rare instances - even take out soldiers that are "hiding" in the trench). need to test).
As mentioned above, I don't think that trenches provide enough protection for hiding troops because too many shells land direct hits because the trench is not narrow enough. 
The second point is a different but also interesting topic. In some situations, CM makes you decide between staying alive (=take cover, be suppressed) or fighting.  

I really don't know how the engine handles these things, but from some testing (I spent a lot of time figuring out how to make positions artillery-proof just by using terrain elevation*, I also did a lot of ditch-testing for my Gerbini scenario), I was under the impression that artillery doesn't work in a very abstract, but on the contrary in a relatively intuitive/clear way. If you can draw a straight line from the impact site of a shell to a soldier model, then that particular soldier can get hit (and vice versa - if the LOF from the shell to the soldier is blocked, he can't get hit). In fact, it totally amazes me how detailed the artillery impacts are modelled (if I my observations aren't totally off the mark...). Unless there is also some additional "cover" value that comes into play specifically for soldiers in a trench, I can't see how the current trenches offer any additional cover.  If a shell lands in the trench, it's game over. And a shell tends to land it very often because it's too broad. I did not get the impression that the trench was hit less often by artillery or that soldiers that were in the trench while it suffered a direct hit had a higher chance to survive. 
So, to put it short: I don't believe that that the trench offers any considerable "abstract" protection. But the only argument I can bring is my subjective feeling and the observation that I don't see any results in the game that can only be explained by an additional abstract "trench protection" factor. Again, I neither have the impression that trench-models are hit less often by artillery shells than the surrounding terrain nor that soldiers who are inside the trench while it gets hit have a magical survival bonus. So I need to ask myself where the abstraction would be? If there is an abstract cover bonus, I think it must be (too?) small.
If the current trench is meant to represent the more common WWII trenches in an abstract way, then indeed I think they don't offer enough protection. So far, I ascribed that problem to the actual design of the trench (too broad against indirect fire! Soldiers expose themselves too much over the embrasure against direct fire). By the way, I also think that direct fire is based on a very delicate intuitive and clear model (e.g. place a log in front of a prone soldier and his survival rate drastically increases! Buildings and windows are bit harder to understand though...). 
But I understand why you would ask for more proof. I will see if I can find the time for more testing and some real life stats, it might take a while. But I thik that one thing is already safe to say: the infantry casualty rates in a standard CM-match (45min - 1.5h) are through the roof. Of course now we could start to discuss whether and to what extent a game needs to be condensed in time in order to be fun - BF itself has also confirmed that we should not blindly assume a 1:1 time ratio, if I remember correctly...
 
I've been there (see this post: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-1748396). Creating ditches by shaping the terrain didn't work for me. Either your soldiers will all position themselves at the elevated edges of the ditch (so that they stay exposed to artillery fire), or they all crowd up in the ditch (so that they can't see or fire at anything). And the problem still remains that the ditches created in this way are too broad (the best you can achieve is a ca. 4-6m ditch, which is still a big target for artillery when it really matters). Also, soldiers when ordered to move, many soldiers move at the edge of the tiles, outside of the trench.
I've ended up with a trench that looks very similar to the one you posted to represent an irrigation ditch on my Gerbini map (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-1747980). But the problem still remains: The trench model is too broad and therefore gets hit by artillery (and particularly mortars) too easily. Every meter counts!
As I've mentioned in the post above, I think the best solution would be to just let the trench model (and any soldiers) clip through the ground mesh. Adjusting the ground mesh itself would look much cooler, of course, but would also draw the enemy's attention. )
 
----------------------
* e.g. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/123157-improvement-suggestions/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-1713167
 

I can’t help it! One (last?) time, I want to point out how much I miss proper fortifications. The lack of them keeps me from finishing my Gerbini scenario (and many more to come?) and puts infantry at a severe disadvantage, with the result of horribly exaggerated infantry casualty rates (at least if you consider the duration of a scenario) and the defender's system of mutually supportive positions being compromised very easily. Moreover, trenches are not only usefull for representing actual field-works, but also natural terrain features that you can’t create due to soldier-behaviour (soldiers are not positioning themselves in a depression where they’d be safe from arty, or in a way in which they don’t see anything, etc) and the size of the action grid (8x8m --> a 1 tile depression is still a 64sq.m target for arty).
I’ve created a beautiful visual comparison between the current trench fortification and the ideal slit trench, now give me some likes! As you can see, the slit trench beats the combat mission trench in all regards! What I've missed to point out: Because it stands out, tanks/direct HE can hit the CM trench more easily (causing an explosion that might still knock out soldiers in the trench). With a slit trench, this is much more difficult and unlikely. The almost inexistant silhouette of a trench might also make it harder to direct artillery onto it? 


Worries and doubts
1) Aesthetical: Lowering fortifications into the ground mesh is probably impossible (and if you could do it, the enemy would detect your fortifications by looking at the ground mesh). But what if we simply allowed the fortification (and soldiers in it) to clip/cut through the mesh. Yes, it wouldn’t really look good, but who cares?! I wouldn’t mind if that’s the price for proper fortifications!
2) Balance: Yes, it will be hard to knock out a trench line. But that’s how it’s supposed to be! You’d need to work much more with suppression and smoke. You won’t be able to knock out the trench with 3 mortar shells before you close in. You might still use the mortar to suppress it though. After all, that’s one of the main purposes of a trench: to protect you from arty/mortars! You need to take out a trench with the tip of the bayonet (or SMG, ... or flamethrower....or hand grenade). That's what rifle-infantry was actually usefull for (for any longer distances, you rather use your MGs). And tanks sucked at it (try to aim you hull MG down a slit-trench!).
A bright future!
Needless to say that while a slit-trench would be the most desirable starting candidate, it doesn’t need to stop there. I’m sure the community has plenty of ideas for field-fortifications, including gun emplacements (especially as long as guns can't be dis- and remounted to seek cover in a nearby artillery shelter; in FB, you do get ATgun-bunkers though!), hesco-walls (modern titles), pillboxes in different shapes (i.e. allowing for different firing angles/loopholes), hastily dug firing positions (for soldiers in prone position), etc.
 
http://www.oldhickory30th.com/119th Co G Entrenching Tool by Nolan.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1005/m1/2/zoom/?resolution=6&lat=4088.5&lon=5231.5

I can’t help it! One (last?) time, I want to point out how much I miss proper fortifications. The lack of them keeps me from finishing my Gerbini scenario (and many more to come?) and puts infantry at a severe disadvantage, with the result of horribly exaggerated infantry casualty rates (at least if you consider the duration of a scenario) and the defender's system of mutually supportive positions being compromised very easily. Moreover, trenches are not only usefull for representing actual field-works, but also natural terrain features that you can’t create due to soldier-behaviour (soldiers are not positioning themselves in a depression where they’d be safe from arty, or in a way in which they don’t see anything, etc) and the size of the action grid (8x8m --> a 1 tile depression is still a 64sq.m target for arty).
I’ve created a beautiful visual comparison between the current trench fortification and the ideal slit trench, now give me some likes! As you can see, the slit trench beats the combat mission trench in all regards! What I've missed to point out: Because it stands out, tanks/direct HE can hit the CM trench more easily (causing an explosion that might still knock out soldiers in the trench). With a slit trench, this is much more difficult and unlikely. The almost inexistant silhouette of a trench might also make it harder to direct artillery onto it? 


Worries and doubts
1) Aesthetical: Lowering fortifications into the ground mesh is probably impossible (and if you could do it, the enemy would detect your fortifications by looking at the ground mesh). But what if we simply allowed the fortification (and soldiers in it) to clip/cut through the mesh. Yes, it wouldn’t really look good, but who cares?! I wouldn’t mind if that’s the price for proper fortifications!
2) Balance: Yes, it will be hard to knock out a trench line. But that’s how it’s supposed to be! You’d need to work much more with suppression and smoke. You won’t be able to knock out the trench with 3 mortar shells before you close in. You might still use the mortar to suppress it though. After all, that’s one of the main purposes of a trench: to protect you from arty/mortars! You need to take out a trench with the tip of the bayonet (or SMG, ... or flamethrower....or hand grenade). That's what rifle-infantry was actually usefull for (for any longer distances, you rather use your MGs). And tanks sucked at it (try to aim you hull MG down a slit-trench!).
A bright future!
Needless to say that while a slit-trench would be the most desirable starting candidate, it doesn’t need to stop there. I’m sure the community has plenty of ideas for field-fortifications, including gun emplacements (especially as long as guns can't be dis- and remounted to seek cover in a nearby artillery shelter; in FB, you do get ATgun-bunkers though!), hesco-walls (modern titles), pillboxes in different shapes (i.e. allowing for different firing angles/loopholes), hastily dug firing positions (for soldiers in prone position), etc.
 
http://www.oldhickory30th.com/119th Co G Entrenching Tool by Nolan.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1005/m1/2/zoom/?resolution=6&lat=4088.5&lon=5231.5

I can’t help it! One (last?) time, I want to point out how much I miss proper fortifications. The lack of them keeps me from finishing my Gerbini scenario (and many more to come?) and puts infantry at a severe disadvantage, with the result of horribly exaggerated infantry casualty rates (at least if you consider the duration of a scenario) and the defender's system of mutually supportive positions being compromised very easily. Moreover, trenches are not only usefull for representing actual field-works, but also natural terrain features that you can’t create due to soldier-behaviour (soldiers are not positioning themselves in a depression where they’d be safe from arty, or in a way in which they don’t see anything, etc) and the size of the action grid (8x8m --> a 1 tile depression is still a 64sq.m target for arty).
I’ve created a beautiful visual comparison between the current trench fortification and the ideal slit trench, now give me some likes! As you can see, the slit trench beats the combat mission trench in all regards! What I've missed to point out: Because it stands out, tanks/direct HE can hit the CM trench more easily (causing an explosion that might still knock out soldiers in the trench). With a slit trench, this is much more difficult and unlikely. The almost inexistant silhouette of a trench might also make it harder to direct artillery onto it? 


Worries and doubts
1) Aesthetical: Lowering fortifications into the ground mesh is probably impossible (and if you could do it, the enemy would detect your fortifications by looking at the ground mesh). But what if we simply allowed the fortification (and soldiers in it) to clip/cut through the mesh. Yes, it wouldn’t really look good, but who cares?! I wouldn’t mind if that’s the price for proper fortifications!
2) Balance: Yes, it will be hard to knock out a trench line. But that’s how it’s supposed to be! You’d need to work much more with suppression and smoke. You won’t be able to knock out the trench with 3 mortar shells before you close in. You might still use the mortar to suppress it though. After all, that’s one of the main purposes of a trench: to protect you from arty/mortars! You need to take out a trench with the tip of the bayonet (or SMG, ... or flamethrower....or hand grenade). That's what rifle-infantry was actually usefull for (for any longer distances, you rather use your MGs). And tanks sucked at it (try to aim you hull MG down a slit-trench!).
A bright future!
Needless to say that while a slit-trench would be the most desirable starting candidate, it doesn’t need to stop there. I’m sure the community has plenty of ideas for field-fortifications, including gun emplacements (especially as long as guns can't be dis- and remounted to seek cover in a nearby artillery shelter; in FB, you do get ATgun-bunkers though!), hesco-walls (modern titles), pillboxes in different shapes (i.e. allowing for different firing angles/loopholes), hastily dug firing positions (for soldiers in prone position), etc.
 
http://www.oldhickory30th.com/119th Co G Entrenching Tool by Nolan.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1005/m1/2/zoom/?resolution=6&lat=4088.5&lon=5231.5

Small update to the last point of my last post: I tried to test assault artillery. I totally forgot about the reverse slope problem. The fact that you cannot target reverse slope spots severely limits assault artillery.  

You can't make units disembark from a bunker/shelter and move them on in the very same turn, which can be fatal very quickly. It would be nice to have that option. Soldiers who die while being in a bunker/shelter disappear (no buddy aid/retrieval of weapons available). This does not just apply to losses to heavy calibre AP or HE fire (in which case the soldiers would probably be totally obliterated...) but also to losses to small arms fire. It would be nice to have a "typical only"-toggle for quickbattles, so that players cannot select the experience/morale/leadership of their troops individually but have to deal with what they get. I think that this level of fine-tuning is rather annoying sometimes. (It's great for scenario design, of course!) I suppose it has already be mentioned before several times, but just to make sure: An option to dismount and remount crew-served weapons is desperately needed. The lack of the  option makes crew-served weapons a very bad choice in many situations (e.g. you can't let them use an artillery shelter). ----
More a weird idea to be discussed rather than a serious improvement suggestion: Maybe it would be interesting to give players (or just the defender?) the option to buy reinforcements at a reduced price? The later in the game the reinforcements appeared, the fewer points they would cost? Maybe this would increase the uncertainty of battle a bit (right now, players often know exactly how many tanks the opponent has and can advance freely and carelessly once they know they've been knocked out). And maybe lead to more plausible engagements, with the defender's (more expensive) fast/motorized units showing up as a reaction to the attack.  ----
Also, I wondered if there is some reason why onmap short-barreled/low-velocity assault guns/howitzers/sp. arty cannot fire indirectly? Is it because the trajectory would not be curved enough to fire at the "comparatively" short distances on the typical CM battlefield? The onmap crew-served infantry guns can fire indirectly, by the way, and the game even considers their line of fire (you can end up with a "no line of fire" error message when your gun's trajectory arc does not allow it to fire over an obstacle). EDIT: I looked up some candidates in the Command Ops II database, which seems to be very well researched, and indeed it lists a minimum distance for bombard missions (indirect fire) of 2.5km, which is too far for most CM maps. (looked up the 10.5cm leichte Feldhaubitze 80/40, used on the "Wespe"). Also, it seems that by doctrine, they were not supposed to deliver indirect fire, but direct fire (in which case, however, the arced trajectory would still be handy, which might also be the case in CM - http://community.battlefront.com/topic/112114-reverse-slopegrazing-fire/?tab=comments#comment-1763218 )

How I wish it was possible to lock "ears" in place on the spotting vehicle/soldier/unit and, for that matter, "eyes," too. I feel that flying around the map and projecting one's senses that way is gamey, but we don't have a setting to stop such things as of now. Maybe one day we'll have that. ATGs should be tough to kill and scary. Wittmann considered them more dangerous than tanks as a threat and dreaded encounters with Russian Pakfronts. This is something we don't really see much in CM, since you typically see only a few ATGs in a battle, rather than batteries and even battalions.
Regards,
John Kettler

It sounds like someone was using the AT guns properly - ie: at much longer ranges than the small maps we usually see in CM2 games allow.  Because nearly all CM2 maps are small and/or have short LOS due to blocking terrain, gamers have become accustomed to playing almost exclusively short range "knife fight" battles.  It's obviously much easier to spot at short ranges.  On small maps, AT guns usually get to fire once and are then KIA.  Perhaps we CM2 gamers simply don't have the experience needed for dealing with long range fights.
That's a primary reason that many of us still like CM1 games and also CMSF - they often feature much larger maps and much longer LOS/ranges.
What is your scenario?

Well, here some more for you about BMP-2 optic )
On this scheme you can see deployment of simple oservation optic devices for crew and infantry:
1 - TNPO-170 optic devices of driver (4 pieces); 2 - TNPO-170 and 3 - TNP-165 devices for infantryman place (by field manual this is machinegunner place); 4 - TNPO-170 of commander (2 pieces); 8 - TNPO-170 of gunner (3 pieces); 5 -TNPT-1 rear view devises for commander and gunner; 6 TNPO-170 for infanty (3 pieces per side and one per back door)
TNPO-170 this is simple prism periscopic observation device w/o zoom, which can turn in two spaces and maintains an observation in 91 degree in horizontal space and 23 degrees in vertical space. Angle of view is 34 deg. in horizontal space and 7 deg. in vertical space. Device has light mask blind and electrical heating
TNP-165 the similar device, but w/o heating and blind. It also can be turned in two spaces 71 in horizontal and 33 in vertical. Angle of view is the same as in TNPO-170
TNPT-1 has angle of view in 52 deg. (horizontal) and 7 deg.(vertical). Also has elecric heating and the blind.   
 

Except simple observation devices, commander and gunner has next sights:
1P3-3 monocular periscope for commander (day only). It uses for searhing and aiming BMP weapon to surfase and aerial targets (aerial targets can be aimed only when BMP stands). Angles of turning: 360 deg horizontal, -6...+81 vertical (but vertical aiming limeted in -4...+60 deg), zoom 1,2x and 4,9x angles of view: 49 deg (1,4x) and 14 deg (4,9x)
TKN-3B binocular periscope for commander (day/night). It uses for battlefield observation, searching targets and measuring of the range to its. This device merged with IR lighter OU-3GA2. Zoom: 4,75x (day) and 4x (night). Device has rotation angles: 270 deg in horizonta and 7 in vertical. Angle of view: 10 deg (4,75x day) and 8 deg (4x night). Rangefinder scale built by "tank" type target with height 2,7 m. Nightview range for ""tank" target (clear athmosphere) : 400 m (side projection) and 300 m (frontal projection).
BPK-2-42 binocular sight for gunner (day/night). It uses for aiming the gun and MG of BMP as well as for observation. Merged with IR lighter OU-5. Zoom: 6x (day) / 5,5x (night). Angle of view: 10 deg (day)/ 6,4 deg (night). Nightview range for "tank" target (clear athmosphere): up to 600-700 m in passive mode, up to 950 m in active mode

My wish list includes an option for both sides to have some (or all) forces under AI control, with plans, triggers, etc. Seems more doable within the current engine than full multiplayer. 
So a player can command a subunit that's part of a larger engagement. Or doesn't have (unrealistic) control over his armour support. Or a designer can even design a war movie then watch the computer duke it out both sides, viewing via Test mode.

BTR and sburke already have given to you full answers, I can add that platoon and squad leaders in real world have much better spotting, when found themselve outside BMP. Of course, BMP has many observation devices and combined day/night sights (one for commander, one for gunner). But its angels of view too narrow: sight BPK 2-42 for gunner and TKN-3B for comamnder are both have 10 degrees only. It symply to get out and observe battlefield with own eyes and binocular. In that time gunner can observe to with own sight, which almost the same like commander.'s  When they spot target, which need supressing with BMP weapon, they communicates with own vehicle by radio or jump to the hull and shout into the hatch: "MG nest on 10 hours!!! No! Not the bush!!! Do you see a tree some right?! Did you see! Here !!! Yebash!!!" For examle, for this purpose on the side hull of tanks there is a telephone, in order an infantry has opportunity to communicate with crew w/o radio and make targeting.  

Oh boy. Now that I'm planning my first H2H CM:BS game, I tried to take a more detailed look at the capabilities of all those units. I admit that I don't have a lot of knowledge about modern warfare, but still: I can't even google most of the stuff I'm searching for. CM:BS desperately needs a better documentation for the units' capabilities. The game manual is lacking in many aspects: 
For many ATGMs, you can't even find how they work  You don't get to know what kind of smoke vehicles pop (and in which pattern), [it would be perfect if the manual gave you info on how many minutes the smoke grenade will be "active"/emitting smoke, whether it degrades/blocks IR/thermal imaging, whether it is fired defensively (close) or aggressively (farther out in front), how many charges the smoke grenade launcher has] You don't get to know the spotting devices for most vehicles (and infantrymen). In the game UI, you often only get to see an "IR" entry in the damage section, or - for infantry units - some night vision devices in the equipment section - But what does this actually mean? How does the game handle spotting devices? Magnifiers of all kinds, night vision/rest light, night vision/infrared, thermal imaging? Does the game differentiate those and how? And does it matter where those devices are (gunner/loader/commander/driver positions)? And where the devices are located on the vehicle (locations of periscopes, vision slits, etc). Similar questions arise for infantry: we don't get to know how capable the spotting device is (if the game even differentiates several levels here...?) and, e.g., if it makes a difference if a soldier wears googles or is equipped with a night vision scope on his weapon. Generally speaking, spotting is such an obscure topic in all CM titles, but in CM:BS, it matters even more in WWII titles, due to all the available technology. Right now, the manual does not explain how all that technology is represented in the game.  If anyone has some knowledge he would like to share, I'd be very thankfull!  But ideally, it should be ingame info, not "real world" info. I primarily want to know how weapons and other equipment works in the game, not in the real world. The lack of documentation limits the fun I get out of the game, since I can't really understand what's going on on the battlefield. Questions like this one pop up all the time: "Was that just bad luck or did I miss some important technical advantage of the enemy vehicle?"
PS: By the way, I also think it would be very nice (in all CM titles) if the manual listed the standard [regular/normal/fi/0] point costs for a unit.
PS1: The BMP-2 (Ukraine) has just 2 crew members? The commander seems to be missing, or is that intended? If the commander is missing, does this degrade the spotting capabilities of the vehicle? (the commander's position has the best spotting devices according to the internet...)

Here's the one you've been waiting for, hot off the presses.

My third test used an 81mm British Airborne medium mortar team (Regulars) with a forward observer (Vet)


Test 1. Area fired on bunker 2 site (never spotted). 4 ranging rounds then 9 of 23 shots hit, KOing bunker and killing occupants

Test 2. Indirect fired on 2. 2 ranging rounds then 9 of 27 FFE shots hit, killing 2 of 3 occupants.


Test 3. Direct fired on 2. 5 ranging rounds, then 10 of 22 shots hit, killing all occupants

Test 4. Direct fired on 2. 4 ranging rounds, then 8 of 23 shots hit; 1 occupant lightly wounded

Test 5. Direct fired on 1. 4 ranging rounds, then 8 of 23 shots hit, killing 3 of 4 occupants

Test 6. Direct fired on a 30 meter segment of trench, "walking" target along trench (red X's in photo); 4 ranging shots, then 10 of 23 shots landed in trench, killing 7 occupants


Test 7. Direct fired on a 40 meter segment of trench, "walking" target as before; 3 ranging shots, then 8 of 24 shots landed in trench, killing 7 occupants.

I also ran a couple of plays playing the French side; the VM mortar failed to shoot at my forces unless I UnHid and took some pot shots first -- it then fired a few rounds in reply and fell silent again.

EARLY CONCLUSIONS:

a. The bunkers seem to provide reasonable protection against mortar fire; a lot of the casualties are taken through the firing slit (it would be nice to have one that's just an all round shelter). 27 direct fire shots under ideal conditions is pretty heavy punishment.

b. The trenches provide very weak protection against mortar fire; again, 27 81mm shells is an intense barrage on a small segment, but it consistently caused 50% casualties to the (Hiding) men under it. That's higher than I'd expect for men in trenches. I'll rerun the test a few more times to reconfirm the results. Not sure what I can do to mitigate this, other than to stick the men in revetted bunkers (dugouts) along the trench line and exit them once the barrage lifts.

c. Once they range in, mortars seem to land at least 30-40% of shells right atop a point target; this is fairly consistent.