George MC

I noted the M1 fast deploying smoke.  What I thought was interesting is the M1's LWS immediately deploys smoke, just like the T-90.  But I also  noted that the LWS automatically points the turret front to the facing of the threat,  At that point, the M1 starts maneuvering its hull about to get its hull aligned with the turret.  It takes 10-15 seconds for the hull to get aligned.
One thing I also noted is that the M1 only has a chance of detecting the ATGM team if its pointed somewhat towards the threat.  The short of it is, I don't think ATGM detection is that unrealistic.  The most unrealistic part is the M1 having an LWS tightly linked into automated threat response.
Also, while newer rocket motors don't leave much of a smoke trail, ignition and launch still leave a very significant smoke and dust signature.

Sigh. I cannot even bring myself to be sarcastic. I guess I am going to loose my elite status.
There is always room to constructive discussion and requests. Happens every day on here.

I've been playing the game since CMSF but in no small part due to CMBN being WW2 era I get to have new experiences of an awesome attention to detail.
On one of the missions my Panther spotted an M10 tank destroyer just around the corner. Panther fired, causing a catastrophic explosion... a resulting shrapnel murdered everybody in an open-top jeep nearby.
On another mission I was going after the Sherman hiding in a bocage with a small team armed with just a panzerfaust (you know 30m maximum range and all). The team didn't use it though, one of the guys just tossed a grenade into an open hatch, killing nearly everybody inside with just one crewman surviving, panicking, trying to bail out and escape, but getting shot by the other guy on that team.
Needless to say that both of these examples would probably not happen in a modern era (and didn't ever for me in either CMSF or CMBS) due to even small transports being fully armored and no need to sneak up close to fire a rocket.

OMG I am in the exact same shoes as you, having tried out graviteam tactics and many other wargames recently. Combat mission is the one that stuck to me the most and although I just purchased CMBS which is a great game btw. I am suddenly mesmerised by WW2 and I am trying to decide between CMRT, CMFB and CMBN as my first WW2 CM game. All of which I know I'll get eventually.
CMRT  is unique because of the Russian faction and I am curious how operation bagration mange to wipe out the the whole German army group. CMFB is also different because of the German's final assault and it's mostly set in winter which is a cool thing to see. CMBN is the most classic I suppose and provides the most content including market garden which I am also interested in. I even went out and bought my first WW2 book, Dunkirk by Hugh Sebag and also an encyclopedia of all WW2 greatest battle. 
On a side note, "Snow and steel battle of the Bulge" and "Those who hold Bastogne" are great books to accompany CMFB .
Here's a link to all popular WW2 books according to Amazon. Pls rec me some if u any good ones 
https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=sr_aj?node=5031&ajr=0
 
Cheers!

You're damn right you will - and you won't regret it one second. You have years of content to immerse yourself in. What I like to do is read a book about the battle or setting I play to really appreciate how CM can be a realistic reenactment of those battles. It has come to the point that when I read about WWII to my imagination, the "inner eye" - it is most times in the form of CM.

I never liked WW2 era in gaming. Mostly due to its overuse for decades and how games, namely of a strategy genre, represented it.
Vehicles were little more than variations of same stats and shared the same function, be it a light tank or a heavy tank, they just dealt a different amount of damage, chipping off those health bars or armor digits. Most were just destined to be discarded as you raced for the best tier to rule the battlefield. Yes even Men of War was quite guilty of this. Same very much goes for Steel Panthers, Close Combat and CMx1 games - because of all the abstractions, even grounded in reality, but still abstractions, that these games had. Sure enough Graviteam Tactics made WW2 just 'acceptable' to me, mostly due to its awesome representation of tank combat, but I always felt like something was amiss.
That's why I like a modern era a lot more. Even in simpler games like Wargame series or Call to Arms due to era's sheer difference in weapon design and technological imbalance every side always felt like it had its own style. I was always playing Steel Panthers MBT and hardly ever touching WW2 versions. Even mediocre Close Combat Modern Tactics was interesting to me. And CMSF and CMBS just set the quality bar absolutely high.
But then I got CMBN. And for the first time in my life I felt excited about WW2 era in games. Due to a sheer realism and precise representation of everything - every single vehicle, or even every firearm soldiers carry feels unique. No "better tiers", even light tanks can have their moments of glory versus bigger and meaner brethren when lucky or used cunningly. All the weird looking armored cars, these boxes on wheels can contribute a lot to battles. If it takes part in a mission - it can and will be used and it will matter. And due to all the variety of OOBs that a full CMBN bundle currently offers - it delivers what Graviteam Tactics does not: countless ways to have the same battle in - and an amazing infantry gameplay to boot, making tank battles actually feel superior in Battle for Normandy compared.
Furthermore CMBN is, because of how many WW2 games are there and what they are, an example of why realism matters, why just having an abstract "frontal armor" receive less damage before an invisible health bar runs out, or just shrug off hits from calibers below some predefined penetration threshold - will never make an important difference that makes a game truly memorable. Exactly that difference between 75mm tank cannons of USA, Germany and UK.
Damn it, I'll have to buy all WW2 CM titles now, right?

Unless you're able to fully understand all of the concepts that are detailed in FMs, you're honestly better off not reading them. FMs are very dense, and what is written does not immediately translate into practice. Think of them like textbooks. Without the proper hands on classroom instruction, they are largely useless. 
My advice would be to watch the Jeffrey Paulding videos a few times through, understand what he is saying, and then try to emulate it. Remember, tactics are extremely simple. They have to be, after all they must be understood by terrified, sleep deprived, starving, miserable 19 year olds. The trick is always to keep it simple and not get lost in the nuance. There is a ton of nuance in FMs.
Put simply, all warfare (from the tactical level to the strategic) comes down to the ability to maneuver. You want to move, and prevent the enemy from being able to move. The way you do that is with fire. If you have fire superiority, it means you can move and the enemy cannot. If you can move, you can win. If you can't move, you can't win. Tactics come down to allowing your force to move. Then it's all a matter of dealing with problems as they arise. ATG down the road preventing your tanks from moving? You have to find out how to take it out, so that your forces can maneuver. This is where the nuance comes into play, and its easy to get lost in. Just remember, as long as you are keeping things simple, you can unravel the battlefield. 

I refer you to my learned colleague:
Click the one button marked 'Scenario Editor' and all will be revealed! 
I definitely agree.....On the other hand, this shouldn't stop those so inclined from jumping into the editor, making the changes they want (& dealing with the consequences of doing so), it's a good way to learn to use the editor. 
 

Sorry is it a problem for someone who bumps their gums about choices and programming problems about buttons to eschew an editor that probably was a fairly big programming problem to put together?
Your post suggests that it is ....
You've been given the choice you have chosen not to .... hardly Battlefront's problem is it?

Don't think anyone's mad at you fella, just a bit perplexed at why you don't click that button and answer all these questions for yourself.....You are clearly a bright bloke and you are clearly interested in the intricacies of the system.  The most experienced (& least experienced) guys here all keep telling you exactly the same thing, that the easiest answer to many of your questions is to be found in the editor, but you apparently just won't click that button.

https://mwi.usma.edu/russian-ukrainian-war-understanding-dust-clouds-battlefield/
Nothing ground breaking,(or political, I believe). 
Still, useful for pointing out a possible Russian preference for sustained political pressure maintained by sustained military pressure. 
There could also be logistical/force sustainment considerations, but nothing Putin couldn't brush past if he so wished. 
When I started properly reading up in this nasty fight I'd initially wondered why Russia didn't go for a desert storm style strike. However it was described to me here and elsewhere, that choking an unfriendly regime, rather than can crushing it and dealing with a massed resistance, is better in many ways. 
Follow Up commentary:
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2017/01/21/an-additional-comment-on-the-link-between-operations-strategy-and-policy-in-russian-hybrid-warfare/

An excellent scenario from @George MC - as if that needs to be said. It's called "TV  98-5 STEELERS" for those curious, since he's too humble to plug in :^).

Another from one of his scenarios - Armor Attacks, or Armour Attacks if you download his UK version . From a PBEM that was back-and-forth. Sadly, my opponent eeked out a minor BLUFOR victory. 
 

Tease! 
 

Seems it worked this time.  Less narration than I would've liked, but I've had both little time to record and am still a little horse, as you can probably tell.  There is a minor editing bug at 4:26, but ignore that!

Yup I agree it definitely does.  Since making video compared to screenshots I've really noticed how wonky infantry movement still is, even after BF's patch.
In other news, I got a new microphone.  Be sure to tell me if you miss the fishbowl effect! 
Why 7 minutes?  I thought I found a nice breaking point compared to the 5/10 minute points I had before.

No, no, they are German prisoners. German use them to train their tankmen. Yes, craziness! A lot of real events, real heroes, and they show low quality fiction.

From a H2H playtest; Ukrainian Russian Infantry launch their final attack against a Ukrainian roadblock, near Konotop. June, 2017.:

August 10, 2017: 1st Cavalry's "Power Hour" as the NATO breakthrough in the Eastern Ukraine is achieved. 

Love it, George!

Long range tank duel. Tiger vs T-34/85. T-34 lost...

Great wee video that covers training, crew requirements, Panzer Formations, Organization, specific combat scenarios like fighting anti-tank guns, combat against tanks and bunkers - early war but still interesting stuff.
 

Oh dear. You seem to not to understand irony. 
I slip in and out my alter ego's personality many times on this forum. And as mentioned previously on this site if I'd have been around at the time of the Putney Debates, I would have been one of those "strung up".
You might even wish to go back to Page 3 of this thread where I make my real views on Fascism crystal clear, via the late great lefty Woody Guthrie.

See below:
Come on guys, this ain't hard - I'll say it again - CMSF 2 is CMSF 1 in the Engine 4 environment. While there will be tweaks in the original campaigns eg Mission 2 of the Canadian Campaign has a river and a bridge mocked up via road tiles, elevation changes and marsh tiles. These will almost certainly be replaced by a proper bridge and river tiles in CMSF 2. In all likelihood, all of the AI plans will get a revamp with triggers rather than the old school scenario designer guesstimates for AI plans which will mean that scenarios and campaigns will probably play out slightly differently. However, in essence, they will be largely be the same as CMSF 1.
Asking the same questions over and over again in this and different forums ain't going to change the answer and it seems pretty pointless people banging on about having bones thrown if they don't actually read them.

Jeezo! I tell you! Auld age disnae come itsel! Thought I’d seen it before...
i blame baby brain...

He! Cheers! I'm hanging in there just a tad sleep deprived at the mo..