George MC

There's a CM saying. When playing Russians send a platoon where you'd normally sent a squad, send a company where you'd normally sent a platoon, and send a battalion where you'd normally send  a company. That advice applies more generally, as well. Brit and German mech infantry both have smallish squads/sections. Individually they're not very flexible. Flexibility comes from using multiple squads in a coordinated manner. Two panzergrenadier squads equal sixteen men with four lmg Considerably more useful than a single squad. I'm reminded of those robust 13 man Marine squads in CMSF2 that nobody can stand up against.

Yes, but not out of direct support of each other. Usually the platoon would be tasked with a mission which the squads would move and fight in concert with each other to achieve, so the opening post of "Panzergrenadier squads are awkward because a squad can't scout for itself as it moves to contact" means it's handled incorrectly in my opinion.
Even if you could detach 2 man scout teams from their squads without lumping the remaining 6 men into a single team, that'd be a poor choice. 2 men scout teams are basically "there's a X% chance that those two will get rinsed by the first shots, but at least that'll give the rest of the unit time to fight back". That's a ratio which makes sense if they're scouting for a whole platoon (or larger units)... but if they're just scouting for their own squad? That means that you're putting 25% of a unit at risk of becoming casualties in the first few seconds to protect the rest of it. I'd say that that's just too large a risk to call sensible: mathematically it would be like using two entire fireteams or an entire squad bunched up in a single action square to scout for a platoon. If those two scouts become casualties and the rest of the squad survives intact (unlikely), that means you're now left with just 6 men to carry on with a mission. That's not effective.
 
I think my main argument is that Panzergrenadiers aren't dismounted infantry. Landsers can have scout teams moving ahead of them into the attack, but Panzergrenadiers should be attacking well established objectives mounted up (preferably alongside Panzers). If something needs scouting in that scenario it should ideally be a platoon/company commander or someone else with shiny things on his shoulder peeking up above that rise before mounting up again. That's quite different from a two man scout team marching ahead of its squad or platoon as it moves to contact and on foot.
 
@Centurian52: true, I rephrased that part to be clearer/more accurate. Ta!

The formations aren't parade-ground rigid. Intervals and alignment are flexible in order to take advantage of the terrain. But they do fight in formations, of which a literal line is one (in fact it is the default formation for engaging an enemy to your front). The best you can do to mimic squad formations in Combat Mission is to break the squad into teams and arrange those teams into a line, column, or wedge (there are never enough teams to form a diamond unfortunately). A better representation of formations is on my wishlist for future improvements to Combat Mission.

You do, however, still need to consider the disposition of an individual squad.
It's correct to say that they wouldn't have operated in isolation, but they do operate as a unit in and of themselves first, and in context second. A platoon is an aggregation of three squads, each of which needs to move and operate correctly.
So yes, the question of how the squad patrols is important, and it's also important to understand how this squad fits into a platoon, the platoon into a company and the company into the battalion. It's equally important to discuss how one section scouts over a small rise, as it is how a mechanised company operates with respect to armour and artillery.

Not if you want to maintain any kind of C2 they aren't. Unless it's a recon team with a radio (i.e. a specialist) then the smallest unit that should be assigned a task, IMHO, is the platoon. Of course the Red Army did things a bit differently as you allude to but if you send a fireteam or squad off on their own then they can and will suffer from not being effectively led.
MMM

Nope. 
 
Not an all in one. You can check stuff out at https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/ and see what you prefer though @37mmdid a grand job of curating an all in one that ticks a lot of boxes off the bat. 

I think previous posts have covered your query in detail. This vid I made gives an overview of how the Germans viewed the SPW and panzer grenadiers being used.
though doctrine evolved through the war it’s worth noting that dismounting from the track was seen as either situation dependent eg close terrain, and that fighting from the track itself was preferred. The later does not work so well in CM and arguably in RL (I’ve read complaints from panzer commanders of grenadiers being reluctant to dismount and do their job!). 
 
Their tactical flexibility given by the vehicles was their key strength. Also assuming operating as part of battalion a pzgr SPW company had some serious mobile firepower in its heavy weapons platoon which served as the base of fire for any attack.  
 
Though for obvs reasons by late war with fuel etc at a premium and allies and Soviets having operational upper hand on both fronts the opportunities to exercise this tactical flexibility were very local and tactical in nature. 
 
 

My line actually comes from an ancient Saturday Night Live skit, long ago when it was actually funny.
We used to employ it on this forum way back in the day.

I voiced for CMSF - even did sweary stuff!

We’d probably say ‘sh*te’ or pish
but the sentiment is correct
’wha’s like us? Thaurs damn few a’n they’re a’ deid!’

I want to thank @Artkin for making sure we could finish our first round of the tournament, and for making it an interesting set of matches.
This is the end result from my assault. Was able to have a TRP on a group of his T72s which was fortunate for me and I was able to take all objectives.

For my defense, I tried to spread out my tanks as much as possible, and although their performance was overall very lackluster, I did have a hero crew who destroyed 
3 T62s and 2 BMPs before going down, by hiding in the small forward Western set of buildings. Their sacrifice will be remembered.

I was the same until very recently.  I'm now having my baptism of fire in a Cold War PBEM.  My performance so far could be described as ...

Ah, wouldn't have heard that. I only play the WW2 titles.

We’d probably say ‘sh*te’ or pish
but the sentiment is correct
’wha’s like us? Thaurs damn few a’n they’re a’ deid!’

Well, maybe I see part of your problem here. Or maybe a few problems.
1. It sounds from your posts like you don't have a lot of CM experience. Both scenarios you are "complaining" about are from BP1, all of which were designed by @George MC, who is known for creating challenging and difficult scenarios, with excellent maps, and usually with ugly surprises somewhere when and where you least expect (maybe that's just me, but he's a devil, and I mean that with the utmost liking and respect) 🙂  They are great, however, they are not the best to cut your teeth on. That one in particular requires a lot of movement to get to a jumping off point for attack, and yes, it can be a bit tedious, and it's a very poor candidate for a real-time scenario. It's not by any means unplayable, or that would have come out in play testing. The guys who play tested that one are knowledgeable CM players. I'd recommend sorting scenarios by size when selecting one and working on some of the smaller ones first. Smaller does not equal trivial. There are good tactical challenges in them all. Same goes for "Cat and Mouse". It doesn't have that many units but reading the briefing will tell you it's a scenario that requires some finesse, and not a shootout. It's a poor one for RTS IMO because you need to literally play cat and mouse, and do a lot of sneaking around. The map is very large, so things can be happening "over there" while you are attending something and the first you'll know of it is a loud boom and smoke.
2. Someone else suggested @Bil Hardenberger's tactical series. These are excellent, small scale, so they are easy to control.  They are here:
https://battledrill.blogspot.com
3. If you like that BP, then start with the 3 PzGr lessons. They are manageable size. Lesson 1 is even a pretty good candidate for RTS, I think. Small number of units. I just wouldn't plot too far ahead, so that they pause and give *you* a chance to catch up.
4. Speaking of which, if you really like RTS, then don't plot too far ahead. Plot relatively short moves, not all the way to an objective (that's just death waiting anyway - you have no idea what will happen and it will happen so fast you can't react). The units will pause, you can hit ESC and pause and issue some more orders. Make it manageable on yourself.
5. There isn't "Nothing you can do about it"  You can pause, change orders, the units themselves will react on the spot to, say, taking fire from the flank. The will shoot back, go to ground, etc, giving you a chance to pause, issue new orders, and then continue. This isn't CoD where you can't ever stop. Even if you don't pause, you can select a unit, cancel its order (just backspace), and then quickly give it a new order. Yeah, takes practice, so again, start small, work your way to more complex.
Just seems like you are diving into more than you are ready for, from your posts. Good luck.

Dave

Nae a west coaster - wee bit more like this:
 

If tis nae Scottish, tis crrrrrrrrrrrap!

That was brilliant. It's a shame that "Chewin' the fat" isn't on the BBC iPlayer. It's also a shame that BFC didn't get someone from north of the border to do the voices for 15th Inf Div.

Is there a ‘correct’ way?
Like as long as players enjoy the game does it matter how they play it?
Anyway given a hyper dynamic environment like a digital battlefield the process of fighting a battle it’s less about a correct way based on a set of rules, more principles and imagination and creativity surely?

Is there a ‘correct’ way?
Like as long as players enjoy the game does it matter how they play it?
Anyway given a hyper dynamic environment like a digital battlefield the process of fighting a battle it’s less about a correct way based on a set of rules, more principles and imagination and creativity surely?

Be warned about possible advertising from the platform owner. Watch at your own risk.

I've definitely seen vids of some people going "hurr durr human wave attacksR'soviet".
It ought to be said though that overall, Soviet tank crews did have a propensity for fighting buttoned up during the war (even in armies which trained to fight unbuttoned, there were commanders who complained that their tank crews much too often didn't (see remarks about welding Sherman hatches open)). Based on personal accounts though, it simply wasn't unheard of or even uncommon for Soviet tank commanders to simply just learn what actually worked best instead of slavishly following official doctrine to the letter, something I'd wager goes for most militaries.

Nae a west coaster - wee bit more like this:
 

This is ‘PART 4: Techniques – methods of undertaking movement tasks by tanks in combat’ of the short longer than originally planned series giving an overview of the tactical fundamentals and principles behind WWII German tactical drills and combat formations commonly used in 1944 using examples from Combat Mission Red Thunder to illustrate key points. 
In Part 4 we look at the specific ‘battle drills’ and associated movement techniques used by the German tank platoon to gain superiority in a firefight with enemy forces.
Part 5 will be looking at training programmes etc and jeezo, was that a rabbit hole...
Hopefully this will be of use to both players and thsoe interested in this time period. It was originally intended to complement the tank tactical problem series I created.
As an aside when you start digging into this is becomes even more painfully clear how a dogged emphasis doctrinally and values wise on "unexpected, concentrated and determined attack; aggressive leadership and daring operations." coupled with increasingly minimally trained crews (and training hampered by lack of resources both human and material), and just as importantly, tank and small unit commanders, would only lead to needless losses. 

Yeah, come on George. Give us something like this....