Sgt Joch

You really do not understand the risks or dynamic here do you?  So the entire nuclear equation is designed around mutual deterrence through mutual destruction.  In order to sustain mutual deterrence one needs to have full and open visibility of all the facts surrounding that situation.  Fog, false signals and  blind spots create uncertainty in that mutual assurance/deterrence is always unacceptable.  Why?  Because these are human systems and errors are going to happen naturally, we do not need to add to these error probabilities when the stakes are this high.
Attacks on Russia’s nuclear architecture - in this case, their detection tripwires - create uncertainty in the one arena which we cannot have it.  So we don’t care if the Russians are using them as dual use because…and try to follow me here…Ukraine is important, but it is not that important.  Your problem has been that for some time now you have lost objectivity on this whole war to the point that the ends are justified by pretty much any way and means.  You have demonstrated this on many occasions and expressed vigorously your frustrations.  I can sympathize but in this case, you, and any whom may be tempted to go down the same path are very wrong.  The deliberate calculated release of nuclear weapons is very low.  The accidental or uncontrolled release is low but can change very quickly.  We have enough examples of this during the Cold War.  
To your point on Russia  “troop stripping”; this makes the situation worse.  It means Russia is likely down to nuclear deterrence as the sole means of guaranteeing their security…and now Ukraine is hammering their tripwire…that is a phenomenally bad idea.
So, no, it does not matter in the larger strategic equation if these were dual use. It may matter to Ukraine, and even this war, but in the larger picture of global security those radars are as sacrosanct as our own North Warning Systems under NORAD. The West will not support any playing around in this field. They will likely let Kyiv fall first.  So if Ukraine wants support for deep strikes into Russian, of which many are merited…I think we are at that point, strikes on Russian nuclear architecture are off the table entirely even if they are dual purpose.  Agree with me or not.  Stamp your feet and call the US and NATO “cowards” but there is an entire defence and security world out there that no one under the age of 40 really understands.  It faded into the background over the last 30 years, to the point an entire generation of policy makers, diplomats and academics have grown up thinking that it was all over.
It is not.  It never was.  The nature of warfare changed in 1945, not the character, the very nature of it.  Learn to live with it because what comes next is going to make this entire war look quaint, and it will be ruled by this harsh calculus.

If you abandon your principles whenever it gets a bit hard, you don't have any principles.

Bogging in CMx2 has always been on the light side. I worked on a scenario for the last CMFB module and set the ground conditions as “muddy” to force players to stay on the roads, but even when the AI moved AFVs cross country, there was very little bogging.
To minimize chances of bogging, 1) check the off-road rating; 2) check the ground conditions and 3) watch your speed. The faster you go off-road, the greater the chances of bogging.

To do what with exactly?  Choke off the Crimea?  Except for that whole strategic corridor problem of course.  Screw that, the Kerch Bridge would soak up a lot of punishment for not enough gain.  Russia’s ability to attack or defend is not dependent on it right now at all.  Maybe if they got bottled up in the Crimea but that would take breaking the defence in the middle which is no small hill to climb.  Nor will Russia fall by some weird symbolism.  
Use the damned missiles to hit strat LOCs, airfields, ports and C2 nodes to erode the Russia ability to prosecute the war directly.  In the business we call it “shaping”.  Then solve for those minefields and regain operational offensive initiative.  The Kerch Bridge does little to support any of that beyond making us feel better.

That entire theory does not track at all.  The UA already hit that damned bridge and Russia did not buckle.  The idea that if we somehow hit it that it will be the starting gun to internal dissent is the sort of wild theory the critics on the right use against support of Ukraine in this thing.  FFS the UA hit Moscow with long range drones and it did not increase internal dissent.  
Further if the Kerch Bridge is so symbolic that it can topple Russia, then why isn’t the opposite true and it drives support in Russia for this war to all time highs?  I mean if the fate of the Russian people is tied to that bridge Putin should have dropped it himself as a demonstration of just how under siege the greater Russia is by the West.

Well not sure what you are upset about. Haiduk’s attitude seems to be pretty much mainstream in Ukraine. The Ukrainian LGBT community has few of the rights enjoyed in North America, but that has been known for a long time so hardly news. For example, as I understand it, Trans sexuality is still classified as a psychiatric disorder in Ukraine.
The West supports Ukraine because of Russian aggression which means we have a mutual enemy. The West does not choose allies based on shared values, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

Well not sure what you are upset about. Haiduk’s attitude seems to be pretty much mainstream in Ukraine. The Ukrainian LGBT community has few of the rights enjoyed in North America, but that has been known for a long time so hardly news. For example, as I understand it, Trans sexuality is still classified as a psychiatric disorder in Ukraine.
The West supports Ukraine because of Russian aggression which means we have a mutual enemy. The West does not choose allies based on shared values, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

Well not sure what you are upset about. Haiduk’s attitude seems to be pretty much mainstream in Ukraine. The Ukrainian LGBT community has few of the rights enjoyed in North America, but that has been known for a long time so hardly news. For example, as I understand it, Trans sexuality is still classified as a psychiatric disorder in Ukraine.
The West supports Ukraine because of Russian aggression which means we have a mutual enemy. The West does not choose allies based on shared values, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

Since the topic of countering drones came up, the U.S.Navy is confronting the problem head on dealing with Houthi drones and coming up quickly with stopgap solutions.
 

Since the topic of countering drones came up, the U.S.Navy is confronting the problem head on dealing with Houthi drones and coming up quickly with stopgap solutions.
 

As I see it, UAVs reign as a potential Uber weapon will most likely be short lived. On a macro historical level, I suspect we are in 1915 when the Germans deployed a new Uber weapon and the Allies were panicking:
Fokker Scourge - Wikipedia
UAVs are just a new type of aerial weapon and as we have seen over the past 100 years, there has been a constant back and forth between offensive and defensive weapon systems.
Most likely the same general types of defensive systems are being developed:
1. ground based AA defenses: radar/guns/missile/EW to detect and shoot down UAVs before they can reach their targets;
2. air based defenses: fighters/ hunter-killer drones to hunt UAVs in the air and shoot them down.
Most likely within the next 5-10 years, we will have reached the same equilibrium we currently see in traditional aerial warfare.

WWI? WWII? Korea? Falklands? GWI?

You do realise we're arguing the same side here?
A lot of traditional systems seem broken (or wounded, or at least a bit lame due to a gammy knee) right now; navy, fast air, attack aviation, infantry, armour, engineers, logistics, and yes artillery. That's due to a bunch of things; prolific atgms, prolific pgms, lagging mil industrial capability and production, prolific isr, and yes drones.
The way through this dark wood isn't going to be ditching everything and betting the farm on the whirrwhirr.
We *know* that artillery is an important part of the combined arms team. We *know* that artillery is crucial to enabling go-forward offensive maneauvre. It isnt working right now, but as always it'll evolve and indirect fires will resume their place in the go-forward team.

As I see it, UAVs reign as a potential Uber weapon will most likely be short lived. On a macro historical level, I suspect we are in 1915 when the Germans deployed a new Uber weapon and the Allies were panicking:
Fokker Scourge - Wikipedia
UAVs are just a new type of aerial weapon and as we have seen over the past 100 years, there has been a constant back and forth between offensive and defensive weapon systems.
Most likely the same general types of defensive systems are being developed:
1. ground based AA defenses: radar/guns/missile/EW to detect and shoot down UAVs before they can reach their targets;
2. air based defenses: fighters/ hunter-killer drones to hunt UAVs in the air and shoot them down.
Most likely within the next 5-10 years, we will have reached the same equilibrium we currently see in traditional aerial warfare.

Basically, because they are still situations where a gun is useful, whether stopping enemy/hostile vessels, supporting ground troops, etc. where a missile would not work or would be overkill. 
Most modern warships, like U.S. or RN destroyers also only typically have 1x 4.5 or 5 inch gun as its main gun armament.

Basically, because they are still situations where a gun is useful, whether stopping enemy/hostile vessels, supporting ground troops, etc. where a missile would not work or would be overkill. 
Most modern warships, like U.S. or RN destroyers also only typically have 1x 4.5 or 5 inch gun as its main gun armament.

Basically, because they are still situations where a gun is useful, whether stopping enemy/hostile vessels, supporting ground troops, etc. where a missile would not work or would be overkill. 
Most modern warships, like U.S. or RN destroyers also only typically have 1x 4.5 or 5 inch gun as its main gun armament.

Basically, because they are still situations where a gun is useful, whether stopping enemy/hostile vessels, supporting ground troops, etc. where a missile would not work or would be overkill. 
Most modern warships, like U.S. or RN destroyers also only typically have 1x 4.5 or 5 inch gun as its main gun armament.

Can we please lay off beating on our brother Erwin at this point? I think people made their points on the merits, let's turn down the ad homs.
...For those who forgot life before Feb 2022, he's put a *gigantic* amount of effort into this community.

I've been spending some time working on skins for vehicles I didn't have mods for and thought I'd share them with anyone who still has some armor that looks like it just came from the factory.  Some vehicles have different camo versions based on their theater of war and will work with the other WWII Combat Mission titles since the models are all identical.  For those vehicles, I've labeled the subfolders based on the game the camo pattern was from.  
Just unzip and place the files in the .../Combat Mission Fortress Italy/data/Z folder.  Remember to only choose one folder if a zip file contains multiple camo options.    
 

Fiat 626:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zs8JCCfvf6eyCRXQN3iy34YDr9uO84j0/view?usp=drive_link
Marder II:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_uQi4o_puJ2IGaU0Wuk6rLdIi42J-EKC/view?usp=drive_link
PSW 233:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fc2rUUfg6fx5tbnxhSiv7px5LQfPPEw6/view?usp=drive_link
Sdkf 10/5:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xm56gujYLYBooCeamCsMQRHd0v9rsYhv/view?usp=drive_link
Semovente 75:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eW8kOULwwUBnI81uCLZzn7UP4CmGW55D/view?usp=drive_link
Semovente 90:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bGViX3Nm1HIw7sTbQ-92ca4C5jM9PZ5N/view?usp=drive_link
 
I haven't figured out yet how to submit these to the Few Good Men website but at some point, I'll try to get them posted there.  
 

My notes for using Sov tactics to beat the Germans/NATO in RT/CW:
Time spent on recon is never wasted.
Time and resources spent killing enemy recon is never wasted. 
Have a plan and execute it. 
The artillery fire plan supports the maneuver plan. The maneuver plan dictates the fire plan and these must be mutually supportive. 
A company of Sov tanks spots better than any single German/NATO tank. If you're fighting a 1:1 tank duel you're doing it wrong. 
Take away the better spotting offered by the German/NATO tanker habit of fighting unbuttoned. Get them heads down to decrease their situational awareness. 
When you attack, attack! Don't poke him with one finger at a time. Make a fist and crush the enemy with overwhelming force. 
Use a platoon to crush a squad > use a company to crush a platoon >> use a battalion to crush a squad. Fair fights are for suckers.
Keep pressing attacks until they aren't feasible anymore, but don't reinforce failure. The Germans/Americans never have enough troops/tanks. 
Just because you have mass doesn't mean the only way forwards is a frontal assault. There are other ways to win that don't involve sticking your dick into the meat grinder until it jams. Recon routes that bypass the enemy, the Germans/NATO never have enough troops/tanks to cover every avenue of approach. Infantry infiltration is a thing.
AT if you're playing the Sov: 
RT: Your best AT weapon is your tanks. Your infantry doesn't have any good AT weapons outside of close assault. Use your infantry to get spots on enemy tanks and relay that info to the tanks. Don't be afraid to dismount tank crews so they can push forward and get their own spots. On the attack push AT guns forward to support the enemy. 
CW: RPGs will knock out a M60 from the front. Your man portable ATGMs (>AT3s) are even more scary. Use infiltration tactics to get the ATGMs forward into range to support attacks. Make sure to protect the carriers since they are stuffed with reloads and make big boom if hit. 
Take your time, don't be in a rush to die. You'll probably run out of people, tanks, and/or ammo before you run out of time. 
 
Urban warfare: 
Don't move in the streets. Mouseholing is optimum, then back gardens, then alleyways. Stay out of the streets. Use supporting weapons to create mouseholes and gaps in walls. 
Don't go in through the front door. If you can arrange it start at the top and clear down. 
Suppress every building that has line of sight to your maneuvering force. If you can't suppress or smoke it don't move that way.  
H
 

article on the War Zone showing no damage at Russian airbase despite claim by UKR of 6 AC destroyed/8 damaged.
https://www.twz.com/news-features/no-major-damage-seen-at-russian-air-base-after-drone-attack
Just shows again that we should always be sceptical of claims until they are verified.

Just to add to this, as WW2 went on, it was common for combat leaders to use tactics that worked as opposed to following doctrine, which usually meant copying what the Germans were doing. So TC fought unbuttoned, fighter pilots followed Luftwaffe organization and tactics, infantry attacked in small groups with heavy AFV/artillery support, etc. Soviet HQ knew it and looked the other way, as long as it worked. This is confirmed by a lot of memoirs/histories.

As pointed out above, assets like the Wespe or the Priest can only be used in a direct fire mode if they are an on-map asset. You can only use them in an indirect fire mode if they were purchased as an off map artillery asset. 
On the other issue, when you want to issue an order to a on-map mortar, you need to have a radio and C2 link from the spotter to the mortar. There is an exception as explained in the CM Engine Manual 4.0 (page 77):