Sgt Joch

Operation Barbarossa did pretty much as well as it could, starting a few weeks earlier or capturing Moscow would not have made a difference in the long run. The Op was based on the belief that the Communist regime would implode. That was not the case in hindsight, but at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption based on opinion of Russian emigres, the purges in the Russian army and Russian performance in the Finnish war. US and UK in 41 also expected Russia to collapse.
Once it was obvious Russia was fighting on, the Germans had to face the fact that the logistic challenges made it impossible to conquer all of Russia. Based on pre-Op planning, the Germans estimated that the maximum that they could supply their troops was 500 km from the bases and that is where the initial offensive petered out in July. After that, they had to move bases forward to support additional offensives. Problem was the railroad network was inadequate, not just the type, but the number. The Germans needed at least one dedicated rail line per army, they fielded around 10 armies, but they could only count on really one rail line per Army Group, so troops on the front line were always short of everything. Best example is winter clothing. The Germans had all the winter clothing they needed for the entire armies in the east in storage in Germany and Poland, problem was the entire rail capacity in Russia was taken up by fuel, ammo and food so they were unable to transport winter clothing to the front line troops.

Operation Barbarossa did pretty much as well as it could, starting a few weeks earlier or capturing Moscow would not have made a difference in the long run. The Op was based on the belief that the Communist regime would implode. That was not the case in hindsight, but at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption based on opinion of Russian emigres, the purges in the Russian army and Russian performance in the Finnish war. US and UK in 41 also expected Russia to collapse.
Once it was obvious Russia was fighting on, the Germans had to face the fact that the logistic challenges made it impossible to conquer all of Russia. Based on pre-Op planning, the Germans estimated that the maximum that they could supply their troops was 500 km from the bases and that is where the initial offensive petered out in July. After that, they had to move bases forward to support additional offensives. Problem was the railroad network was inadequate, not just the type, but the number. The Germans needed at least one dedicated rail line per army, they fielded around 10 armies, but they could only count on really one rail line per Army Group, so troops on the front line were always short of everything. Best example is winter clothing. The Germans had all the winter clothing they needed for the entire armies in the east in storage in Germany and Poland, problem was the entire rail capacity in Russia was taken up by fuel, ammo and food so they were unable to transport winter clothing to the front line troops.

Some of my favourites 
 
 

guilty pleasure.
standard story, but well told and well acted.
 

This is not a new development. Russia is not worried about the Taliban and Afghanistan as such, but they are worried about rising islamic radicalism among the muslim populations along their southern borders. There is a large number of migrant workers from that area that regularly come to work in Russia so the potential for political unrest/terrorism is high.
I see they are also planning to activate a base in Tajikistan.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/07/07/russia-says-ready-to-activate-tajik-military-base-amid-us-pullout-taliban-advance-in-afghanistan-a74450

Hi, bit late to this, but if you are still looking check here at the RAF photo archive, they have aerial photos of pretty much all of western europe in WW2:
NCAP - National Collection of Aerial Photography | NCAP - National Collection of Aerial Photography
edit: type "Malmedy" in the search bar and 3 photos are listed, all taken on december 24, 1944.

Because there is some small variation from the platoon in the standard Grenadier battalion, it requires a distinguishing label in the TO&E.  In this case all the Sturm company subordinate platoons are noted as being part of this Sturm company org, and in the case of the 3rd platoon, it carries the “heavier” load of MGs and MG ammo.
In reality it was “1. And 2. Sturm Zug” and “3. Zug” which you can rename them to if you wish, but the game requires something more specific to keep sub-units separate in the TO&E.

Well HMS Defender entered Russian territorial waters with all weapons loaded, everyone at action station, prepared to defend itself, ignoring all orders from Russian authorities and not recognizing that Russia even has jurisdiction. That is not "innocent passage" by any stretch of the imagination.
The much better legal argument is the one made by Haiduk that Crimea is still Ukrainian territory and HMS Defender had the legal consent of Ukraine to enter the territory.
But even that is a legal fantasy which ignores the reality of the ground. Crimea is now part of Russia and will be for the foreseeable future. Trying to analyse this from a legal point of view misses the point. Russia seized Crimea by force and now must use force to hold on to it  until the fact is eventually recognized by the rest of the world.
The issue for Russia is more how to act or react. Firing on or seizing Ukrainian vessels is one thing, sinking a RN ship would be a major escalation which could trigger WW3. OTOH Russia has to enforce its borders if it wants the rest of the world to respect them. This is a major game of chicken and the question is who will blink first.

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

not the same issue, those subs were outside UK territorial waters. UK and USA would react differently if a Russian vessel entered the 12 miles limit.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-bombers-intercepted-miles-us-airspace/story?id=71171943
Remember Turkey shot down a Russian jet and it was over its territory for only 17 seconds.

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

not the same issue, those subs were outside UK territorial waters. UK and USA would react differently if a Russian vessel entered the 12 miles limit.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-bombers-intercepted-miles-us-airspace/story?id=71171943
Remember Turkey shot down a Russian jet and it was over its territory for only 17 seconds.

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

The revised campaign was made mostly to address an issue which no longer exists. When CMBN originally came out in 2011, the suppression model was weak. One workaround was to lower the experience level, so PT remade the campaign using mostly "green" US troops instead of "regulars".
Since then however, BFC substantially reworked and improved the suppression model so the workaround is no longer required. The campaign still works, I played the revised version 2-3 years ago, but the combination of "green" troops and the revised suppression model means your troops are more brittle and required careful handling.
The version that ships with the game has mostly "regular" U.S. troops and is easier than the revised version.

Both of those are easy in real life, and would certainly be done. The second is simply "Repeat, over" assuming that you want the same mission again immediately after. The FO can also request a mission final data be recorded as a new TRP, then making it easy to call another FFE a bit later, when "Repeat" wouldn't be appropriate. In the first case the FDC would automatically assume that the first FFE wasn't effective enough and more rounds needed, since no adjustment was given.
The first would be something like FFE, same data, [new target description].  The FO provides the target description, and the FDC sets the mission parameters based on that (battery 3, or whatever, where "battery 3" means 3 rounds from each of all 6 guns - they will be fired as fast as each gun reloads, no waiting, unless there is some reason not to) So his initial mission description might have been something like "infantry patrol in the open" and the new one could be, say, "mechanized infantry platoon in the open"  That gets a much bigger response from the FDC.
Dave
(amazing how this stuff comes back when answering questions 🙂 )
 

The FO's position is generally NOT known to the FDC (Fire Direction Center). And like I said, it's not really necessary to know. The FO is walking or riding with the infantry. The FDC will only know very generally where that is. That's why one of the parts of a call for fire is the FO providing his azimuth to the target. The FDC doesn't know WHERE he is except he's on that line plotted back from the target, but providing that azimuth gives them the FO's reference as to what the FO is saying is Left/Right or Add/Drop corrections. Plot those corrections, then calculate new firing data to that new plotted point as deflection and elevation for the guns. The guns don't get L/R A/D - they get deflection and elevation and time (if applicable) provided by the FDC, which is in control of the mission. 
Sorry, not sure which HQ are you talking about when you say in contact with the HQ? As a FIST Chief I was within reach out and touch distance of the infantry company commander so it was really easy for him to say "Get me some fire on this hilltop" or whatever. The FOs walk or ride with the Platoon Leader, so same thing there (CW period) In WW2 you usually had a FO with each infantry company, not platoons (talking US). So the FO might be with the Co Cdr in which case he'd get a request relayed from a platoon leader, or he could be up front with the lead or center company and then could directly call it because he's looking at it (whatever "it" is) Depends on the situation (that's a running joke in the Army "Depends on the Situation"). 
If you are going to call a fire mission on a TRP, the FDC has the list of TRPs and firing data for them and will send that firing data to the guns/mortars. If it's a grid location, then the FDC calculates on the fly data to hit that point. The guns don't have firing data. The FDC provides it. The guns have no permission to fire until the FDC sends them the elevation data. With that data they are free to fire. They will have already been told something like "battery 3 rounds HE, Time" of something similar while data is being calculated so they are busy getting the rounds ready to go. 
I know you keep talking about 60mm mortars and they generally will not have TRPs to work with. Pointless because 60mm mortars are always moving. No use having a bunch of TRP data, when you have to figure out new firing data every time you move for a short range weapon. They are meant to be close support weapons and they are more of a special case. There you would estimate range, figure an elevation to hit it, determine adjustments, dial them in, fire again. 
Thing to remember about TRPs is that they are preselected, then the firing unit calculates firing data to each of them FROM ONE KNOWN LOCATION. If they subsequently move their battery position they have to recalculate all that data - deflection and elevation and time from the NEW battery location to the TRP.
Hope that helps.
Dave

It's been so long that I can't remember exactly what the standards were that we were required to meet, but from a battery in a set position, if I remember, I believe we had to have the first adjusting round out in 2 minutes or less from the end of the call for fire being received. That would be the same for a FFE mission.
We planned to be on the move quite a bit to avoid counter-battery fire, so a "hipshoot" where you get a fire mission while driving to a new position, I think we had either 6 or 9 minutes, can't remember for sure. 15 minutes to fire off the drop zone after a parachute drop. (THAT one is a real challenge).
We were fast and consistently beat the required times. I had an excellent fire direction center team. My team sergeant was outstanding and we worked really well together.
I think the times are realistic. In CW and BS the times are longer than what I would normally expect, but the electronic warfare environment is to blame for that. Makes it much harder to communicate. That extra time would simulate trouble getting the call for fire to the battery and communicating adjustments. Calculating data and firing the rounds wouldn't' be affected. So overall, yes, I think they are in the ballpark. Note though that I can only speak for US, British and Canadian (I've had experience on exchanges with British and Canadian artillery and they are much the same as the US).

Dave

Not sure where this story of the "myth" of Omaha Beach came from. I read Balkoski's "Beyond the Beachhead" which deals with the experiences of the U.S. 29th infantry division in Normandy:
Beyond The Beachhead: Balkoski, Joseph: 9780811732376: Books - Amazon.ca
The 29th is the one that landed on "Dog Green Beach", the one portrayed in SPR. As in SPR, the beach was right in front of several German bunkers/MG nests with an open field of fire on the beach. The first two assault waves on the beach, consisting of two companies were wiped out, suffering 90-95% casualties within seconds of hitting the beach. Several Landing crafts suffered 100% casualties. All the officers were killed or wounded.
1st wave, company A, 1st battalion, 116th regiment:
2nd wave, company B, 1st battalion, 116th regiment:
116th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
So if anything, SPR actually minimises the actual conditions of Dog Green beach.
Note that conditions on Omaha were hit or miss that day. Some of the first assault waves on Omaha which landed 1 mile east of Dog Green were partially obscured by smoke and managed to land with zero casualties, So like everything else in war, luck can play a big role.
Note that Omaha was also not the only place where the fighting was tough, some of the Canadian companies landing in the 1st wave on Juno suffered up to 50% casualties when landing.

Ideally 10 meters or less distance, they will attack on their own, throwing grenades or charges, if not, just use the target command.

Evening all,
@Juju has announced that he was stepping back from modding and after working as a tester for a few of his releases and then helping out directly with R2V he's graciously offered to handover the care of his long running UI mod to me. As he said, "Please look after my kids". JuJu has provided me with all the original .psd files now so it's easier to update and add things in with the new content matching pretty close to the existing mod. This is still well and truly his mod. Now I'm no artist but have been labouring away behind the scenes for a few hours every week and learning quite a bit as I go along. Please be a bit more patient.
There's been no CMRT F&R update from me but this is because I'm trying to hit these three goals before sending to Bootie for upload to CMMODS. Number 3 is the big one but a huge time saver going forward.
1) CMRT F&R Update - Done - just tweaking  (I may release this separately so you can overlay it on top of your existing UI mod). Also fixes the mod to reflect the changes that were brought in with the background panels in the update.
2) CMFI R2V Update - Fixing up some of my mess with shadows and colour correction in the last release.
3) Mod Unification Project - JuJu had different background textures for each family which made the workload quite high with not a lot being easily transferable between the families.. well without standing out like a saw thumb. I'm switching this around so for example the same M1 Garand Weapon Slot texture will now fit in in CMFI, CMBN and CMFB. Over time there's also been updated different icons for the same weapon, vehicle and special equipment icons between the families so I'm unifying the look there as well. CMFB icons get the preference given the slightly better detail. This also makes life a lot easier if and when future modules are released.
I should says this doesn't mean the all the mods will now look identical, the exact opposite, however the comment elements like weapon slots will carry across the game families. Think of it as the kids are still unique but I'm sending them to school and making them wear something resembling a uniform.
A few things that I'm not continuing or putting on the table now so there is no shocks later on. Most of this is largely due to time and I have no idea how to set up an script for the Paint.net to do some of this repetitive work automatically. Batch processing doesn't appear to be a thing. (I'm not paying subscription money to Adobe).
- Reducing the options for the "Yellow Weapon Slot" textures to just the red cross option. The many options JuJu provided over the years here is an absolute time sync to create each one by one for every weapon BF has modeled in WW2 era CM2. It's actually an enormous list now! I won't rule it out down the track to bringing some of them back or doing something new here. Vinnart has already had an interesting idea, but I want to get something out sooner rather than later.
- Portraits - Will fill in the gaps if I can get crafty enough and it meets my own (probably too) high bar. These are tough to get looking right. Backgrounds will be tweaked to sort of match the uniform of each branch to separate them out a touch. (See preview pics).
- Never going into Cold War or the Modern titles. JuJu didn't and neither will I.
 
Preview pics (I know about the black line running through the centre panel).

Ohhhh, start of mission 2...epic...
 

hmm, good question. I am not sure infantry will move through barbed wires. As I recall, when you give them a movement order over the wire, they either try to go around it or just cancel the order.
I usually just blast a hole through it using engineers or a tracked vehicle.
edit. - yes, the manual is not well worded. Infantry cannot move directly through barbed wire.

Soviet Artillery in WW2 was very inflexible compared to other nations, many reasons for that. Heavy artillery was only used in pre-planned barrages or in pre-planned fire plans. They were not used for "on call" support as is typical in other armies.
To simulate that in game, only FOs can call in the heavy stuff and it has a long delay so it is only really useful as a 1st turn pre-planned barrage.
I am pretty sure that has been discussed various times when RT first came out.
 

I was playing a campaign in FI a few months back (latest version), Operation Encore, scenarios are at night or in forest so enemy troops were often discovered at very close range, often 10 meters or less, my U.S. pixeltruppens whether given an attack order or acting on their own would throw lots of grenades to great effect, so your pixeltruppens will use grenades when the time is right.

Regardless of whether or not you're right or wrong, your method of communication really needs some serious recalibration.