Sgt Joch

yes, there have been "visible minority" pixeltruppen since SF1 days.
Here is a CW screenshot I took some times back.

yes, there have been "visible minority" pixeltruppen since SF1 days.
Here is a CW screenshot I took some times back.

The Mavericks in CW are the early model with optical guidance which uses a low resolution black and white monitor. Accurate enough to see and target, but not enough to say if it is friendly or enemy. Plus you are talking about a single seat plane where the pilot has to do everything at once (except for F4 of course). 
The ability to be able to ID targets really began with the Pave Tack pods deployed in the F-111 and F-4 beginning in 1982.
Currently the Maverick is probably too accurate for the period with a PK close to 100%, but that is another discussion. 😎
I may not have explained it properly. The game assumes there is an abstract airborne FAC so gound troops can call in air strikes, but the call goes to an airborne FAC, hence the delay. As it is the 13 min delay is probably too short, it should probably be in the 20 minutes range, but this is a game after all.
That is a compromise that has been around since SF days since you have to account for helos, as well as fast jets. It basically means there is an enemy target around that spot, see if you can find it and kill it. We can argue about how big it should be, but it would not be realistic IMHO to have planes roaming all over the battlefield picking off enemy units at low risk to friendly units.

Here is the FAC procedure in more detail. This is from late 60s/early 70s in Vietnam:
01preface.qxd (defense.gov)  (pp. 316-317)

M60A3 TTS and M1 have a thermal gunner’s sight and the commander has a repeater window to see what the gunner sees, no need to unbutton those models.

known issue, already on 1st patch list.

just some quick things I gleaned from a quick look on the internet.
-jan. 1980 report to Congress by Sec Def: estimate that 75% of Soviet tanks in CFSG are T62s;
-CIA estimate that by 1983 50% of Soviet tanks in Western military district would be “modern” T64/72/80 which would mean 50% were still older T55/62s;
-OOB from 1989 showing 23% of all Soviet tanks were still T62s.
it is not too hard to crunch numbers and see T62s were not phased out as quickly as the Soviets wanted.

Well military manufacturing really doesn't work that way.  Re-tooling to a new round would come with same startup costs etc.  These things are not binary (Fri we made BM22s and on Mon now we make BM 29s), nor was how industrial contract were distributed.  This also assumes a linear production model, when it was more likely a curve upward with a slow start and then most production done in the early 80s.
It does and not the first time I have heard it, nor do I think BM22s were absent in the late 70s (obviously), so what?  I agree with the intro dates but am still not entirely sold on that statement....I can't do both?  The question here is BM22s to T64As, which based on introduction of both items most likely saw a transition period over the period of our game.  Of course if this is going to devolve into some sort of Reddit games, from the article you posted (English translation):
"For example, in 1977 it was possible to equip  six tank and motorized rifle divisions with  T-64A tanks" [note, not the 8 you claim later in your post]
"But when the "sixty-fours" were pulled out of the inner districts, it turned out that the Kharkov plant (KhZTM), the only manufacturer of the  T-64 , was not able to provide the required rate of equipping the GSVG with new tanks. During 1978,  T-64A tanks  received only 25 Guards. Panzer (Vogelsang) and 21 motorized rifle (Perleberg) divisions." [And there would be the delays I was talking about]
"In 1980, two more units were equipped with new machines. But there were still many formations on the  T-62 , for example, the 7th Guards. etc., separate tank regiments of army subordination.  By the end of 1980, it became finally clear to the military-political leadership of the USSR that the industry was not able to provide the required rate of renewal of tanks in the GSVG."  [It got worse]
 So by your articles admission T64 introduction into the GSVG was slow and delayed but somehow the mountains of BM22 ammunition arrived entirely on target on time? This does not point to "massive stockpiles" of BM22s in 1979, now does it?  It points to normal communist inefficiencies and general FUBARness which leads to there being a lot more T62s in the game and T64As having to live with older ammo.
  Again, not digital (emphasis mine).  So the Soviets had stockpiles of BM15s, in depots in Western Germany and on Jan 1st 1976, while cleaning up after New Years, they packed them all up and shipped them all out of country.  "Oh, look those (much fewer) T64s have shown up but again the factories have not kept up with BM22 production (which they just started this year), oh well I guess we will roll out empty."
  Tell you what, because as fun as this is it is a bit of a time suck.  You go out and find some hard data on BM15 vs BM22 stockpiles in the GSVG between 1977-1982, if you can find something that says "zero BM15s and 10 million BM22s", I will buy you a virtual beer.  While you are doing that, I will go back to central and try to get a T64A (1980) version that had the BM22 loaded on it.
 

The problem with adding years is that it did not really work that way. This is not like WW2 where a model would come out, be obsolete in 6-12 months and replaced by a newer model. M60s were in service for a long time. By the time you get to 1980 ish, M48s and early M60s were obsolescent and were being withdrawn from front line service. The remaining early M60s in good shape were being upgraded to RISE Passive standard which could mostly be done in Army depots during regular maintenance. But the U.S. Army did not have a special designation for that, all seemed to have just been called M60 RISE Passive after conversion/upgrades, so technically there were very few original M60A1/RISE/RISE+ in front line service in Germany in that period. Mix seems to have been 75-80% M60A1 RISE Passive of total U.S. tank strength in Germany.
So to be really accurate, BFC could have just modelled the RISE Passive and ignored all the early models. 
In game, the RISE Passive has the M735 and the newer A3s/M1 the M774. Both will kill Soviet Tanks, although the M735 has trouble killing T-64/80s from the front.
Even on the Soviet side, most players don't seem to realize that the most common tank in the GSFG in the early 80s was the T-62 which apparently made up between 50-75% of the tank park.

looks nice, I had read about this OP in Terry Copp's "Cinderella Army", looking forward to giving it a spin.

Hello, 
Just wanted to let those that might be interested my campaign ‘Operation Undergo -Gris Nez’ has been finally released! It has been uploaded to the scenario depot and its ready to be downloaded (link is below). I have included some information too as to what it is about and basic requirements. 
What do I need: CM:BN, CW, Market Garden and Vehicle Pack.
What forces will I command? 2 Canadian Infantry Battalions, Squadron of Sherman Tanks, 1 Troop of Churchill Crocodile, Petard and Sherman Flails (not all in the same battle do not worry 😉). And a tonne of artillery!  
How is it meant to be played: Player (Canada) vs German AI 
What size battles can I expect? About company strength for the most part. A third of the campaign is set at commanding battalion strength. 
Type of maps: Typically reminiscent of the Calais region. Rolling hills, semi open, semi bocage semi woodland.  
Historical or not: Semi-Historical
How long is it? 10 or 11 battles 
When does it take place: September ’44. 
What do I get with it? 
- Northern Master Map 
- Southern Master Map
- 25 page Campaign Design Booklet PDF including OOB
- Picture of Battalion Company movements (was not able to include this in campaign briefing although it is useful for reference)  
- Campaign Progression Tables (Battle order) 
Has it been tested? Yes. I have only been able to find people that have been in a position to try the first and second battles respectively – everything thereafter I have tested myself. I have gone through it fully about 7 or 8  times now and feel it is at a point for release. 

Those that are familiar with the history of Undergo, particularly at Gris Nez will know roughly what to expect. I should mention this my first campaign that I have designed, and as such it does therefore commit some absolute cardinal sins over what really makes an effective engaging campaign, which I have learned from. That being said, if you want a campaign which follows the actions at Gris Nez as accurately as I could get them, well your about to experience the often-forgotten battles for the coastal garrisons in September of 1944.
And finally…some pictures….  






Has it put you off from making more campaigns: Absolutely not? Working on the next one already. 
 
Download link: CMBN CW: Operation Undergo – Gris Nez (thefewgoodmen.com)

yes, AI artillery works the same as for the player, so any unit that has line of sight and can call in artillery may or will. For the Soviets, only FOs can call in the heavy stuff, but pretty much any HQ unit can call in mortars.
The AI is very good and quick at calling in artillery, so act as if you were playing a human: don't bunch up your troops, don't linger in LOS too long and if you see a random spotting shot falling nearby, you can be sure a barrage is not far behind.

Let's take a closer look at the AOK 9 records on this Hungarian excursion:
Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 is last shown on AOK 9 list of einsatzbereiten (operational) panzers on Oct. 10, 1944.  

There is then no mention of Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 in the operational panzer holdings or transport records until Oct. 15, when the company is noted as in transport from XXXXVI Pz.K. to Budapest by train:

However, departure from Warsaw does not happen until the evening of Oct. 17:

Two days after departure, Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 has switched from the Abtransport section to the Zuführung section. It is on the train to Budapest, but will be returned to the Warsaw area:

The following day the company arrives back in Warsaw at 12:10 a.m.  The entire "Hungarian jaunt" was no more than 52.5 hours.  Today (not 1944, not wartime) the train from Warsaw to Budapest one way takes 10.5 hours. I have serious doubts the company even made it to Budapest before being rerouted back to Warsaw.

Then the next day Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 is back on the operational panzer list, but with one Sturmtiger instead of two: 

Does this mean that one of the Sturmtigers was lost during the "Hungarian jaunt"? Not necessarily because this is a list of operational panzers, not all panzers.  It's quite possible that one of the Sturmtigers suffered some sort of irreparable mechanical casualty during this period and remained off the operational list until the company returned to Germany Nov. 22. In fact, given the shuttling back and forth, this seems plausible.
Source: NARA T-312 R-348

Well, trying to argue that Guderian was a liar to get Sturmtigers into a game is a bit...gamey.
Pretty much all the top Nazis/Germans who wrote biographies after the war embellished their role in the war, but why would Guderian lie about such a minor point that only wargamers 70 years later would care about?
Given Guderian’s position as inspector general of the Armored forces and then chief of staff at Hitler’s HQ, I would think he would have first hand knowledge about this.
p.s. - I actually read his book a very long time ago, and unlike many other accounts by former Nazis.....I mean German generals, I thought he came off as very professional.

I know what you mean.
But, here's some inside ball: you've heard all the "gotta test to make sure a 'fix' doesn't break something else", right?
My contribution to CW is very small compared to the incredible work that others have done. But, here's a sample of what I put into this. There was a question about spotting. (This is the type of observed behavior followed by rigorous testing that discovered the infamous Tiger gunner sitting sideways issue.) In order to dig into the particular issue in CW, I created some tests. In the course of these, I entered, individually and by hand, 13,500 data points. Pause, look, type, tab: repeat thirteen thousand and five hundred times.
Let me repeat that: 13,500 individually entered data points. Painful? Oh, yes.
The result? The game rocks.
Now, if there were patches released each week, they would NOT get this type of detailed testing.
(There's a game, not naming it, but has to do with Commanding air and naval stuff, in a Modern setting, at an Operational scale, that releases patches (and beta patches) pretty frequently. You can pretty much bet that each one breaks something. A sonar fidelity increase means ballistic missiles don't get intercepted.)
I'm a gamer, like you. We all would like a perfect game. Or, a better game sooner.
This is how it is, and it works pretty darn well...
Ken

it is hard to get exact info due to the ongoing conflict, most of what we know is what shows up on open sources. We actually have a thread in the Beta forum where we keep tabs on this stuff for the next module.
Basically, the Ukrainian forces are like in CMBS, but they have received a lot of new/updated equipment from US and NATO countries: Javelin ATGMs, modern Drones, new artillery equipment, new vehicles, night vision glasses which should now put them on par with Russian forces. They have also been upgrading their T-64 tanks, the new model is a bit different from the one we have in CMBS.
The most unusual bit of kit is that Ukraine is now getting their RPG-7s from the USA. For some unknown reason, Russia stopped supplying those so the US stepped in by producing an exact clone known as the PSRL.
On paper, Ukrainian forces are more powerful than in 2014-15.

it is hard to get exact info due to the ongoing conflict, most of what we know is what shows up on open sources. We actually have a thread in the Beta forum where we keep tabs on this stuff for the next module.
Basically, the Ukrainian forces are like in CMBS, but they have received a lot of new/updated equipment from US and NATO countries: Javelin ATGMs, modern Drones, new artillery equipment, new vehicles, night vision glasses which should now put them on par with Russian forces. They have also been upgrading their T-64 tanks, the new model is a bit different from the one we have in CMBS.
The most unusual bit of kit is that Ukraine is now getting their RPG-7s from the USA. For some unknown reason, Russia stopped supplying those so the US stepped in by producing an exact clone known as the PSRL.
On paper, Ukrainian forces are more powerful than in 2014-15.

"effective range" is hard to define. We have had veterans who said they have been able to hit targets reliably at 600 meters with 5.56 mm ammo with ACOG sights. 5.56 ammo can also, in theory, penetrate up to 3 mm of steel at 600 meters, so it has more than enough energy to wound or incapacitate someone at that range.
The 300 meters effective range for 5.56 mmm comes from the fact that the round's trajectory is relatively flat out to 300 meters and then drops off rapidly, so out to 300 meters you can pretty much hit whatever you aim at. This is an important point since in a firefight, everyone will seek cover as soon as they hear gunfire so opportunities to actually target an enemy soldier are over very quickly.
Note that using the same criteria, the effective range of 7.62 mm ammo is only 400 meters, after which the round drops off quickly.
As to why 5.56 mm ammo was adopted, post war studies found that the average firefights in WW2 took place at ranges of 200 meters or less and that relatively few infantry casualties were inflicted by firearms, most were inflicted by mortars/artillery fire. The major role of infantry fire is to pin down enemy troops that can then be broken by mortar/artillery fire.
5.56 ammo weighs roughly half what 7.62 ammmo weighs so, in theory, you can carry 2x as much which gives you more time to fire and pin down enemy units.
Now in theory, it is true that 5.56 mm firerarms can be outranged by 7.62 mm firearms, but in a typical combat scenario, your 5.56 ammo equipped infantry units will be backed up by sufficent longer range heavy weapons to more than make up for the difference.
The problem with many studies critical of 5.56 mm ammo is that they compare 5.56 vs 7.62 in isolation

Ukraine is a bit weaker, yes, but not enough to make a difference. Russia and Ukraine have much of the same equipment and organization, although Russia has some newer kit.
Tactics for both sides are the same, basically standard combined arms tactics. Whatever gets spotted first will usually get killed, so plenty of recon, plenty of overwatch, covering fire, etc. 

"effective range" is hard to define. We have had veterans who said they have been able to hit targets reliably at 600 meters with 5.56 mm ammo with ACOG sights. 5.56 ammo can also, in theory, penetrate up to 3 mm of steel at 600 meters, so it has more than enough energy to wound or incapacitate someone at that range.
The 300 meters effective range for 5.56 mmm comes from the fact that the round's trajectory is relatively flat out to 300 meters and then drops off rapidly, so out to 300 meters you can pretty much hit whatever you aim at. This is an important point since in a firefight, everyone will seek cover as soon as they hear gunfire so opportunities to actually target an enemy soldier are over very quickly.
Note that using the same criteria, the effective range of 7.62 mm ammo is only 400 meters, after which the round drops off quickly.
As to why 5.56 mm ammo was adopted, post war studies found that the average firefights in WW2 took place at ranges of 200 meters or less and that relatively few infantry casualties were inflicted by firearms, most were inflicted by mortars/artillery fire. The major role of infantry fire is to pin down enemy troops that can then be broken by mortar/artillery fire.
5.56 ammo weighs roughly half what 7.62 ammmo weighs so, in theory, you can carry 2x as much which gives you more time to fire and pin down enemy units.
Now in theory, it is true that 5.56 mm firerarms can be outranged by 7.62 mm firearms, but in a typical combat scenario, your 5.56 ammo equipped infantry units will be backed up by sufficent longer range heavy weapons to more than make up for the difference.
The problem with many studies critical of 5.56 mm ammo is that they compare 5.56 vs 7.62 in isolation

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.

I was a very militant communist during the late 70s-early 80s when I was young and thought I could change the world, but that is another story.
Most young "communists" back then were actually Marxists who thought of the Soviet Union as being only slightly better than the USA. Most Marxists believed the type of state controlled economy in the USSR set up under Lenin and Stalin had little to do with Marx's original concept and was just a different style of imperialism and capitalism with a governing class made up of top Party bureaucrats. The left-wing political filmmaker Costa Gravas released "The Confession" in the early 70s which was a powerful indictment against the Stalinist show trials in Czechoslovakia in the early 50s which had a big impact on many of us back then.
The point is that it is extremely doubtful any of the Euro communists who were actually more social-democrats than real hardline communists would have seen a Soviet invasion as a "liberation". They would actually be more likely to want to defend western democracy which despite all its flaws is still better than Soviet style "People's Democracy".

I was a very militant communist during the late 70s-early 80s when I was young and thought I could change the world, but that is another story.
Most young "communists" back then were actually Marxists who thought of the Soviet Union as being only slightly better than the USA. Most Marxists believed the type of state controlled economy in the USSR set up under Lenin and Stalin had little to do with Marx's original concept and was just a different style of imperialism and capitalism with a governing class made up of top Party bureaucrats. The left-wing political filmmaker Costa Gravas released "The Confession" in the early 70s which was a powerful indictment against the Stalinist show trials in Czechoslovakia in the early 50s which had a big impact on many of us back then.
The point is that it is extremely doubtful any of the Euro communists who were actually more social-democrats than real hardline communists would have seen a Soviet invasion as a "liberation". They would actually be more likely to want to defend western democracy which despite all its flaws is still better than Soviet style "People's Democracy".

I was a very militant communist during the late 70s-early 80s when I was young and thought I could change the world, but that is another story.
Most young "communists" back then were actually Marxists who thought of the Soviet Union as being only slightly better than the USA. Most Marxists believed the type of state controlled economy in the USSR set up under Lenin and Stalin had little to do with Marx's original concept and was just a different style of imperialism and capitalism with a governing class made up of top Party bureaucrats. The left-wing political filmmaker Costa Gravas released "The Confession" in the early 70s which was a powerful indictment against the Stalinist show trials in Czechoslovakia in the early 50s which had a big impact on many of us back then.
The point is that it is extremely doubtful any of the Euro communists who were actually more social-democrats than real hardline communists would have seen a Soviet invasion as a "liberation". They would actually be more likely to want to defend western democracy which despite all its flaws is still better than Soviet style "People's Democracy".