Sgt Joch

I doubt anyone else had trouble understanding it....😎

This is absolutely true.
Support is a huge force multiplier.

Correct a Rhodesian stick was four guys - stick leader, two riflemen, and a MAG gunner.  Why - That's how many people fitted into an Alouette III G-Car.  However, that stick would be at least one of three and or possibly four dumped onto the ground.  Later in the conflict, para sticks were deployed from a Dakota adding another five or six sticks to the mix.  The key factors were however:
An Alouette-III K-Car with a commander on board who could see the battlefield and a 20mm cannon.  That would orbit the contact zone and target the enemy accordingly with the 20mm while the commander could see for himself where his own troops and the enemy troops were located and issue orders appropriately. A Lynx light strike aircraft would also be orbiting the contact zone and would either initiate the contact or strike as directed by the commander in the K-Car. Superior training. High motivation. Close cooperation generated by familiarity with working with each other. Numbers are not the be-all and end-all by any stretch of the imagination - well-trained troops, used to working together, commanded by someone who knows what they're doing with good situational awareness having support assets on call will always deliver out of proportion to their physical numbers.

Every military is different, but battalions in combat operations are almost never at full strength because losses almost always outnumber replacements. For example, recently been reading about Vietnam and U.S. Infantry Battalions were never at full strength because of the constant rotations of draftees coming in for their one year tour.
‘That said, there is not much of a difference in the combat effectiveness of a Battalion at 85-90% strength. A Battalion will derive most of its firepower from its heavy weapons, MMGs, HMGs, AFVs, mortars, artillery, air power. Having squads with 6-7 rather than 8 soldiers will limit some missions, but won’t have much of a material impact.

I also do not think it is relevant to focus on squad size. A squad is not supposed to fight in isolation. If a point unit runs into a superior enemy force, SOP should be to retreat and bring up other forces to deal with the threat.
For example in Vietnam, you had several situations where a U.S. infantry platoon on point ran into a NVA company/battalion. Typically, the platoon would retreat/go defensive, call in artillery/air strikes and bring up the rest of the company/battalion/other battalions, as required to deal with the threat.

Not sure what you're faffing on about here. Not a single thing you said has to do with first-strike capable assets being operated by Western forces over Russian territories. Note, this war started because they didn't want those things in a bordering country, but suddenly they're going to be chill with it, for real, as it flies over Russia? 
 
  
 
We're literally looking at the result of a redline being crossed: they invaded Ukraine at enormous cost to themselves. Now, why did they do that? Because they don't want an anti-Russia alliance right next door that is, in effect, bulging right into their main territories. The fact I have to explain this being the ultimate redline when this entire conflict exists because of the threat of it is bananas. Is anyone paying attention in this thread? What are you even talking about people staying up thinking about this. You put NATO forces in the field and this whole thing is over. Things will rapidly escalate and the nukes will fly and we'll all be dead. The ghouls who framed this conflict will mostly be fine, hiding in bunkers and what not, but us normies will be ash or killing one another in the ruins.
 
This is simply not an appropriate resolution to the uncomfortable fact that, all of a sudden, military thinkers have thrown all common sense out the window as they wish under-trained conscripts to instantly develop military doctrines and blow out entrenched Russians despite being outgunned, outmanned, and having zero air support. All I see reading this crap is Robert E. Lee and George Pickett had the right idea, they just didn't probe enough, or they just didn't have fight hard enough, etc. How about no. How about attacking into the teeth of static defensive positions with zero air support has been a bananas idea for 100+ years now and not all the propaganda in the world is going to magically change it. And now I gotta read Aztecan death fantasies over ending the world because people can't bring themselves back to reality.

This seems like the (predictable?) inverse of the Allied experience in the last year of WWII. This is from a thing I wrote a few years ago:
***
In the NWE campaign in WWII, so called 'veteran' units - especially infantry units - were predominantly manned by men with less than a couple of months service with the unit. The proof of that is in the casualty stats.

For example:
4th US Infantry Div suffered 250% of TOE strength in casualties (299 days in combat)
90th US Infantry Div suffered 196% of TOE strength in casualties (308 days in combat)
29th US Infantry Div suffered 204% of TOE strength in casualties (242 days in combat)

Therefore, on average, someone in:
4th US Inf Div saw 120 days of combat before becoming a cas
90th US Inf Div saw 157 days of combat before becoming a cas
29th US Inf Div saw 118 days of combat before becoming a cas

That’s averaged across the roughly 14,000 men in an infantry division, but the vast majority of those casualties were concentrated amongst the fairly small number of men in each division labelled "Infantry." Without rummaging through detailed statistics (which I anyway don't have access to), I suspect that no more than half that number of days-in-combat – about two months - would be the very upper limit of what a rifleman could expect to survive. Therefore I think that the average quality of individual riflemen probably declined across the campaign as long-service, highly trained men in the first waves were replaced by questionably trained men with little esprit de corps, led by 90-Day-Wonders.

In any infantry unit from mid-June onwards there'd have been a mix of men representing every stage of that chart (edit: Grossman’s combat effectiveness/exhaustion chart) which would tend to reduce the overall effectiveness of any given unit. As the campaign progressed and men started getting close to the 60 combat days referred to above, large-ish numbers of those survivors would have been in the combat-exhaustion and even vegetive phases. At the rifleman-squad-platoon-company level, infantry units were NOT on an ever escalating performance curve.

How, then, did divisions learn and improve if the individual riflemen weren't really getting a whole lot better at their jobs? They did it by becoming much better at the stuff that actually matters. Battalion and regimental staffs tended to survive much longer. And I specifically mean the staffs, rather than merely the commanders. Men in supporting arms like artillery, logistics, and even armour also had much greater longevity. Improvements in those areas meant that combat infantry units were fed into combat much better prepared and supported, and working to a plan based on realistic assessments and objectives. Given that, it didn't matter that Private Snooks in 3rd Squad, 1 Platoon, C Company, 2nd Battalion wasn't becoming a better soldier, because less was being asked of him, since he was being given more support to achieve objectives
***
The Ukrainians don’t have those competent and experienced higher level (bn, bde, and whatever they have above bde) staffs yet. Or, they do, but unevenly. This is equivalent to the position the US found themselves in at Kasserine, or the British during CRUSADER. They will get better (and are!), but it takes time, and there’s no shortcut or magic wand or uber-weapon-du-jour that will make the experiential shortfall just go away.

*cough*1861?*cough*

Except, of course, then you need to do a manual breaching operation over the exact same ground to clear through all the uxo you've just left lying around with no discernable pattern.

EDIT
Thanks to @Monty's Mighty Moustache who picked up a briefing error in TTP No2. This has been amended and the attached zip file below has the updated file.
This series of three missions is very loosely based on several of the ‘Tank Battle Problems’ detailed in the Nafziger publication ‘the German Tank Platoon in WWII: Its Training and Employment in battle’.
Whilst the series of ‘problems’ outlined in the book appear to be pre/early war I have updated the fundamental concepts to a later period in the war i.e. 1944.
The key intent of these tank tactical problems is to give the player new to using German armour an opportunity to use them in a more doctrinally ‘correct’ manner within the limitations of the Combat Mission game engine.
This series complements the German halftrack (SPW)/panzergrenadier training lessons in the CMRT Battlepack 1 where the main focus is on using SPW in Combat Mission.
For the tactical problem series the German player uses Panzer IVs. This tank was used in significant numbers during the war and though starting to become outclassed by 1944 by the Soviet T-34/85 was still a significant part of the tank strength of most panzer divisions. Though Panthers were slowly starting to form the main panzer strength in the panzer regiments. The player cannot rely on superior armour/armament to bully through this series as the Panzer IV’s armour is comparatively speaking, inadequate. 
All the missions are best played as German Vs Soviet AI. 
There are NO German AI plan. 
Each tactical problem has a ‘Tactical Top Tips’ at the end of each briefing (under ‘notes’) which may help the player new to using tanks in Combat Mission get the most out of them.

Plan is when done to convert them to Soviet versions so players can contrast.

If you get a chance to give em a whirl I'd appreciate any and all feedback thank you.



You download  https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-red-thunder/cm-red-thunder-add-ons-scenarios/cmrt-german-tank-tactical-problems/
 
 

This is Part 1 of a short series giving a summary and overview of the tactical fundamentals and principles behind WWII German and Soviet armoured unit tactical drills and combat formations commonly used in 1944 using examples from Combat Mission Red Thunder to illustrate key points.
Part 1: What is the difference between formations, drills, principles and tactics?
This video defines these terms and may also help the viewer differentiate between a potentially bewildering array of terms and puts them into context with German armoured doctrine.

When I was in the Army DPICM was *just* being fielded in any significant numbers. The original idea for usage was to fire it at a target of opportunity - a mass of armor forming up to attack in front of you, but more likely a mass of armor/vehicles in the second echelon that was forming up to exploit or continue the advance, in order to halt that advance through lack of support. We didn't have unlimited supplies so it was planned to be used when it could be most effective, usually in a Time on Target, Battalion FFE.
Since we expected in Europe to be completely on the defensive as the Soviet Army advanced into West Germany, unexploded munitions were not really seen as an issue, since they would be the Soviet's problem, behind their lines. (of course the pie-in-the-sky projection was that all civilians would have evacuated west in advance of the Soviet Army, and we know that wouldn't be the case - not everyone anyway.)
In Ukraine with a more static, back and forth front line, this is much more of a concern, for obvious reasons.
Just a little background from the olden days 🙂
Dave

You mis-spelled "anti pointless-and-avoidable-killing-of-innocents people".
Armour is not an "area target". Armour is a point target. The best way to attack point targets is with accurate weapons.

A wee something I put together.
This video showcases content from the Combat Mission Red Thunder Battlepack 1 released by Battlefront.com.
It's a brief overview of each scenario, what it's about and the main intent; it also covers the campaigns (including a brief summary of the main campaign branches).
There are NO spoilers in the video chapters.
https://youtu.be/wyrRX4bP2mM
 

just an a quick test, near miss from 155 mm HE will damage subsystems on a T72.

so had to dig out some old data, but always fun.
U.S. did a test in 1960 detonating 105mm and 155 mm HE shells to see how fragments performed against armour plates. At a 20 feet distance, fragments from 155 mm HE were not able to penetrate a 2 inch plate.
http://tanks.mod16.org/2014/03/10/report-on-protection-from-fragments-from-he-ammunition/
estimated armor protection of T72 turret/hull armor is estimated to be equivalent to a 13-46 inch plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72
so the tank itself cannot be knocked by a near miss from a U.S. 155 mm shell (or presumably a Russian 152 mm HE shell). Whether sub systems can be effected by fragments would be another issue.
I suspect most tanks knocked out in Ukraine by indirect artillery were the victims of cluster munitions.

I presume you are referring to the M483/M864 round? yes, that would be a nice toy to have, but they are not currently in use with NATO and officially, none of those in reserve have been sent to Ukraine. Another thing to keep in mind is that these have footprint of around 150 meters and being unguided have a potential CEP of 150-250 meters?, so the potential of collateral damage to friendly troops is high.
If NATO would use cluster munitions against a Russian invasion, they would be more likely to use the newer GPS-guided GMLRS rockets delivered by HIMARS/M270.

I would be leery about making conclusions based on videos when we only have fragmentary info on what is actually going on and no or only vague info on what actual ordnance was used.
Currently, the game only models conventional artillery with mostly "dumb" HE shell and a small number of GPS/laser guided precision rounds. From what I can see, the existing effect of indirect HE on AFVs in the game seems more or less correctly modelled. US 155 mm HE ammo, for example, will immobilize/damage Russian tanks with a direct hit and can destroy less armoured IFVs even with a near miss. When a conventional HE shell misses, even if it hits close by, only a fraction of the explosion is directed at the AFV, most of it is directed upwards if it hits the ground or 360 degrees if it is an airburst, so no reason why anything other than a near miss should cause damage. Even when a tank hits a mine, the usual result is immobilization from track damage rather than destruction.
One caveat of course is that anti-vehicle cluster munitions like those which can be potentially fielded by the M142 HIMARS or M270 MLRS or equivalent Russian systems like the BM21 GRAD or Tornado G could potentially damage or destroy AFVs from farther away than conventional HE shells, but these would typically only be used to strike units deep behind the front lines because of the high risk of collateral damage to friendly troops. These are not modelled in the game, but would normally be outside the scope of a typical CM battle in any event. 

I made a small Cheat Engine patch for the game, it allows you to prevent the mission ending when the timer runs out.
Just attach cheat engine to the game, then load the file and check the "Disable Mission Timer" checkbox.
When the timer goes to zero it begins counting up, the AI still functions even after you pass the time limit (though no more timed scenario actions will occur).  
I made patches for Normandy, Shock Force 2, Cold War, and Black Sea, which can be found in their respective forums
CM Black Sea.CT

I've made a First Clash redux version 4 Its temporary home is at the following DB link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nkgfb6m561ev13x/First Clash Redux_v4.btt?dl=0
This scenario was originally released as part of the CMBS base game. Whilst the intent pre-release was to create an intro to modern armoured warfare it appears many players post release considered it too easy – mainly due to the strength of the US forces arty and air support, oh and all the US AFVs had APS. The preponderance of APS equipped armour did mean the M1s were pretty unstoppable. 

I've tweaked it over the years and this is the latest iteration - In this redux version 4 all the APS protection systems for the US have been removed and experience levels toned down for both sides. 

Overall I think this change WILL make the scenario a more challenging proposition for the US player.

P.S. watch out for the radio messages via reinforcement units!
Cheery!
George

Okay I see you are a fella that just wants to debate but I'm not going to bite.

I think you are right, lets forthwith consider this mod to have lapsed and the community can do whatever they want with any of the material. Unfortunately it means it won't be maintained and updated from a single source, it can be butchered as anyone sees fit.

Please note there will no more updates from me to the work shared with the community. I will just be modding henceforth for my own use and pleasure.

But one last thing. What has happened here is the very reason why super mods are NOT a good idea. I've seen it happen before in other gaming communities and they are problematic, not least because developers and designers wishes are trampled over and the work ends up all over the place. We can debate ethics and decorum but there is a very sound pragmatic point at the heart of this. It's unfortunate that you didn't just think a little bit before jumping. Bull in a china shop seems like a very apt metaphor.

 

@The Steppenwulf that is most unfortunate, I use your UI in SF2 and BS and very much like it and hope you will reconsider.
However, having seen the other thread, I understand your reasons.

Combat Mission Red Thunder and Fire & Rubble (with some mods).  Also included but not shown below are Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Volksstrum.   
Tank riders.






Partisans



Lend Lease


Bedspring armor.

Just Because












 

Yes, but they aren't acting as lawyers when in the role of lawmakers. They don't get to set the rules because they're lawyers. They get to set them because they're lawmakers. Edit: and the lawmakers-who-trained-as-lawyers don't get to ensure the rules are followed either, because of that pesky old separation of powers thing - the executive and legislative branches aren't supposed to mess with the independent judiciary, etc.
The more important point, though, is that if you jettison your principles as soon as things get a bit tough, then you don't really have any principles. The reason 'we' get to tell ourselves that we're better than 'them' is because we at least try to hold ourselves to the rules we set. If we ditch those rules - and principles - then we're really just them wearing a fake nose and glasses.

That's Ramadan finally and officially over so I can probably expect to get an uninterrupted night's sleep once again. When I'm a bit sleepy, i tend to spend more time working on maps and I've now updated all the maps for the campaign. I even reworked the 'Breakout' which I was kind of dreading doing as it was the most ASL-like of all the maps. I also got 'Overkill' finalised last night so that one's behind me. Now I'm on holiday for about 10 days and today I got started on serious AI planning. This is the plan going forward.
I'm going to focus on getting all the Special Forces missions up and working so that I can compile them and test them together. This shouldn't take long as the maps for all of them are now done and I've already imported all the core forces and placed the enemy forces. Today, I worked exclusively on 'Ambush' and it became very obvious early in serious testing that the river and the bridges were going to have to go. The AI really struggles on the attack even in the best of circumstances so add two bottlenecks across a river and have a mech infantry company try an assault across it and you're really flogging a dead horse. So the river was removed as well as the bridges and it plays much, much better. This is the type of mission that I'm likely to play over and over again while working on the campaign, short and small, fun but dangerous, so it'll get iterated upon as testing goes on.
Tomorrow, I'll get started on Strong Stand and the airfield missions and that will be all the Phase I SF missions done. However, the Phase II missions are almost entirely new because of the extensive map reworks as well as me rationalising the campaign so that there is some consistency to the friendly board edges. so will take a lot more time to test.
Here's the old Breakout map:

Here's the new one from the same angle.

And from the other end

Gone are the elevations, the mud, the foliage and about half a million flavour objects. I've added a river (the player has to move across it so there's no worries about the AI being able to navigate across it). Gone is the massive, boring workshed complex and it's been replaced with a real-world farm complex, only a few kilometers west of 'Hasrabit' as it happens. I was lucky to find a large, square farmhouse to replace the old one too so I'm happy with the result.