IMHO

@37mm, I had a course at the university taught by the guy who had been the head of the Analytics Division of the KGB's First Directorate (Foreign Intelligence). He had obviously been very much into the deliberations of the highest echelons of the Soviet Union as he personally was the Politburo's primary source of information and assessment of the West's intentions. And the guy was quite frank and direct in sharing his views on the mindset prevalent there. He said by beginning of 80s these war plans existed in a kind of parallel reality. In 60s and 70s they served as a very much needed conventional deterrent to the US's superiority in nuclear weapons. But by the beginning of 80s the Soviet Union caught up in nuclear capabilities and political leadership understood the moment you would really need to open these plans it would be pretty much the end of the world. So there were plans how the Soviet Army steam-rolls to the Channel but there were no serious planning on what to do AFTER. Even how to feed these millions and millions of soldiers thousands kilometers away from the borders of Soviet Union. It was somehow tacitly assumed that were these plans to succeed no one would really care by than. Soviet army (together with the Military Industrial Complex) was a huge and very influential part of Soviet economy. So as every other army in the world the Soviet one should be allowed to plan however fantastical these plans may look like. And to train to execute these plans. And there was a clear understanding how much Soviet economy of 80s depended on the inputs of the West (primarily the Western Europe). So these plans were a kind of a specter of a mad dog one should not mess around with. Because denying the Soviet Union access to world markets would dealt a VERY severe blow to the Soviet Union. With no military action whatsoever.

No, the missile just gravitates to your mark so knowing the distance to the target and the missile speed you can firstly aim higher then lower the mark to the target. The missile will follow. The technique was actually developed early on to avoid entangling (and tearing off) the control wires in bushes that grow near the straight line to the target. So with BMP-2 you can go "hull-down" behind the bushes and yet launch the missile. And your skill will be your sensor

You'll have too many Guiding an ATGM OVER the bushes / trees is a SOP for a qualified Fagot/Konkurs/Metis operator. They are literally taught to do so at the final stages of operator training. Though CM engine does not provide for this and always goes for a bee line. But they do it even in the wide open to avoid detection by tracing a straight line from the missile to the launcher through the target's gunner / commander sight.

In CMBS for ATGMs and cannon rounds these are individual trees that block them. For the spotting these are tree-tops / tree crowns. You can use narrow "alleys" in a forest both to see and to shoot providing your LOS does not go through "underbrush". It's actually quite powerful as you can consciously expose yourself say to an ATGM team and bait it into launching still staying safe (engine TacAI does not "understand" this mechanic).

For some reason you're trying to find a plausible grand strategy scenario based in HARD HISTORY but why do you need one? It's just a tactical milsim - it does not need one. Sure, Soviets had advantage in conventional forces so NATO needed tactical nukes to stop them. Now the play is reversed and Russia is at total disadvantage in conventional forces so now Russia needs tactical nukes. The picture you paint is taking over half of Western Germany. What do you expect THEM to do? They would have fought so it's a bloody conventional war with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands dead. Now what d'you think NATO would have done? Just watched all those people die in vain? What political points there would have been to loose AFTER non intervening full scale including nukes? What US forces in Germany would have done? Just locked themselves in their quarters? West Germany had their "own" nukes - it can act on its own. The ever present problem of all strategic scenarios is the assessment of your adversary intentions. And that's usually made not by political statements (that are all too transient) but by military posture. Taking over half of West Germany against the intention of its government would have required enough Soviet forces that they can run over the other half as well and Benilux and who know what else in the process. So being a US President how would you argue for non intervention? Say you read Soviet plan on the latest Pravda front page? What makes you think the deficiencies of Soviet logistics would stop its advance? It was all planned and tested many times to run it all the way to the Channel. In early 80s OVD was something like 25-30% of the World's GDP - more than today's EU or US (US was still bigger than Soviet Union but since SEA was negligible the relative share of OVD was that). No, Soviet military planning is no big secret - the documents are in the wild since early 90s. There was (?) an annual Cuban Missile Crisis conf where former US and USSR military commanders and upper-middle political leaders exchanged information about their respective decision making. They certainly never considered this plan because it wouldn't have worked

Nobody was foolish enough to want to open up the can of worms of WWIII. It's just both sides (stupidly) believed the other was getting ready to do exactly this. NATO would have never done that at that time since it would be a near certain loss of Europe to OVD. It's like one announces one'd never be the first to use NBC ONLY when one has comfortable lead in conventional forces. The moment one looses overmatch - the policy "suddenly" changes NATO would never allowed that. May be 5km over the border incursion in one particular point is manageable but taking over half of Western Europe is definitely not. From a Soviet point of view: why pull back if you're allowed to occupy the land? From a NATO point of view: does one really believe they'd actually go back to square one? Pull back and leave what - total rubble after heavy fighting? NATO leaders were not morons to buy this By 80s Soviet Union was well aware it had failed miserably to "conquer" its own grain and meat production save taking over the world. Had the West ceased supplying Soviet Union with grain back then may be it wouldn't be an all-out hunger in the Soviet Union but we'd have definitely had "limited calorie intake". And by the beginning of 80s Soviet Union lived on a lifeline of selling oil and gas to the Western Europe so starting an unprovoked war was like shooting yourself in the foot.

Bio and Chemical weapons would have had next to nil effect on Armed Forces of 80s. Everyone was prepared (unlike today). Tactical nukes would have had quite manageable effect for military commanders as well. Massive conventional carpet bombing was/is more destructive to military than tactical nukes. There's a concept of counter-value and counter-force. Given a limited number of available strategic weapons (like today - not like in 80s when they can "cover all the bases") using them for counter-force is lame. And tactical nukes again are manageable within the timeframe of a land operation. Though devastating economically in a long run.

@MikeyD, in reality it's a doctrine that existed in the Soviet Union of 80s but it was outdated by that time. Both OVD (Soviet Union) and NATO had enough nuclear weapons to make land warfare irrelevant in 80s. Yet Soviet doctrine carried on from 60s when the US could nuke the Soviet Union into oblivion yet all the Soviet Union could do is to bring wrath to the Western Europe. Military commanders stayed on from after WWII so their thinking hadnt's changed.

Well it's not exactly so. Both sides expend their strategic nuclear deterrents much before the land combat happens. It's impossbile to hide preparations for a nuclear strike or conventional preparations of such a magnutude that they may warrant a pre-emptive nuclear strike. By the time the tanks have their say they basically fight for nuclear rubble on both sides. Tactical nukes however having long lasting negative environmental consequences have no more (or rather less) minute tactical effect than a heavy conventional artillery strike. E.g. if my memory does not fail me - T-64 survives if it's 500-1000m from an epicentre of the explosion and it would allow its crew to spend up to 12hrs at said distance from an epicentre. It's more like as a tactical commander one may fight if one desires. The question is rather what one fights for. And one cannot fight indefinitely - one has so much supplies in supply train and no more are coming ever since industrial production is destroyed. But within the scope of CM nothing prevents one from fighting.

WP is the most efficient smoke agent and it was used since after WWI. Non-WP smoke agents came en masse AFTER collateral effects of WP were considered.

Nah, for the Soviet side of the time the idea was to get as fast as possible to the ports to deny the US the ability to reinforce/resupply NATO forces in Europe. So as such: Attacking force is not expected to face a defence not thouroughly softened by conventional artillery or tactical nukes. Heavy fire support would be used against probable enemy positions BEFORE the attack. Not a concept of a move to contact, relay enemy coordinates and lay in wait to see them destroyed. However attacking units would expect a SWIFT fire support should they run into troubles. I'd say in 80s Soviet fire support would be WAAAAY quicker then US's. And even in CMBS Russian fire support is unrealistically retarded as compared to US IMO. At the beginning of the UKR hostilities UKR Army basically didn't exist yet today UKR fire support is world class. Attacking units would need to absorb whatever casualties happen in the process. If a unit is thouroughly degraded then it will be replaced by a reserve one yet the tempo of operations needs to be maintained. Nobody cares to cleanse fortified areas, rather you avoid a head-on fight, go around and leave the mopping task to rear echelons. No one's stopping for a "smart" tactical fight - keeping the movement tempo is uber alles. As such the TACTICAL direction of attack may be changed at the discretion of lower-level commanders. It's up to the rear echelons to keep up. Again tempo is uber alles. You achieve "overmatch" on the battlefield first and foremost not by putting up an overwhelming force to fight in direct contact but rather by avoiding the costly head-on confrontation, maneuvering around the enemy and degrading it by fires. Then annihilating the weaked enemy if it's required for keeping your logistics lines. If it's not - then leave it behind and move on. So: No sure if CMCW will show it this way - it's totally different from previous CM titles IMO. Hope it may expain many things about Russian side in other CM titles. To understand the origins of the concept it's worth reading about the political/economy side of the equation for both the West and the East.

Doing another replay of "Poking the bear" and to better allocate the forces I normally change the crewing of the vehicles. So a question about manning a CAV Bradley given right from the start. It will accept not just crews of 2 but 3 and 4 man teams as well. 4 member team properly goes in as crew in full (blue dots) and not passengers (green dots). After primary vehicle positions of leader, gunner and driver are occupied you end up having one extra member that retains its original role in the 4 man team. So you may end up having two drivers or gunners or having a radio operator or an antitank gunner - positions that do not exist in Bradley crewing. Or you may even have a "soldier" crew position should you be left with the fourth member of the team with no original role. Has anyone tested how this affects spotting capabilities? If the engine counts in an extra gunner as Bradly having another gunner sight and a spare pair of eyes using it that may come handy

Sorry, didn't get your point at first. Never seen it called this way, normally the name "slip ring" is used.

More or less never. Bridge weight limits, inability to produce tank engine to reach decent hp/t ratio etc. Armata is still smoke and mirrors. And there's a good chance it will ever be...

Yeah, that's why with all the precision weapons and "low collateral damage" bravado Americans had to reduce Raqqa to total rubble to take it over. They know when to trade political posturing for military expediency There're virtually no built up areas in Artsakh - they had nowhere to have their Stalingrad. And Azeris were getting better by the day with coordinating infantry actions and fire support. Armenians really made EVERYTHING wrong this time - they had a chance to put up quite a decent fight. I.e. Artsakh had as many tanks as the whole UK or Germany has and more than France has at its disposal. And in armor Artsakh was a good match to Azeris in quality as well even without possible support from Armenia (actually Artsakh had more tanks than Armenian Army). Most Azeri tanks and IFVs are the same outdated T-72 and BMP-1/BMP-2 models that Artsakh had.

There's a limit to that. Powder burning is not instantaneous so whatever is not burned up to the point when the projectile leaves the barrel does not add to the muzzle velocity. If you have a lot of very hot gases left by the moment the projective leaves the barrel then you'll have a very bright flash that will both show off you position to the enemy and will blind your own gunner. To avoid this you need time for the gas to cool itself by increasing its volume. You have them on the picture You'd have driving bands for artillery rounds in this or that form practically everywhere. You don't want to introduce additional drag and barrel wear by allowing the full length of your projective to touch the rifling. Moreover the requirements for the driving band material is normally totally inconsistent with the requirements for the shell casing and very often - with sabot's. Nah, it had its own share of troubles but it's manageable. Worse than Boomerang yet incredible better than Armata that is a total disaster.

The nature of the fighting has changed. In WWII given enough low-level AT assets an infantry unit can make a last stand and still inflict high casualties to the enemy. But today no one's gonna bother for a hand-to-hand combat - such a unit will be simply annihilated by fire/air support with total impunity. If you take Artsakh-Karabagh War then the Armenian ASSETS THAT MATTER - long-range artillery, MRLS, SAMs - underwent a TOTAL destruction. They literally had not a single howitzer, Grad etc. and even more important - not a single men who knows how to operate them. It's just no one cares about "men with Kalashnikovs" on an open terrain if they have no heavy support. So the casualties are no lower than in WWII, you just have to count different things now.

Ok, then I'll write you when I gonna be in London. Good guys from my former team is working there now Arrival!

Float like a butterfly sting like a bee Not to sound too obvious but it's the same as for US forces just multiplied many times more When? FB/WA in PM?

"Not so far" (c) Not me ... Certainly I wouldn't nearly call your progress the way you do Write me in advance if you please. I'll show you around. For me - I stopped playing anything but CMBS because after CMBS everything else looks too easy.

@Sgt.Squarehead You yourself have a decent command of Russian and an enviable understanding of Russian weapons production yet you do not seem to be a Russian native speaker. How come? I did - it was a co-production / co-distribution or whatever with Russian 1S Games. Though it was a CD version and I lost the disk long ago - CMSF1 back then was much better.

@Sgt.Squarehead Can you elaborate? It's no joke in Russia now. We have quite a real guy serving quite a real time with his only offense being an off-hand analysis of two **official and properly vetted** articles by Russian weapons producers. It was a forum discussion on a well known Russian weapons community. He had no direct or indirect access to the relevant classified information. Just he had the knowledge of the underlying physics so he was able to put two and two together. And he got jailed for that

IMO: PvP play will be uninteresting as the scenario would imply a massive imbalance. Playing for an "underdog" side would mean witnessing your meagre forces being annihilated while steadfastly building for the only lucky break you can hope for. PvE scenarios are useless within the current CM engine/AI concept. I did some AI scripting for ArmA3 just for fun and I'd say as a platform/engine for near-RL scenarios (albeit smallest scale) Arma3 is insanely more useful than CM. PvE games with the current StratAI CM an one-off exercise - you play a scenario once and then AI side always plays a pig head and repeats itself time after time again. I actually believe that's the reason for the very unfortunate and (I believe) obvious CM stagnation. Normally if a game includes both PvE and PvP (and they are more or less balanced out) then PvP community will always be most vocal and visible yet it brings in little revenue overall. PS Though I truly believe newbie community does underestimate how much ingenuity and effort was put into TacAI. Though faulty sometimes yet a true marvel it is. Just give the ability to somehow react to human actions instead of stupidly following the preplanned course of action PPS Sorry for bugging out on Bulat. It's a hot topic now and we live in "interesting" times

In official docs that are out in the wild AP round is pointedly named APDS - no fins. There may well be two variants.