Pete Wenman

Yep we have all been there, done that. Never good
P

This is a 2-hour conversation between @Hapless, his opponent @Rice, and @domfluff, who is the admin of the unofficial (but extremely active) Combat Mission discord server.
They go into detail about their thought processes going into the game, how they responded to what happened during the match, and how Soviet doctrine can be used successfully in CMCW.
Figured it's worthy of its own thread because of how fascinating it is, and I hope we see more like this in the future.
This is a link to the unofficial discord server if you want to interact with more people in the community: https://discord.gg/SXkQ6rUuJN

Here is a church pack in Caen stone and brick numbered 301 (00) and (01); 302 (00) and (01); 303 (00) and (01)
attention!!
 for technical reasons the numbering is different. This it replaces the old ones
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3kkc9g57fzffdha/AACZYbHjE8-zWwOhO62NSS1pa?dl=0


*  did you know guys !

The Caen stone was used to build monuments everywhere in france but also elsewhere

   UK

        Tower of London (89,200 concrete blocks delivered by 75 ships in 127811)

        LondonTowerBridge

        St. Paul's Cathedral in London

        Westminster Abbey

        Canterbury Cathedral

        OxfordCastle

        Durham Cathedral

        Rochester Cathedral

        Chichester Cathedral

        Norwich Catholic Cathedral

        BuckinghamPalace

        EtonCollege
    In Belgium

        RoyalPalace of Brussels
    In Germany

        Cologne Cathedral (decor elements)
    In the USA

        St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York

        Elements of interior decoration of buildings (e.g. New York customs chimney).

        Washington National Cathedral (main altar)

        St. Andrew's Cathedral Honolulu12
    In Canada

        Osgoode Hall Atrium

It is exactly what happened at the back end of the Cold War - every exercise I did between 87 and 89 with the UK's 2nd Infantry Division had III (US) Corps "saving our limey @r$e$".  There's' a paper about Field Marshal Bagnall's  thinking and reforms which led to a rethink of how 1 (BR) Corps would fight its battle and, when he became Commander NORTHAG, enacted similar reforms on a wider scale.  This in turn led to a persuasive argument which would see some REFORGER assets being assigned to NORTHAG rather than CENTAG.
The paper is sat on my hard drive - it is called Deterrence and the defence of Central Europe : the British role from the early 1980s to the end of the Gulf War.  I've attached it below if you can't find it online - a good read once you've finished @Jim Storr's book.
 
Bagnall Analysis.pdf

Thanks.  I shall look forward to it.  You might be interested in the following  review from The Wavell Room (#WavellReviews 'Battlegroup!' by Jim Storr » Wavell Room) .  there is also a shorter piece by 'JWH' at Battlegroup!: The Lessons of the Unfought Battles of the Cold War: Amazon.co.uk: Storr, Jim: 9781914059964: Books.  
 
Best wishes 
Jim Storr
Review of ‘Battlegroup’ on The Wavell Room.
Jim Storr is back.  Battlegroup! examines the tactical level of the Cold War and asks what we can learn from the unfought battles of Eastern Europe.  If you’ve read any of Storr’s work before, you’ll know what to expect.  For those of you who haven’t, Storr has a relentless focus on evidence and ‘warfare’; how battles are fought.  In the book’s forward, General Sir James Everard comments on Storrs ‘meticulous detail’ and this rings true throughout his analysis.  Battlegroup! isn’t a generalist look at ‘war’.  It is an analysis of fighting.  
Battlegroup! is split into four major sections which contain interlocking arguments.  Section one looks at the strategic and operational setting of the 1980s Cold War.  Storr details the armies and how they were shaped.  Section two examines the components of land forces, how they are organised, and how they wanted to fight.  Section three looks at battlegroup tactics and draws conclusions about what might have happened.  The last section draws the themes together to look at what lessons might be drawn.  
The bottom line up front of this review is that any serious land professional must read Battlegroup!  Storr forces a reader to think about the mechanics of warfare differently, to consider evidence, what doctrine really means, and why things are the way they are.  As Storr says in his introduction, whilst lots has been written about the Cold War, very little has been written about how a battle would have been fought.  Battlegroup! fills this gap offering tactical insights.  It’s a brilliant book.
Sources and methodology
Storr’s range of doctrine, primary sources, and experience adds credibility to Battlegroup!  He leans heavily on German Second World War writing.  The two most commonly cited books are Tactics of the Russian Campaign and Handbook of Tactics with Lieutenant Colonel Eike Middeldorf as the lead writer.  These two texts focus on German tactics against the Soviet Union.  Storr identifies that the Wehemact had, and the Bundesweht inherited, a ‘far deeper and more perceptive understanding of tactics than the Western Allies’.   By this, he really means that the Germans actually study tactics.  That deduction alone should send alarm bells across modern doctrine writers. 
It would be easy (lazy, perhaps) to critique Storr for being too dependent on these Second World War insights, but he doesn’t shy away from updating or disagreeing with different doctrinal ideas.  Reading these views takes an English speaking reader away from their traditional comfort zones offering different insights. 
Secondly, Storr relies heavily on wargaming.  In describing his approach he lays out arguments both for and against wargaming.  He concludes that it must be done seriously to have any value.  He then describes his personal experience of 202 battle war games played over 30 years and the deductions they generated.  These games were generally up to battlegroup level and underpin Storr’s analysis of wider sources.  A secondary theme throughout Battlegroup! is a reminder of just how powerful wargaming is in generating professional knowledge.  A purest academic might discount wargaming, and Storr’s own military experience, as undermining his assessment of the evidence.  Whilst it’s impossible to verify his gaming, his personal experiences and ability to bring the deductions to life add a ring of credibility when he draws his more cutting deductions.  After all, the battles Storr is analysing never happened.  
Truth grenades 
To give you a feel for how these strands fall together, let’s consider infantry fighting vehicles.  Any British Army soldier will have a view on the utility of turreted and tracked vehicles.  The cancellation of the British Army’s Warrior fighting vehicle in 2021 has made the modern debate somewhat emotional.  Storr’s conclusion, however, is that they ‘are a bad idea’.  They would get infantrymen killed for ‘little or no gain’.  Storr is quick to accept that many find them ‘useful’ but points out that no modern soldier has had to attack even a moderately well prepared defensive position in them.  Looking at infantry fighting vehicles in the defensive, Storr concludes that they are ‘hostage to fortune’.  Whilst cannon and anti tank missiles are effective, they just aren’t when mounted on infantry fighting vehicles.  In this example he draws together wargaming and practical experience to challenge any bias you might have.  
Battlegroup! doesn’t, however, only focus on combat arms.  There is a significant amount of detail on engineering, logistics, medical, and other supporting arms.  A more traditional analysis of Cold War combat looks at headline equipment capabilities.  Storrs dives into the detail about fuel and ammunition consumption.  For example, German Leopard 2 tanks consume 58% less fuel than American Abrams.  What are the battlefield consequences of that for the size of a division?  Have you ever stopped to consider the cost of this in peacetime and how the savings may be better spent?  Storr does.  In another fresh twist, he also considers how delays in providing combat replacement soldiers affects combat and creates inefficiencies in battlegroups.  It’s impressively deep and comprehensive.  
Storr also draws different conclusions about the use of close air support.  A contemporary NATO officer is likely to believe in the utility of close air support and that air mobility operations won’t work against peer opponents.  His combination of German doctrine and wargaming draws him to the conclusion that ‘air attack has often been dramatic but ineffective… it has limited effect on battlegroup operations’.  This is a conclusion that many readers will disagree with; but as mentioned above, Storr’s logic will pull apart your beliefs with no sympathy for them.  Believers in air mobility are likely to be triggered by Storr’s assessments in their utility.   
Another example of Storr turning traditional narratives is his analysis of urban warfare.  Storr critiques a narrative of urban warfare written by attackers and telling of slow and chaotic attacks with high casualties.  But there is little evidence for this, or for our current understanding of urban strong points and the weaponry needed for success.  Quoting the research of David Rowland, Storr notes it was published in the Journal of the Operational Research Society concluding ‘I doubt whether any historian has read it’.  Our existing understanding is ‘simply wrong’.1  Storr forces a reader to consider evidence in a way that modern military thinking, and professional training does not.  
These themes are tied together in Battlegroup! and evidence his core argument that shock, surprise, and exploitation are key to success in land warfare.  
Why should you read Battlegroup!?
It’s difficult to do justice to the range and depth of Battlegroup!  The book is outstanding.  It ranges from Army structures to platoon tactics, from offensive to defensive, fighting in woods to fighting in towns.  All are convincingly blended to challenge any preconceptions you may have about conventional warfare.  
You’d be right to finish reading it and question why you don’t already understand warfare from this perspective.  It certainly made me look at British doctrine and warfare development differently. 
However, the quality of this book is such that it needs a stronger recommendation.  I agree with General James Everard who writes in the forward “he is a joy to read, and in Battlegroup!  He has again spun a web of rich discovery”.
 
 

Hey Jim,
  Welcome, and you have my sympathies, trust me.  These are a good bunch for the most part but like any bar there is always a few "guys" who just gotta be.  So have you tried CMCW by any chance?  

Big update coming in the next day or two, the images are done but it's too damn late to think of typing it up now .
Sorry for the delay, more sickness in the house, a trip to A&E (everyone is fine though, just a precaution) and Christmas prep has not left time for this sort of thing. Hopefully once the festive madness is over the pace will pick up.
MMM

Apologies, this one is text heavy - I didn't believe it was worth taking too many screens for what occurs. Let me know if you'd prefer otherwise. 
1751-1752
On the right
A second Panther is soon spotted. As the rest of the armoured car section crests the hill and makes its move to cover, they all report in succession the movement of this section of Panthers in the general direction of the East village and Objective "HARRY." 

On the left
The carrier section leader has dismounted and is hoofing it to a nearby wooded area to establish an OP. Since the troop 2IC remains mounted with the rest of the carriers (he doesn't have binoculars, sigh) it is hoped the rest of the carrier teams will still benefit from his leadership. The carriers remain at a brief halt while they give the Sarge a few minutes to reach his intended position. 
The OP will, it is hoped:
a. Provide some BDA on the barrage on hill 204.1; and
b. Ascertain if the troop movement spotted earlier was incidental, or a deliberate reaction to my movement - namely to cover the exit from the draw I am using to mask my movement as much as possible.
1752-1753
The lead armoured car on the right axis of advance bogs and promptly immobilizes. The crew will dismount and move to establish an OP on a nearby high ground and keep their eyes in the fight. The fellows obviously do not have any form of man-portable radio and will either have to run any intel to another unit or head back to their stuck car to get on the net and report.

1753-1754
The armoured car that now finds itself in the lead sees, but fails to positively identify (or, less likely, can hear) an armoured contact moving in the wheat field behind OBJ "HARRY". 
The platoon of cruiser tanks operating in close support with the B Company team begin rounding Hill 207.8 and crossing the dangerous bit of open ground traversed earlier by the armoured cars. By the end of the turn the lead tank has crossed back into dead ground- unscathed .
Comments:
I'm fairly sure at this point that Draper is fully aware of the armoured car's approach, or is strongly suspicious of it. Surely, he must have caught some fleeting glimpses as they crossed between dead ground. Nevertheless, the recce is past the most dangerous point on this potential course of action. So, unless the Panther's now unduly expose themselves with very forward battle positions I should be fine. Draper is not that gung-ho. Way back in the mists of time he once handed me my burned ass on a platter with a single well-positioned, carefully husbanded Panther; he remembers that lesson very well, it's better to play it safe and let the attacker come to you with such assets. 
What I do hope is happening is that he is starting to focus, unduly, on what he can see. Moving up Panthers so quickly does smack of a bit of an overreaction - and I'm seeing a lot of movement generally. 
1754-1755
He is definitely aware of movement on the right - as the second cruiser in the file traversing the "danger zone" takes fire. 

At the time and despite my painstaking efforts to get a good screenie of the incoming round I was legitimately unsure of whether I was taking direct fire or indirect fire. I am fairly sure now, as I type, that it is a direct fire weapon of some kind. The salient point of course is that, whatever it is, it misses.
If this isn't proof-positive that paying attention to terrain and taking pains to reduce your exposure as much as possible pays off, I don't know what is. The unseen assailant chances again on the third tank in file and likewise misses, badly. The troop's Firefly, a more sluggish and conspicuous vehicle, is ordered not to chance it and takes a rough turret-down position near the crest of Hill 207.8. From here it can join in from afar and inch forward into a battle position if the need and opportunity arises.
At this point I am confident the fire is coming directly from Obj "TOM."
1755-1756
I'm well pleased thus far with the recce's progress on both axes of advance. Not only have they drawn ineffective fire - which ultimately does help build an intelligence picture - but they've positively identified key enemy assets and have allowed me to anticipate their likely final positions. 
More importantly, they haven't taken any casualties yet and have managed to establish some decent forward OPs. On that note, the carrier section leader has taken an excellent concealed position that still provides good line of sight to Obj "TOM" and 204.1. Can you see them?

On the right, the armoured recce is now within effective firing range of the North Village and has guided three Cromwells up to excellent positions in which they can provide overwatch. We'll slow our pace here and conduct a series of bounding overwatches as we try to ford the river on this side and pierce his MLR or slip past some outposts. 

 

Well thanks, but archives are my happy place. 🤓

For stock mod tags, the textures used are already included in the game and so nothing needs to go into a mod folder. However this does mean the tag can only be activated in the editor.
The final option in the mission part of the editor is the mod tag tab. Selecting this allows you to upload into the scenario a simple .txt document.
This only needs to list the tags you wish to activate, so for example if you want to activate the mowed lawn and camouflage face paint you would just list
lawn
night
Activated tags show at the top of the mod tag screen once added.
HTH as its easier to do than describe
 
P
 
 
 

For stock mod tags, the textures used are already included in the game and so nothing needs to go into a mod folder. However this does mean the tag can only be activated in the editor.
The final option in the mission part of the editor is the mod tag tab. Selecting this allows you to upload into the scenario a simple .txt document.
This only needs to list the tags you wish to activate, so for example if you want to activate the mowed lawn and camouflage face paint you would just list
lawn
night
Activated tags show at the top of the mod tag screen once added.
HTH as its easier to do than describe
 
P
 
 
 

As I sat there a couple of days ago, going "Well, I knew I should have dispersed better on that objective" while I sifted the remains of two platoons out of their wreck foxholes. Most effective use of cluster munitions I've seen in a scenario to date.

I completed the first mission of Task Force Thunder tonight! Someday I want to do a full write-up based on the campaign, but for now I am still getting my sea legs with both Shock Force 2 in specific and Combat Mission in general. Here are some photos I took during the fighting!

US Army Combat Engineers begin their search for anti-vehicle mines at a Syrian border checkpoint while an M1A2 provides overwatch.
 

An immobilized Abrams from 1/B/TF Thunder provides overwatch as the rest of its platoon begins to push down Route Lightning.
 

A/TF Thunder progresses down Route Lightning following 1/B's M1A2s. An assault on the Syrian frontier fort is imminent.
 

With Stryker support, 1/A/TF Thunder begins its assault on the fort.
 

The immobilized Abrams watches over a quieting battlefield as dawn breaks.
 

4/1/A/TF Thunder provides suppressing fire with their M240s in the waning seconds of the battle.
 

A/TF Thunder's Fire Support Vehicle watches over the remains of the Syrian border guards.
 

The final positions - I had only begun to force entry into the fortress when the Syrians surrendered.
 

All in all, I'm very proud of the results. Only one killed and two wounded in exchange for 339 enemy casualties and eighteen destroyed tanks. Unfortunately, one of my Abrams has been de-tracked and another has had its turret-mounted M240 disabled by enemy fire - I'm hoping they'll be repaired by the time the platoon is called into action again...
 
Edit: Strange that these are in 1120x630 - I should be playing 1920x1080...

I lived in England for some years for work. Paid taxes, enrolled in the NHS. It all works out. If you weren't paying the VAT, then income taxes would be higher. Expenses have to be paid one way or the other. I was talking to my brother once about taxes. Living in Rhode Island and working in Connecticut I had to fill out 2 state income tax forms, prorated against each other for income earned in each state. He, being in Texas, gloated that he had no income tax at all. Of course, comparing notes, his property taxes on a smaller house than mine were higher than my COMBINED property taxes plus state income taxes. And I live in *supposedly* high tax Rhode Island. Towns, states, countries have to be run and the money has to come from the same places, just by different means 🙂

Dave

See Page 99 of the Engine Manual
Reinforcements
Up to seven groups of units per side can be designated as Reinforcements from the Available Units list, irrespective of their parent formation. This allows the sce- nario designer to have units enter the battle at some later and/or (more or less) random point in time. The units of each Group enter the map at the same time, but the entry location is set individually for each unit using the Deploy function. Staggering units can help with early game unit congestion, enhance the plot of the scenario, or simply spice things up.
The first step is to assign units to a Reinforcement Group by highlighting them in the Available Units column and pressing a key on your keyboard (not on the NumPad!) from 1 to 7. This assigns the unit(s) to the respective Reinforcement Group, and a small [R] followed by the number of the assigned Group appears next to its name. For example, [R1] means the unit is assigned to Reinforcement Group #1. To remove a unit from a Group simply highlight it and press the 8 key and you’ll see the designation go away.
Once you have at least one unit assigned to one Group you can specify when it comes into the game. To do this, click on the Group you want in the list on the left side of the screen. For each group, you can set the time of the earliest arrival, and determine a random time span within which the arrival time might deviate.
Note: when deploying units in the 3D Preview of the Editor, Reinforcement units show an R in the Sup- pression area of their Team Info Panel, followed by the number of the group they belong to (e.g. R:1 indicates Reinforcements Group 1).
Earliest Arrival Time
This specifies the soonest a Group appears on the battlefield (for example, 5 minutes after the begin of the battle, or an hour, or more).
Arrival Span
Can be set to be Exact (no deviation, i.e. the unit will always arrive exactly on the time set above) or a value between 5 and 30 minutes in 5 minute intervals. Specifying a time determines a range which is added to the Earliest Arrival Time.
Note: be careful of what you do here since there is a chance for significant unintended consequences. For example, if a 60 minute battle has Earliest Arrival Time set to 30 minutes and the Arrival Span to 30 minutes, the reinforcement group might ar- rive anytime between 30 seconds after the beginning of the battle and one second before its end. Or, if you set Earliest Arrival Time to 60 minutes and the Arrival Span to 10 minutes, then the reinforcement
group will never arrive (because the battle will end before the arrival time).
 
For AI planning see page 101 -108 of the Engine Manual
P

See Page 99 of the Engine Manual
Reinforcements
Up to seven groups of units per side can be designated as Reinforcements from the Available Units list, irrespective of their parent formation. This allows the sce- nario designer to have units enter the battle at some later and/or (more or less) random point in time. The units of each Group enter the map at the same time, but the entry location is set individually for each unit using the Deploy function. Staggering units can help with early game unit congestion, enhance the plot of the scenario, or simply spice things up.
The first step is to assign units to a Reinforcement Group by highlighting them in the Available Units column and pressing a key on your keyboard (not on the NumPad!) from 1 to 7. This assigns the unit(s) to the respective Reinforcement Group, and a small [R] followed by the number of the assigned Group appears next to its name. For example, [R1] means the unit is assigned to Reinforcement Group #1. To remove a unit from a Group simply highlight it and press the 8 key and you’ll see the designation go away.
Once you have at least one unit assigned to one Group you can specify when it comes into the game. To do this, click on the Group you want in the list on the left side of the screen. For each group, you can set the time of the earliest arrival, and determine a random time span within which the arrival time might deviate.
Note: when deploying units in the 3D Preview of the Editor, Reinforcement units show an R in the Sup- pression area of their Team Info Panel, followed by the number of the group they belong to (e.g. R:1 indicates Reinforcements Group 1).
Earliest Arrival Time
This specifies the soonest a Group appears on the battlefield (for example, 5 minutes after the begin of the battle, or an hour, or more).
Arrival Span
Can be set to be Exact (no deviation, i.e. the unit will always arrive exactly on the time set above) or a value between 5 and 30 minutes in 5 minute intervals. Specifying a time determines a range which is added to the Earliest Arrival Time.
Note: be careful of what you do here since there is a chance for significant unintended consequences. For example, if a 60 minute battle has Earliest Arrival Time set to 30 minutes and the Arrival Span to 30 minutes, the reinforcement group might ar- rive anytime between 30 seconds after the beginning of the battle and one second before its end. Or, if you set Earliest Arrival Time to 60 minutes and the Arrival Span to 10 minutes, then the reinforcement
group will never arrive (because the battle will end before the arrival time).
 
For AI planning see page 101 -108 of the Engine Manual
P

The problem with that @Erwin is that while you may be behind me in time you may have seen more of the enemy forces than me so when you post updates you may be spoiling things for others (I am purposefully not reading your updates just in case).
This DAR is up to date, I know exactly as much as I’ve written about on here so if I haven’t mentioned it then I don’t know about it. I’d prefer there only be one DAR/AAR on the go at once tbh but if you are going to continue be aware that anything you write about stuff I have not yet revealed is likely to spoil it for those reading along, hence why they are getting annoyed. Perhaps it would be best to start your own?
MMM

The name is my WIP reference name and refers to a rather confused action around the village of Jasienica and the town of Tluszcz in Poland mid August 1944.
This map is fairly large (4x3km) but has been giving me a bit of trouble to sort out. Its low laying terrain with a rather complicated rail network on often embankments. looks easy but trying to get everything to match up... Also progress has been glacial slow due to RL. Still getting there.
This is the real world location on period maps and aerial images taken before the actions occurred (though judging by the shell holes it was getting some hot attention from bombing raids I suspect!



So first step was sketching out the map in CM.

This was pretty quick to do as effectively this is just sketching using the overlay. I'm not a fan of zig-zag roads. So i end up making compromises to 'fit' the overall 'feel' of the road/track/rail. I think this makes it easier for the player in game to plot road movements etc. So I compromise map accuracy for ease of play.
The real work comes when you start adding the elevations... This was a tough one as there are also lots of water features. Lots of do and re-do to only re-do-re-do...

So slowly taking shape. This is the railtrack at the north of the above maps looking west.

Looking south, from the west edge of the north of the map, towards the large wood block (on Google earth they are marked as 'Budziska'.

Looking back east from the above wood block - way in distanced will be Tluszcz (not started on that yet)

View of current state of work of the map. Only about a 1/4 done regarding terraforming! A looong way to go yet. The view here is the same view as above but slightly higher. I'm just starting doing the village of Jasienica itself (top right), which will take a wee while.
Cheery! 

The translation is way off ...
Him:  'See anything?'
Her:  'No love'
Him:  'Are you sure ... we're being fired at ...'
Her:  'I can't see sh1t'
Him:  'Well something's out there.'
Her:  'What do you f*****g think this is - Steel Beasts?'
 

Trust me, BFC is very aware of all the spotting complaints.  Personally - just speaking for myself - I think there is a combination of factors that skews things a bit.  For one thing I'm not sure that gamers realize how difficult it is (per veteran accounts as well as various 'spotting tests' done in the 19th century - the human eye hasn't changed since then) to spot anything at all on the battlefield - up to and including stuff that's firing directly at you.  I'm also not sure that gamers fully appreciate what a human being looks like at 700 meters (for example).  On the one hand you have to make spotting such that a game can function (the empty battlefield) and on the other hand you have to try and make something that an average gamer can reasonably associate with reality and that's a difficult wire to walk (gamers who may or may not have an appreciation of what something actually looks like 800 meters away).  I think probably the biggest spotting 'hole' in the game (if you will) is probably anything movement related.  Movement draws the eye and assists in spotting something.  Binoculars will bring something a lot closer through magnification, but of course your field of view is way more restricted than it would be with the naked eye.  So typically I would expect that if something was stationary (even sitting in the open) it would be difficult to spot at various ranges (for example, an infantryman standing in the open might not be seen with the naked eye beyond 700 meters if he isn't moving).  However if something is moving you should notice it even with peripheral vision with the naked eye at reasonable ranges (not at 2000 meters for example) and then binoculars could be used to scan the specific area where movement was detected in order to firm up the 'spot'.  Infantrymen could walk through an open field at 2000 meters and it's unlikely that you would even know they were there if you were looking just with the naked eye. 

check if FXAA is on for your graphic card and if so turn it off. That may be the cause.
P

For those affected by this and worried - here's what I had for my evening meal ... 😀

Well according to Feskov - a source cited at your link - 207 (Guards or otherwise) Motor Rifle Division was not in GSFG in 1979 although I grant that it is a difficult work to pick through and other reporting suggests it was in GSFG. 

From 1964 to 1983 (and CMCW only covers 1979-1982) 3 Combined Arms/Shock Army comprised three divisions - It got its fourth division, 7 Guards Tank Division, in 1983 - a year after the period covered by CMCW.
Otherwise whether you claim special knowledge or not of BAOR - if you're not going to claim special knowledge then it might be helpful if you caveat sweeping statements on the subject like "would it comfort him to know that the [sic] BAOR was the old NATO ground unit that truly concerned Red Army [sic] planners?" with a qualifier to the effect, I haven't a clue why I'm saying this.  

I wonder if all of the German WW2 tanks in perfect running order in tunnels under the parade squares of those camps survived 😉.  For those not in the know - this was a common myth bandied around about practically every single sizable barracks that was inherited by the UK from the ... ahem ... former German regime.

Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.
My set up
Two Panthers firing under AI control
Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.
Range just over 1500m
I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.
Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,
                      AP Shells fired to destroy target
Try                        OG                                HD
1                            3                                    6
2                            5                                    9
3                            3                                   14
4                            2                                    6
5                            4                                    8    
So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.
That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.
Works for me, but you mileage may vary
P