Amedeo

So out of the gate I just want to say that Combat Mission Cold War is fantastic and is probably my favorite Combat Mission. Overall everything seems exceptionally well done and I am having tons of fun with the Campaign and Scenarios. I think I may have found an issue with M735 and M774 ammunition however. While playing various missions and some quick battle multiplayer with some friends, I noticed that the T-64A was remarkably durable. I didnt think too much of this at first, because I was expecting the T-64 to be a tough nut to crack. But as time went on I started to notice that it might be a bit too tough.
M735 and M774 are not capable of penetrating the front glacis plate of T-64A, in combat mission. I have not tested this agaisnt the other Soviet tanks with similar armor compositions, so I am not sure if this potential problem pertains to those tanks as well. If the same issue exists there, much of this post may be relevant to those tanks also since they have the same or similar armor profiles on the glacis.
 
I would like to start out by showing how the current game models the mentioned APFSDS vs the named target. I performed this test at 1000m, 0 degrees angle. I used RISE Passives for the M735 test and M60A3 TTS for the M774 testing. I counted each APFSDS fired to ensure I was not confusing sabot hits with other types of ammo the AI might choose to fire. I did the tests after noticing the durability of the T-64 glacis in various battles to verify under controlled conditions what I suspected was happening. In the screenshots you will notice that HEAT and Sabot hits have a different damage decal. To summarize the results, neither round can reliably penetrate the T-64 glacis. The game appears to model the weak point near the drivers hatch as the "upper front hull" and the main glacis as the "super structure front hull." M735 is ineffective against the superstructure and can occasionally gain penetrations against the driver plate area. M774 is slightly more effective with almost all rounds that hit the superstructure bouncing off, but very occasionally one will get though. M774 also tends to get through the driver plate area fairly reliably. However in both cases many of the hits to the driver plate area are counted as partial penetrations and not complete penetrations, which is odd considering that there is basically no composite armor in this area. Partial penetrations can seen in these screenshots via a smaller hole decal. They are rare for both rounds, especially vs superstructure.
 
M735:




 
M774:


 
The T-64A glacis plate uses a laminate armor array that consisted of 80mm of steel followed by 105mm of texolite followed by a 20mm backing plate of RHA. This armor greatly increased protection against shaped charges while still providing good protection against kinetic threats.  For additional visualization purposes, I will use some screenshots from war thunder in some areas. There will also be screenshots from various books and webpages.
 

 

Source: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#8010520

From Zaloga's T-64 Battle Tank:

 
 
 
 
The Combat Mission CW manual states that M735 has 410mm of penetration and M774 has 440mm of penetration. These numbers are identical to the ones quoted on the steel beasts wiki, and are listed as being for a range of 3000m. I will include the table here, as well as some other rounds which will be relevant.

 
From Tankograd: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#8010520

 
The above simulation shows that M735 would certainly penetrate the 80/105/20 array and then some at 1000m.

 
The Israeli M111 APFSDS was a derivative of the M735. It would appear to be ballistically of similar performance due to that and the penetration values on the SB wiki. Russian testing of this round revealed that it could penetrate

From Tankograd:

It should be noted here that the T-72A and M1 featured a even thicker armor array than the one on the T-64, going to 60mm RHA/105mm texolite/50mm RHA. So if this could be penetrated by M111 it stands to reason that M735 could go through the weaker T-64A armor.
 
After the end of the cold war T-72M1's were shot at with various German ammunition, including DM33 which is similar in performance to M774. These T-72s have the extra armor added later in the early 80s. It should be noted as well that the extra armor plates are past the scope of CMCW since they were not implemented until after the 1982 Israeli conflicts. DM33 105mm APFSDS penetrated the hull at 2km.

 
Additionally, here is how M735 performs in steel beasts at 1840m, which is using the same penetration numbers as the CMCW manual (the picked range was just as close as I could get to 2km in the editor without spending 1 million hours trying to get it exact):


 


 
 
Based on the general evidence, I think that the M735 and M774 ammunition should be made much more effective in game. M735 should be effective agaisnt the T-64A armor out to any practical range and M774 should be capable agaisnt the T-72A armor if it is not already, which I am guessing it is not based on in game performance agaisnt the worse T-64A armor array.

@Cpt Miller@Amedeo Thanks for the compliments on my post I have only lurked on forums but Ive actually been playing combat mission since the mid-2000s. I totally agree that WEGO is the way to go!
 
@AmedeoM735A1 is the same design as M735, just with DU penetrator instead of WHA, and M111 is WHA. Also are you sure about the SB wiki ranges being for point blank? I dont think it makes much of a difference in the conclusions of my post, but the wiki does list ranges next to each penetration value. Either way estimates of the M111 point to it being comparable to 735, slightly worse even.
@Cpt Miller
I agree completely that a small number of samples could end up with just bad luck, however I performed over 100 tests of M774 and so far I have done 61 tests of 745 so far at 1000m. Results are below as are my saved games files. I forgot to save one or two of the tests but overall I think these show that this is not a case of bad luck.
774:
71 Failures Superstructure, 3 Pens of Superstructure, 29 Pens of UFP, 14 Partial pens SS, 1 Partial Pen of UFP.
95 percent chance of total failure relative to total success. 80% chance of no penetration or partial penetration. 15% chance of partial penetration (superstructure for all)
 
735 (so far): 43 Failures SS, 1 SS pen, 14 UFP pens, 0 Partial pens of SS, 3 Partial pens of UFP.
97 percent chance of failure agaisnt SS.
 
https://www.filemail.com/d/tefcobwkwqdhdaq

 
 
Also something I have noticed in testing is that the Upper front plate penetrations always appear where the LFP and Glacis meet. Never near the drivers hatch where one might expect. This is another indicator to me that something is bugged here. I see no reason why either of these rounds would fail agaisnt the main glacis armor, ie super structure. Especially M774, which we know for certain could penetrate the 80/105/20 array even out to 3km. I would also like to reiterate something from my original post, that this is mainly about the T-64A armor. The point of including the T-72 references is because M111 was able to penetrate the 60/105/50 array before the Soviets upgraded with with applique, which is stronger than the 80/105/20 array on T-64A.
 

I definitely agree that in general aircraft do need a bit of love in CM. This is purely anecdotal so take the following with a grain of salt, but in CMSF1 aircraft (especially helicopters) tended to loiter on station more and engage area targets more frequently. However in the current engine it appears that they are much more likely to wave off if they cannot find a target right away. I've noticed this in all the CM games where aircraft are involved. 
I also agree that the area is too small when it comes to aircraft. I wish I could tell my A-10s or gunships to target a much larger area. That would make it a lot easier to engage moving enemy formations, and it would be a better way to abstract real aircraft CAS procedures, where a section of the battlefield is essentially declared a free fire area. 

Well, I'm not that sure that more than half the tanks in the GSVG were T-62s in the early '80s. Yes, there were delays in the process of reequipping all Soviet units in Germany with the T-64, but these can be considered significant delays only if compared to the original goal of having the whole GSVG equipped with the new tanks by the end of the '70!
According to the below referenced article - by colonel Murakhovskii - the process of reequipping Soviet division stationed in Germany with T-64s started in 1976 with the 16th Guards Tank Division and the 35th Motorized Rifle Division. It initially progressed at a speedy pace, because the concurrent production of the T-72 allowed shipping to Germany not only the newly produced T-64s but also the ones in service in the Western Military District of the USSR (that were replaced by T-72s). After this, the Soviet leadership realized that the Khar'kov plant (the only one producing T-64s) was not able to sustain the expected replacement rate and delays accumulated.
РАЗВЕРТЫВАНИЕ НОВЫХ ТИПОВ ТАНКОВ В ГСВГ/ЗГВ « « Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» (otvaga2004.ru)
Long story short, this replacement took ten years, instead of the planned 3-4 years, but this doesn't mean that the T-62 remained prevalent in GSVG units in the early '80s. On the contrary, it was likely a minority by the end of the '70s; if we sum up the information provided by the aforementioned article and if we consider that the Soviets had twenty division - give or take, there were a few changes in the OoB during this timeframe - we end up with the following progression:
1976 -  2 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1977 -  8 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1978 - 10 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1979 - 12 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1980 - 14 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
1981 - 15 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
It was then decided to equip GSVG units with T-64s and T-80s, and they finally managed to complete the transition by mid '80s, T-62 tanks remained only in some independent tank regiments thereafter and, by 1990-1991 all the divisions in the (former) GSVG - then renamed Western Group of Forces, ZGV - were equipped with T-80 variants only (they managed to replace also the T-64s).
So, it seems that in the early '80s it was the T-64A that accounted for the 50-75% of the total Soviet tank force in Germany, not the T-62.
And this is exactly why I advanced the issue: giving the T-64A the 3BM12 means that, in the game, this "premium" tank is armed with an APFSDS that performs worse than the APFSDS that arms the T-62! (I don't know the actual game specs for these rounds since in game ammo performance data are not available in CMx2, but I presume the figures are in the same ballpark of those one can find elsewhere: just compare the data for the 125mm 3BM12 and the 115mm 3BM21 in SBwiki, for example). Moreover, this won't affect the player that chooses the more exotic (rarity wise) mixes - e.g. T-80s - they have the "correct" ammo, but will affect the players that want to use the sandbox trying to replicate a plausible 1979-1982 timeframe scenario. The present game design choices work well with the tanks that entered service near or in the 1979-1982 timeframe - as I said it is near perfect with the late M60 variants, the M1, the T-80, and this is why I agree with you with what you said in the first part of your post - but show problems with some of the tanks that (nominally) entered service well before 1979, as the M48, T-55, T-64.
The fact is that the Soviet embraced a large and comprehensive tank upgrade and rearmament program in the mid '70s. The BM22 was chosen for a massive program of mass production (pun intended), to the extent that - during the recent war in the Ukraine - after exhausting the stocks of the more modern (mid '80s) 3BM32 and 3BM42 APFSDS, the contendents started to pull loads of 3BM22 rounds out of stocks. Why the 3BM22 and not the more recent 3BM26 or 3BM29? Exactly because it was the 3BM22 that was produced and stockpiled in large quantities, and not the other rounds.
A quick fix, that would also preserve the present overall game design choices, could be giving the T-64A the 3BM15, the T-64B the 3BM22, and the T-55A the BM-20 or BM-25. This would both maintain the "tiered" approach to ammo distribution (i.e. "newer" variants of the same tank model get "newer" ammo) and allow for more realistic loadouts in the core (1979-1982) timeframe. But, in my humble opinion, also the option of introducing different (game) tank variants with different loadouts, reflecting ammo upgrade, could be viable. After all, in some respects, it's already in the game: what is a T-72A (1980) if not a vanilla T-72A with more modern ammo? Yes, yes, there are also the smoke dischargers to "justify" the variant, but you get the gist. 🙂
 
 

Of course I have no difficulties believing that a lot of thought went into this whole business of crafting CMCW. I know the quality Battlefront strives to deliver because I'm a happy customer since the days of CMBO. With CMBO, Battlefront started to produce the best (that is, in my opinion, the most realistic, user friendly and fun to play) tactical wargames and still does. So, rest assured that I'm not writing this to bash CMCW: in fact, now that it is available, and installed both on my Windows laptop and Mac Mini, I ditched all my other tactical cold war era videogames.
Does it mean that CM is perfect? Of course not. And, although I am not one of the top posters,  it's more than 20 years that I joined this community and I do remember how the process of polishing, improving and expanding the various CM titles passed also through a lot of long, documented and passionate threads on these very forums. Even I had the occasion to partecipate in some of those discussions and contribute a little bit of info than managed to find its place into some CM titles. So, I wrote the OP in the spirit of those constructive threads, not to point fingers, not to demand, but to suggest and discuss.
And, speaking, of the engine restrictions on ammunition natures, I'm aware of them, but they are not consequential to what I wrote. They would be of hindrance if one had to place in the very same AFV different APDS types, or different APFSDS types, but that's not the case.
 
I know of the sandbox nature of the game. But CMCW is not a 'generic' Cold War game nor simply an OPFOR vs US Army simulator: it sports a specific timeframe (1979-1982) and it's obvious that BFC goal was (as always) to provide players the most accurate and high fidelity representation of the opposing US and Soviet armies in terms of organization, equipment, weapons, ammo types etc. In this respect I do think that some more polishing and chrome might and should be added. Moreover, it can be easily made in a way that is already a CM staple, i.e. adding to a tank's name a suffix like 1979 or 1980 or early, mid, late, latest to differentiate models that differ only for the ammo loadout composition (reflecting, for example, the introduction of a better kinetic penetrator).
For what concerns the composition of the M60 park in USAREUR units, you are, of course, right. In fact, even with the 'policy' of one tank model-one ammo model, BFC managed to achieve the "best fit" for M60s and M1s in the given timeframe. But, as you noticed, I wasn't speaking of them (although one could point out some subtleties that could allow for a bit of chrome... but I'd better reserve this for another post! 😄)

The 2A42 30mm autocannon on the BMP-2 in the game has APDS ammo. I presume it's the 3UBR8 round. AFAIK this particular type of ammunition wasn't available for the aforementioned weapon during the 1979-1982 timeframe (IIRC it entered service after the end of the Cold War).
No Beehive ammo for the 152mm gun launcher on the M60A2? Was it a Sheridan-only asset? 
Moreover I dare to say that some obsolete round are not likely to be found in units stationed (or deployed) in Germany during the first weeks of war. I mean the M392 105mm APDS and the 3BM12 125mm APFSDS. In the first case, even if NG units equipped with M48A5 would have been rushed to Europe I presume it would have been a  folly to add another round to the logistical queue (in addition to the two or three available), considering that in the 1979-1982 timeframe even the newer M728 APDS was obsolescent. For what concerns the Soviet round, well, Fofanov wrote that 3BM22 "was the most common APFSDS projectile used by Soviet Army in late 70s-early 80s", so there's ground to presume that also 3BM15 should be rare in the 1979-1982 timeframe, let alone the 3BM12!
And last but not least, I presume that the more modern variants of the T-55 should get the 3BM20 APFSDS (minimum!) instead of the 3BM8 APDS. Let's remember that the mass production of the 3BM25 started in the mid '70s (although the round officially entered service only in 1978).
Thus, by 1979 we have two newer generations of AP ammunition already available for the 100mm D-10T gun to supersede the obsolete (and expensive - don't forget that one of the goal of introducing the 3BM20 was to issue the 100mm rifled gun a cheaper, tungsten-wise, ammunition than 3BM8). It makes no sense to suppose that these rounds were all deployed in some obscure military district in the interior of the USSR, instead that with the GSVG units.

There's also this book, by David Glantz, that gives a good and detailed introduction to the tactics of the Soviet forward detachments.

Nothing new to post, I just wanted to bump this to remind people CMCW recreates a real past world.

Does the Soviet rifle platoon in CMRT really have binoculars in each squad and at platoon leader? This is incorrect!
Here the document of rifle company equipmnet according to rifle regiment Shtat 04/551 (December 1942), which was actual up to the spring 1945. In equipment column you can see letters "пп" (SMG), "б" (binocular), "к" (compass). And here the terriblle thing - there are NO. ONE. binocular in the rifle platoons. Neither platoon leader nor squad leaders have binoculars. Only company commander and 50 mm mortar platoon (actually abscent in 1944) leader had. 
  
@akd I think, this have to be reported for CMRT

Three days after announcement, the post count of this forum surpassed the CM:touch one.
Three days after release, the post count of this forum surpassed the CMA one.
Now, on to the next! 
Extrapolating, we should get the next module just before reaching the 17k mark...  hoping that they won't post that much in the CMSF2 forum! 😄

So, I've put a decent amount of time into CMCW today and witnessed a funny thing near the start of a turn, where my emotions went on a bit of a rollercoaster ride. I felt obligated to install Bandicam and share a small video of it with you fine people. I'll let the video do the rest!
Apologies for the watermark - I might have to look for alternate free software if I want to make more of these in the future

Try this to fix the problem
Specifically, go to the CM root directory,
find the application for the game (I tested this with SF2 and BS but I assume it will work with all title using this engine) and right click,
click on 'Properties',
click on the 'Compatibility' tab,
click on 'Change High DPI Settings',
at the bottom of the next popup under 'High DPI Scaling Override' click the checkbox - side note: the default 'Application' setting in the dropdown worked for me but you may need to try some of the other options depending on your specific system
click 'Ok' to close the second popup and save your settings,
click 'Ok' again to close the first popup and save your settings,
play the game!
 
 
 

Ok, I actually have no problem with that, to be honest.  I would say 80-81 is more than reasonable amount of time for the BM22 to become "the 125mm round".
Well that is one way to look at it.  The other is that it supports my point (along with a 32 year career in defence) that large military procurement always take a long time to ramp up, therefore seeing T64As with older rounds in 79-80 is not remotely wildly out of whack based on introduction rates and observed friction in delivery of the tank itself.  In fact the smaller fleets of T64Bs and T80s would have probably gotten first choice, which was the way we went in modeling.
Ok, I am a total sucker for flattery...and this part is unfair.
You know, like most of these things the distance between positions is not really that far when you really break it down.  I really like the idea of a T64(1980 or 81) option with the BM22 as in reality both ammo types were likely available and loaded with mixed types (like those magic APCR rounds in the 6 pounders in Normandy).  It would truly set up the T64A to be a transition tank, which was a theme we were really shooting for.  We will see, only so many hours in the day and all that.
As to the M833...most definitely it should be in, right alongside the TOW 2 and Apaches. 

Emphasis added 😁

Maybe I wasn't linear in explaining my reasoning, I'll try to be clearer here.
0) DOI for the various 125mm APFSDS rounds we're talking about are: 
1976 3BM22
1982 3BM26
1983 3BM29
1985 3BM32
1986 3BM42
1) Ukrainian military and Russian separatists expend their stockpiles of 3BM32 and 3BM42 then get older 3BM22 from stocks.
2) Notice that after depleting their 3BM32 and 3BM42 stocks they don't go after 3BM29 or 3BM26 stocks, but after 3BM22.
My conclusion is that they had large stockpiles of 3BM22 rounds and scarce or non extant stockpiles of 3BM26 or 3BM29 rounds. Why? Because if they had plenty of the better rounds, they would have used them!
So there's a large stockpile of 3BM22 rounds. But when was this stockpile produced? If I understand you correctly your question is: what makes you believe that it was there in the late '70s early '80s?
Well, of course the 3BM22 stockpile couldn't have been produced 1982 or later because they would have made 3BM26 or 3BM29 rounds instead! So it should have been manufactured in the 1976-1981 timeframe and, since we already concluded it was produced in significantly larger quantities than other rounds, a plausible conclusion is that they produced them at full rate during the whole six year interval.
Well, if the website you yourself just provided is to be considered a reliable source (I do think it is and, I presume, you too) I'd like to point you to the following excerpt:

" This was the most common APFSDS projectile used by Soviet Army in late 70s-early 80s, and though no longer produced is still massively stockpiled and cleared for use." (emphasis mine). I presume this statement supports my point, don't you think? 😉
But there's more, see below...
Since you said that you trust these nerdy guys (I do too), I point you to another excerpt from the very wepbage you posted:
"This round [the 3BM15] was in use by the Soviet Army until 1976, and then it was exclusively for export and also license-produced by some nations." (emphasis mine)
So, according to the websites you mentioned, not only the 3BM22 was widely used in the 1979-1982 timeframe, but it was practically the only one fielded!
I rest my case.🙂

This is a great post! Tons of good information here, and it is in line with a lot of what I know. 
I think the reality is somewhere in between regarding the T-64 to T-62 ratio. It comes down to the unit in a lot of cases. Tank battalions in motor rifle divisions tended to still be T-62s, but the tank regiments and tank divisions got higher upgrade priority. 
Again, good post. And again I am mostly in agreement with you. GSFG was prioritized for all the new equipment for obvious reasons.
Ammo is a bit harder as Warren talked about. That said I can confirm that the T-64B is using BM22, as is the T-80B. I'll check to see what the T-64A is using but I also agree that it should be at least BM15 given the timeline and the role the T-64A was to play. 

Maybe I wasn't linear in explaining my reasoning, I'll try to be clearer here.
0) DOI for the various 125mm APFSDS rounds we're talking about are: 
1976 3BM22
1982 3BM26
1983 3BM29
1985 3BM32
1986 3BM42
1) Ukrainian military and Russian separatists expend their stockpiles of 3BM32 and 3BM42 then get older 3BM22 from stocks.
2) Notice that after depleting their 3BM32 and 3BM42 stocks they don't go after 3BM29 or 3BM26 stocks, but after 3BM22.
My conclusion is that they had large stockpiles of 3BM22 rounds and scarce or non extant stockpiles of 3BM26 or 3BM29 rounds. Why? Because if they had plenty of the better rounds, they would have used them!
So there's a large stockpile of 3BM22 rounds. But when was this stockpile produced? If I understand you correctly your question is: what makes you believe that it was there in the late '70s early '80s?
Well, of course the 3BM22 stockpile couldn't have been produced 1982 or later because they would have made 3BM26 or 3BM29 rounds instead! So it should have been manufactured in the 1976-1981 timeframe and, since we already concluded it was produced in significantly larger quantities than other rounds, a plausible conclusion is that they produced them at full rate during the whole six year interval.
Well, if the website you yourself just provided is to be considered a reliable source (I do think it is and, I presume, you too) I'd like to point you to the following excerpt:

" This was the most common APFSDS projectile used by Soviet Army in late 70s-early 80s, and though no longer produced is still massively stockpiled and cleared for use." (emphasis mine). I presume this statement supports my point, don't you think? 😉
But there's more, see below...
Since you said that you trust these nerdy guys (I do too), I point you to another excerpt from the very wepbage you posted:
"This round [the 3BM15] was in use by the Soviet Army until 1976, and then it was exclusively for export and also license-produced by some nations." (emphasis mine)
So, according to the websites you mentioned, not only the 3BM22 was widely used in the 1979-1982 timeframe, but it was practically the only one fielded!
I rest my case.🙂

Maybe I wasn't linear in explaining my reasoning, I'll try to be clearer here.
0) DOI for the various 125mm APFSDS rounds we're talking about are: 
1976 3BM22
1982 3BM26
1983 3BM29
1985 3BM32
1986 3BM42
1) Ukrainian military and Russian separatists expend their stockpiles of 3BM32 and 3BM42 then get older 3BM22 from stocks.
2) Notice that after depleting their 3BM32 and 3BM42 stocks they don't go after 3BM29 or 3BM26 stocks, but after 3BM22.
My conclusion is that they had large stockpiles of 3BM22 rounds and scarce or non extant stockpiles of 3BM26 or 3BM29 rounds. Why? Because if they had plenty of the better rounds, they would have used them!
So there's a large stockpile of 3BM22 rounds. But when was this stockpile produced? If I understand you correctly your question is: what makes you believe that it was there in the late '70s early '80s?
Well, of course the 3BM22 stockpile couldn't have been produced 1982 or later because they would have made 3BM26 or 3BM29 rounds instead! So it should have been manufactured in the 1976-1981 timeframe and, since we already concluded it was produced in significantly larger quantities than other rounds, a plausible conclusion is that they produced them at full rate during the whole six year interval.
Well, if the website you yourself just provided is to be considered a reliable source (I do think it is and, I presume, you too) I'd like to point you to the following excerpt:

" This was the most common APFSDS projectile used by Soviet Army in late 70s-early 80s, and though no longer produced is still massively stockpiled and cleared for use." (emphasis mine). I presume this statement supports my point, don't you think? 😉
But there's more, see below...
Since you said that you trust these nerdy guys (I do too), I point you to another excerpt from the very wepbage you posted:
"This round [the 3BM15] was in use by the Soviet Army until 1976, and then it was exclusively for export and also license-produced by some nations." (emphasis mine)
So, according to the websites you mentioned, not only the 3BM22 was widely used in the 1979-1982 timeframe, but it was practically the only one fielded!
I rest my case.🙂

If the M60A3 TTS / M1 Commander wants to “hunt” and find targets for the gunner while the gunner prosecutes targets with his own thermal gunner’s sight, he is better off unbuttoned, except possibly M60A3 at night.  Buttoned the M1 commander only has access to a day periscope to search with, the M60A3 TTS a day/night (image intensification) periscope.

Well, I'm not that sure that more than half the tanks in the GSVG were T-62s in the early '80s. Yes, there were delays in the process of reequipping all Soviet units in Germany with the T-64, but these can be considered significant delays only if compared to the original goal of having the whole GSVG equipped with the new tanks by the end of the '70!
According to the below referenced article - by colonel Murakhovskii - the process of reequipping Soviet division stationed in Germany with T-64s started in 1976 with the 16th Guards Tank Division and the 35th Motorized Rifle Division. It initially progressed at a speedy pace, because the concurrent production of the T-72 allowed shipping to Germany not only the newly produced T-64s but also the ones in service in the Western Military District of the USSR (that were replaced by T-72s). After this, the Soviet leadership realized that the Khar'kov plant (the only one producing T-64s) was not able to sustain the expected replacement rate and delays accumulated.
РАЗВЕРТЫВАНИЕ НОВЫХ ТИПОВ ТАНКОВ В ГСВГ/ЗГВ « « Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» (otvaga2004.ru)
Long story short, this replacement took ten years, instead of the planned 3-4 years, but this doesn't mean that the T-62 remained prevalent in GSVG units in the early '80s. On the contrary, it was likely a minority by the end of the '70s; if we sum up the information provided by the aforementioned article and if we consider that the Soviets had twenty division - give or take, there were a few changes in the OoB during this timeframe - we end up with the following progression:
1976 -  2 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1977 -  8 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1978 - 10 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1979 - 12 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1980 - 14 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
1981 - 15 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
It was then decided to equip GSVG units with T-64s and T-80s, and they finally managed to complete the transition by mid '80s, T-62 tanks remained only in some independent tank regiments thereafter and, by 1990-1991 all the divisions in the (former) GSVG - then renamed Western Group of Forces, ZGV - were equipped with T-80 variants only (they managed to replace also the T-64s).
So, it seems that in the early '80s it was the T-64A that accounted for the 50-75% of the total Soviet tank force in Germany, not the T-62.
And this is exactly why I advanced the issue: giving the T-64A the 3BM12 means that, in the game, this "premium" tank is armed with an APFSDS that performs worse than the APFSDS that arms the T-62! (I don't know the actual game specs for these rounds since in game ammo performance data are not available in CMx2, but I presume the figures are in the same ballpark of those one can find elsewhere: just compare the data for the 125mm 3BM12 and the 115mm 3BM21 in SBwiki, for example). Moreover, this won't affect the player that chooses the more exotic (rarity wise) mixes - e.g. T-80s - they have the "correct" ammo, but will affect the players that want to use the sandbox trying to replicate a plausible 1979-1982 timeframe scenario. The present game design choices work well with the tanks that entered service near or in the 1979-1982 timeframe - as I said it is near perfect with the late M60 variants, the M1, the T-80, and this is why I agree with you with what you said in the first part of your post - but show problems with some of the tanks that (nominally) entered service well before 1979, as the M48, T-55, T-64.
The fact is that the Soviet embraced a large and comprehensive tank upgrade and rearmament program in the mid '70s. The BM22 was chosen for a massive program of mass production (pun intended), to the extent that - during the recent war in the Ukraine - after exhausting the stocks of the more modern (mid '80s) 3BM32 and 3BM42 APFSDS, the contendents started to pull loads of 3BM22 rounds out of stocks. Why the 3BM22 and not the more recent 3BM26 or 3BM29? Exactly because it was the 3BM22 that was produced and stockpiled in large quantities, and not the other rounds.
A quick fix, that would also preserve the present overall game design choices, could be giving the T-64A the 3BM15, the T-64B the 3BM22, and the T-55A the BM-20 or BM-25. This would both maintain the "tiered" approach to ammo distribution (i.e. "newer" variants of the same tank model get "newer" ammo) and allow for more realistic loadouts in the core (1979-1982) timeframe. But, in my humble opinion, also the option of introducing different (game) tank variants with different loadouts, reflecting ammo upgrade, could be viable. After all, in some respects, it's already in the game: what is a T-72A (1980) if not a vanilla T-72A with more modern ammo? Yes, yes, there are also the smoke dischargers to "justify" the variant, but you get the gist. 🙂
 
 

Well, I'm not that sure that more than half the tanks in the GSVG were T-62s in the early '80s. Yes, there were delays in the process of reequipping all Soviet units in Germany with the T-64, but these can be considered significant delays only if compared to the original goal of having the whole GSVG equipped with the new tanks by the end of the '70!
According to the below referenced article - by colonel Murakhovskii - the process of reequipping Soviet division stationed in Germany with T-64s started in 1976 with the 16th Guards Tank Division and the 35th Motorized Rifle Division. It initially progressed at a speedy pace, because the concurrent production of the T-72 allowed shipping to Germany not only the newly produced T-64s but also the ones in service in the Western Military District of the USSR (that were replaced by T-72s). After this, the Soviet leadership realized that the Khar'kov plant (the only one producing T-64s) was not able to sustain the expected replacement rate and delays accumulated.
РАЗВЕРТЫВАНИЕ НОВЫХ ТИПОВ ТАНКОВ В ГСВГ/ЗГВ « « Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» (otvaga2004.ru)
Long story short, this replacement took ten years, instead of the planned 3-4 years, but this doesn't mean that the T-62 remained prevalent in GSVG units in the early '80s. On the contrary, it was likely a minority by the end of the '70s; if we sum up the information provided by the aforementioned article and if we consider that the Soviets had twenty division - give or take, there were a few changes in the OoB during this timeframe - we end up with the following progression:
1976 -  2 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1977 -  8 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1978 - 10 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1979 - 12 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1980 - 14 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
1981 - 15 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
It was then decided to equip GSVG units with T-64s and T-80s, and they finally managed to complete the transition by mid '80s, T-62 tanks remained only in some independent tank regiments thereafter and, by 1990-1991 all the divisions in the (former) GSVG - then renamed Western Group of Forces, ZGV - were equipped with T-80 variants only (they managed to replace also the T-64s).
So, it seems that in the early '80s it was the T-64A that accounted for the 50-75% of the total Soviet tank force in Germany, not the T-62.
And this is exactly why I advanced the issue: giving the T-64A the 3BM12 means that, in the game, this "premium" tank is armed with an APFSDS that performs worse than the APFSDS that arms the T-62! (I don't know the actual game specs for these rounds since in game ammo performance data are not available in CMx2, but I presume the figures are in the same ballpark of those one can find elsewhere: just compare the data for the 125mm 3BM12 and the 115mm 3BM21 in SBwiki, for example). Moreover, this won't affect the player that chooses the more exotic (rarity wise) mixes - e.g. T-80s - they have the "correct" ammo, but will affect the players that want to use the sandbox trying to replicate a plausible 1979-1982 timeframe scenario. The present game design choices work well with the tanks that entered service near or in the 1979-1982 timeframe - as I said it is near perfect with the late M60 variants, the M1, the T-80, and this is why I agree with you with what you said in the first part of your post - but show problems with some of the tanks that (nominally) entered service well before 1979, as the M48, T-55, T-64.
The fact is that the Soviet embraced a large and comprehensive tank upgrade and rearmament program in the mid '70s. The BM22 was chosen for a massive program of mass production (pun intended), to the extent that - during the recent war in the Ukraine - after exhausting the stocks of the more modern (mid '80s) 3BM32 and 3BM42 APFSDS, the contendents started to pull loads of 3BM22 rounds out of stocks. Why the 3BM22 and not the more recent 3BM26 or 3BM29? Exactly because it was the 3BM22 that was produced and stockpiled in large quantities, and not the other rounds.
A quick fix, that would also preserve the present overall game design choices, could be giving the T-64A the 3BM15, the T-64B the 3BM22, and the T-55A the BM-20 or BM-25. This would both maintain the "tiered" approach to ammo distribution (i.e. "newer" variants of the same tank model get "newer" ammo) and allow for more realistic loadouts in the core (1979-1982) timeframe. But, in my humble opinion, also the option of introducing different (game) tank variants with different loadouts, reflecting ammo upgrade, could be viable. After all, in some respects, it's already in the game: what is a T-72A (1980) if not a vanilla T-72A with more modern ammo? Yes, yes, there are also the smoke dischargers to "justify" the variant, but you get the gist. 🙂
 
 

Of course I have no difficulties believing that a lot of thought went into this whole business of crafting CMCW. I know the quality Battlefront strives to deliver because I'm a happy customer since the days of CMBO. With CMBO, Battlefront started to produce the best (that is, in my opinion, the most realistic, user friendly and fun to play) tactical wargames and still does. So, rest assured that I'm not writing this to bash CMCW: in fact, now that it is available, and installed both on my Windows laptop and Mac Mini, I ditched all my other tactical cold war era videogames.
Does it mean that CM is perfect? Of course not. And, although I am not one of the top posters,  it's more than 20 years that I joined this community and I do remember how the process of polishing, improving and expanding the various CM titles passed also through a lot of long, documented and passionate threads on these very forums. Even I had the occasion to partecipate in some of those discussions and contribute a little bit of info than managed to find its place into some CM titles. So, I wrote the OP in the spirit of those constructive threads, not to point fingers, not to demand, but to suggest and discuss.
And, speaking, of the engine restrictions on ammunition natures, I'm aware of them, but they are not consequential to what I wrote. They would be of hindrance if one had to place in the very same AFV different APDS types, or different APFSDS types, but that's not the case.
 
I know of the sandbox nature of the game. But CMCW is not a 'generic' Cold War game nor simply an OPFOR vs US Army simulator: it sports a specific timeframe (1979-1982) and it's obvious that BFC goal was (as always) to provide players the most accurate and high fidelity representation of the opposing US and Soviet armies in terms of organization, equipment, weapons, ammo types etc. In this respect I do think that some more polishing and chrome might and should be added. Moreover, it can be easily made in a way that is already a CM staple, i.e. adding to a tank's name a suffix like 1979 or 1980 or early, mid, late, latest to differentiate models that differ only for the ammo loadout composition (reflecting, for example, the introduction of a better kinetic penetrator).
For what concerns the composition of the M60 park in USAREUR units, you are, of course, right. In fact, even with the 'policy' of one tank model-one ammo model, BFC managed to achieve the "best fit" for M60s and M1s in the given timeframe. But, as you noticed, I wasn't speaking of them (although one could point out some subtleties that could allow for a bit of chrome... but I'd better reserve this for another post! 😄)

Well, I'm not that sure that more than half the tanks in the GSVG were T-62s in the early '80s. Yes, there were delays in the process of reequipping all Soviet units in Germany with the T-64, but these can be considered significant delays only if compared to the original goal of having the whole GSVG equipped with the new tanks by the end of the '70!
According to the below referenced article - by colonel Murakhovskii - the process of reequipping Soviet division stationed in Germany with T-64s started in 1976 with the 16th Guards Tank Division and the 35th Motorized Rifle Division. It initially progressed at a speedy pace, because the concurrent production of the T-72 allowed shipping to Germany not only the newly produced T-64s but also the ones in service in the Western Military District of the USSR (that were replaced by T-72s). After this, the Soviet leadership realized that the Khar'kov plant (the only one producing T-64s) was not able to sustain the expected replacement rate and delays accumulated.
РАЗВЕРТЫВАНИЕ НОВЫХ ТИПОВ ТАНКОВ В ГСВГ/ЗГВ « « Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» (otvaga2004.ru)
Long story short, this replacement took ten years, instead of the planned 3-4 years, but this doesn't mean that the T-62 remained prevalent in GSVG units in the early '80s. On the contrary, it was likely a minority by the end of the '70s; if we sum up the information provided by the aforementioned article and if we consider that the Soviets had twenty division - give or take, there were a few changes in the OoB during this timeframe - we end up with the following progression:
1976 -  2 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1977 -  8 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1978 - 10 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1979 - 12 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
1980 - 14 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
1981 - 15 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
It was then decided to equip GSVG units with T-64s and T-80s, and they finally managed to complete the transition by mid '80s, T-62 tanks remained only in some independent tank regiments thereafter and, by 1990-1991 all the divisions in the (former) GSVG - then renamed Western Group of Forces, ZGV - were equipped with T-80 variants only (they managed to replace also the T-64s).
So, it seems that in the early '80s it was the T-64A that accounted for the 50-75% of the total Soviet tank force in Germany, not the T-62.
And this is exactly why I advanced the issue: giving the T-64A the 3BM12 means that, in the game, this "premium" tank is armed with an APFSDS that performs worse than the APFSDS that arms the T-62! (I don't know the actual game specs for these rounds since in game ammo performance data are not available in CMx2, but I presume the figures are in the same ballpark of those one can find elsewhere: just compare the data for the 125mm 3BM12 and the 115mm 3BM21 in SBwiki, for example). Moreover, this won't affect the player that chooses the more exotic (rarity wise) mixes - e.g. T-80s - they have the "correct" ammo, but will affect the players that want to use the sandbox trying to replicate a plausible 1979-1982 timeframe scenario. The present game design choices work well with the tanks that entered service near or in the 1979-1982 timeframe - as I said it is near perfect with the late M60 variants, the M1, the T-80, and this is why I agree with you with what you said in the first part of your post - but show problems with some of the tanks that (nominally) entered service well before 1979, as the M48, T-55, T-64.
The fact is that the Soviet embraced a large and comprehensive tank upgrade and rearmament program in the mid '70s. The BM22 was chosen for a massive program of mass production (pun intended), to the extent that - during the recent war in the Ukraine - after exhausting the stocks of the more modern (mid '80s) 3BM32 and 3BM42 APFSDS, the contendents started to pull loads of 3BM22 rounds out of stocks. Why the 3BM22 and not the more recent 3BM26 or 3BM29? Exactly because it was the 3BM22 that was produced and stockpiled in large quantities, and not the other rounds.
A quick fix, that would also preserve the present overall game design choices, could be giving the T-64A the 3BM15, the T-64B the 3BM22, and the T-55A the BM-20 or BM-25. This would both maintain the "tiered" approach to ammo distribution (i.e. "newer" variants of the same tank model get "newer" ammo) and allow for more realistic loadouts in the core (1979-1982) timeframe. But, in my humble opinion, also the option of introducing different (game) tank variants with different loadouts, reflecting ammo upgrade, could be viable. After all, in some respects, it's already in the game: what is a T-72A (1980) if not a vanilla T-72A with more modern ammo? Yes, yes, there are also the smoke dischargers to "justify" the variant, but you get the gist. 🙂
 
 

Yes, ISTR the Syrian SAA reverted to 73mm BMPs for urban counterinsurgency fighting; the 30mm autocannons just go in one wall and out the other. Just the opposite of the Red Army in A-Stan which found it needed main guns with 'reach'.