Amedeo

Speaking of fighters, if we focus on the air war in Central Europe both the MiG-31 and the F-14 are out of the equation. The first was a PVO interceptor whose sole purpose was the defense of mainland USSR from strategic bombers/cruise missiles, the second would have been busy with fleet operations, everywhere in the world save for the IGB.
Thus, the only NATO air superiority assets, available at start, to fight over Central Europe would've been those of the TWOATAF and FOURATAF. And, even in the mid-late '80s, the only all-weather and BVR capable units were the Eagle equipped 32nd TFS and 35th TFW (USAF) the Hornet equipped Squadrons No. 409, 421 and 439 (RCAF) and the Phantom equipped 92th and 19th Squadrons (RAF). Period. All other NATO fighter units in theatre were equipped with "light" fighters (F-16, F-104, F-5, Mirage 5 etc.) with no BVR capability. Thus, even against the maligned MiG-23, these fighters, while capable dogfighters, would have to dodge volleys of SARH AAMs before the merge.
Moreover, NATO fighters had also the burden of escorting air strikes deep behind the frontline in a SAM-rich environment and against a redundant GCI radar net (no possibility of a stealth surprise airstrike against A-50 AWACS à la Clancy to clear the way, simply because... there were no A-50s in Central Europe, the few existing ones at the time were also a PVO only asset). If someone is thinking: why bother with deep strikes over enemy airspace, just defend over your own airspace... well, I presume that without some serious FOFA, NATO airplanes wouldn't have made the difference in WW3.
And Western air forces had to manage this after (literally) tons and tons of explosive hurled against NATO airports and SAM sites in the form of ballistic and cruise missiles (and, possibly, bombs).
Of course the Red Horde (TM) wouldn't have emerged unscathed from this ordeal, quite the contrary. But, probably, they had the numbers to better survive this attrition war, if the other Warsaw Pact assets were able to reduce/delay US reinforcement in the theatre.

Speaking of fighters, if we focus on the air war in Central Europe both the MiG-31 and the F-14 are out of the equation. The first was a PVO interceptor whose sole purpose was the defense of mainland USSR from strategic bombers/cruise missiles, the second would have been busy with fleet operations, everywhere in the world save for the IGB.
Thus, the only NATO air superiority assets, available at start, to fight over Central Europe would've been those of the TWOATAF and FOURATAF. And, even in the mid-late '80s, the only all-weather and BVR capable units were the Eagle equipped 32nd TFS and 35th TFW (USAF) the Hornet equipped Squadrons No. 409, 421 and 439 (RCAF) and the Phantom equipped 92th and 19th Squadrons (RAF). Period. All other NATO fighter units in theatre were equipped with "light" fighters (F-16, F-104, F-5, Mirage 5 etc.) with no BVR capability. Thus, even against the maligned MiG-23, these fighters, while capable dogfighters, would have to dodge volleys of SARH AAMs before the merge.
Moreover, NATO fighters had also the burden of escorting air strikes deep behind the frontline in a SAM-rich environment and against a redundant GCI radar net (no possibility of a stealth surprise airstrike against A-50 AWACS à la Clancy to clear the way, simply because... there were no A-50s in Central Europe, the few existing ones at the time were also a PVO only asset). If someone is thinking: why bother with deep strikes over enemy airspace, just defend over your own airspace... well, I presume that without some serious FOFA, NATO airplanes wouldn't have made the difference in WW3.
And Western air forces had to manage this after (literally) tons and tons of explosive hurled against NATO airports and SAM sites in the form of ballistic and cruise missiles (and, possibly, bombs).
Of course the Red Horde (TM) wouldn't have emerged unscathed from this ordeal, quite the contrary. But, probably, they had the numbers to better survive this attrition war, if the other Warsaw Pact assets were able to reduce/delay US reinforcement in the theatre.

Speaking of fighters, if we focus on the air war in Central Europe both the MiG-31 and the F-14 are out of the equation. The first was a PVO interceptor whose sole purpose was the defense of mainland USSR from strategic bombers/cruise missiles, the second would have been busy with fleet operations, everywhere in the world save for the IGB.
Thus, the only NATO air superiority assets, available at start, to fight over Central Europe would've been those of the TWOATAF and FOURATAF. And, even in the mid-late '80s, the only all-weather and BVR capable units were the Eagle equipped 32nd TFS and 35th TFW (USAF) the Hornet equipped Squadrons No. 409, 421 and 439 (RCAF) and the Phantom equipped 92th and 19th Squadrons (RAF). Period. All other NATO fighter units in theatre were equipped with "light" fighters (F-16, F-104, F-5, Mirage 5 etc.) with no BVR capability. Thus, even against the maligned MiG-23, these fighters, while capable dogfighters, would have to dodge volleys of SARH AAMs before the merge.
Moreover, NATO fighters had also the burden of escorting air strikes deep behind the frontline in a SAM-rich environment and against a redundant GCI radar net (no possibility of a stealth surprise airstrike against A-50 AWACS à la Clancy to clear the way, simply because... there were no A-50s in Central Europe, the few existing ones at the time were also a PVO only asset). If someone is thinking: why bother with deep strikes over enemy airspace, just defend over your own airspace... well, I presume that without some serious FOFA, NATO airplanes wouldn't have made the difference in WW3.
And Western air forces had to manage this after (literally) tons and tons of explosive hurled against NATO airports and SAM sites in the form of ballistic and cruise missiles (and, possibly, bombs).
Of course the Red Horde (TM) wouldn't have emerged unscathed from this ordeal, quite the contrary. But, probably, they had the numbers to better survive this attrition war, if the other Warsaw Pact assets were able to reduce/delay US reinforcement in the theatre.

Some are not even birds:

Or by 1981:

"Are you picking on our little brother?" 

Of course it was a purposely designed QB on a pool-table like map pitting T-72As vs M48A5. The Pattons opened fire at 4000 m and scored a lot of hits with their obsolete APDS rounds, managing also to penetrate their targets on gun mantlets and lower hulls.

The wooden ones I assume ... 😉

For CMCW timline USSR had four types of helicopter units. Until 1990 "army aviation" belonged to Air Forces and after was transferred to Ground Forces, but in real helicopter units subordinated to HQs of Combined or Tank Arnies.
So, during Cold War Soviet there were next helicopter units:
1. Separate helicopter regiment (rus. OVP): 2 squadrons of Mi-6/Mi-26, 1 squadron of Mi-8, 1 squadron of Mi-24 (this structure appeared in 1982 in Afganistan)
2. Separate transport&combat helicopter regiment (rus. OTBVP): 2 squadrons of Mi-8, 2 squadrons of Mi-6/Mi-26. (this type appeared since 1982, before 1982 this regiment type named OVP)
3. Separate helicopter regiment of combat and control (rus. OVPBU): 2 squadrons of Mi-24 (including Mi-24K for artillery spotting and Mi-24R for recon), 1-2 squadron(s) of Mi-8 (including special communication Mi-8VZPU and flying command post Mi-9) 
4. Separate combat helicopter regiment (rus.OBVP): 2 squadrons of Mi-24, 1 squadron of Mi-8
This is typical composition, but could be variations among units. Each squadron of Mi-24 usually had 20 choppers in 5 flights per 4 helicopters. Mi-8 also had 20 choppers, but some sources say combat helicopter regiments had 8-10 Mi-8 in the squadron. Squadrons of Mi-6/Mi-26 had 10 helicopters.
In Germany Soviet armies had two separate helicopter regiments and one separate helicopter sqaudron. 

The screenshots in the original C2 and Information Sharing topic were destroyed by Photobucket. As a result a REDUX C2 and Information Sharing topic was created with new screenshots. Some mods that will show up most often in the screenshots are, user interface (UI) and floating icons:  
Floating Icons – Cat Tactical Icons CMFI
User Interface – Juju’s TweakedUI CMFI V5
Some interesting topics have been started about how information moves through the C2 chain both vertically (up & down the chain of command) and horizontally (directly from one team to another team).  As a result I did some experimenting with C2 & information sharing.  Below are the results with screenshots from the experiment.  If anyone can offer a correction or additional information please do. 
Additional useful information and supplemental C2 rules:   
4.0 Engine Manual page 66 Command & Control.
@Bil Hardenberger Command Friction 2.0 -  http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125172-command-friction-20/
@Peregrine Command Layers - http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110861-command-layer-in-ai-battles/
 
 
The distance information can be shared vertically (chain of command).
Voice C2: Up to six action spots, approximately 48 meters. If either unit is on Hide then the distance is reduced to approximately 16 meters.
Close Visual C2: Up to 12 action spots, approximately 96 meters. This is also the maximum distance a higher HQ can fill in for a lower HQ. Example: Company or battalion HQ fills in for a platoon HQ and provides C2 to the platoon's fire teams. 
Distant Visual C2: As far as the unit’s line of sight.  (In the experiment I had units in distant visual C2 at 40 action spots, approximately 480 meters before I stopped.)
Radio C2: Entire map.  In the WWII titles, CMSF & CMA - C2 via backpack radio is lost during foot movement. C2 is maintained during foot movement in CMBS.
The distance information can be shared horizontally (directly between teams).
Up to four action spots, approximately 32 meters. (Sometimes a team had to move to within 3 action spots)
Can information be shared horizontally between teams from different battalions?
Yes
Can information be shared between two different HQs that do not have a common higher HQ?
Vertically: No (With no common higher HQ there is no bridge for the information to pass over) 
Horizontally: Yes
The experiment was conducted on skill level Iron in CMFI v2.0 Engine 4.  I used two different US battalions on a custom made map for the experiment.  The 4th US Tank Battalion on the west (left) side of the map and the 1st US Infantry Battalion on the east (right) side.  A high ridgeline divided the two battalions.  HQ units are blocked from C2 Voice, Close Visual and Distant Visual with other HQ units. At the beginning of the experiment no units of the 4thBattalion were in C2 with units of the 1st Battalion.  An immobilized German Tiger and a destroyed Tiger were used as the OpFor unit to be spotted and reported.  
The Area of Operations (A/O) for the experiment. Note the highlighted scout team with no C2.   
 

Ok, typical grogs, all standing around arguing.  Ran a short test scenario (see attached).  Setup is best attempt to re-create conditions described by OP.  Ran the test 10 times and got the following results:
Test
1 - 2 shots until a kill
2 - 1 shot kill
3 - 3 misses and the Bradley killed the team
4 - 1 shot kill
5 - 5 misses and Bradley killed the team
6 - 1 shot kill
7 - 1 shot kill (Bradley managed to kill the team at the same time)
8 - 2 misses and Bradley killed the team
9 - 2 shot kill
10 - 3 shot kill
So in 10 engagements we saw a 70% success rate (i.e. Bradley killed) with about 1.5 shots per kill.  So what?  RPGs not too bad at 225-ish ms at least according to these conditions.
RPGTest.btt

so, according to this 1976 U.S. Army document, hit probability of a RPG-7 against a Hull down M-60 at 225 meters is as follows:
- 1st shot 15%
-2nd shot 30% 
/tardir/tiffs/a393159.tiff (dtic.mil)
see pages 15-16.
That more or less matches the test results by Capt.

It's in the timeframe, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it - but the main thing is that it's an engineer's weapon, for urban combat. This is firmly not the focus of Cold War, and my guess would be that this is why it's not in-game.

Photos of Soviet troops involved in suppressing the 1956 Hungarian revolt, show that the AK was practically ubiquitous. So, I presume that it's safe to assume that in 1957 for Soviet front line troops in Germany/Eastern Europe the AK was standard issue.

Okay, so what happened.
He was able to hit the Bradley with his 11th shot. That's right, *eleventh* shot. All 10 grenades fired before that missed. No incoming fire, no harassment at all. There's your regular Russian soldier.

I've been playing continuously since CMBO and would love a major upgrade in ways of playing (eg, live hotseat battles against humans online, auto-generated careers, replayability of battles so you can follow one unit's progress from start to finish) and in graphics (better battle damage to vehicles, more realistic soldier movements) but having said all that I still find Combat Mission miles ahead of any other tactical wargames I see online in terms of realism of play (Post Scriptum and Hell Let Loose look gorgeous but play like kids running around randomly shooting each other). It's a bit like watching a 4k video on a huge new TV versus a VHS on a small screen - if the movie's crap no amount of graphics will make it good, and a good movie will always be good despite mediocre graphics...
 
 

Yes, a 1957-1962 setting would be interesting. Speaking about small arms, from the Soviet side the transition from the AK to the AKM should be less dramatic than the one from the M1 to the M14 - in game terms I doubt there's any noticeable difference between these two Kalashnikov models - on the other hand the transition from the RPD to the RPK should have more impact.
Anyway I'm perfectly aware that the chances of a late '50s-early '60s CMCW game are very slim (euphemism), but that's not really a problem. I just hope that the expected modules for the 1979-1982 timeframe will see the light in the coming months.

Cold War AT ranges are fairly consistent across both factions, and are in basically three bands.

Short range is dictated by the range of the RPG-7 and LAW, and are about 300m.
Medium range is defined by the range of the Dragon and AT-7/SPG-9, and is about 1000m
Long range is defined by TOWs and AT-4/AT-5s, and is 2000m+

Armour in this period slots in between the medium and long range, so engagements at around 1500m are fairly typical. The gunnery is still WW2-level for the most part, so longer ranged shots will be very inaccurate, and kinetic penetrators will lose much of their energy at extreme range. I've seen tank duels at 3-4km between M60A1 and T-62 (tanks which can typically kill each other pretty easily) where the kinetic rounds are mostly bouncing off, simply due to the distances involved.

That's the basic answer to your question, but it's worth discussing some complexities:

The Soviet tanks in 1979-1980 are, broadly, superior to the US armour. The T-62 (1975), for example, has similar armour to an M60A1, but has a laser rangefinder (rather than the optical co-incidence rangefinder than the M60 has), and a gun with a significantly higher velocity. That will mean a flatter trajectory, so greater accuracy and penetration. The situation for the US broadly gets worse with the T-64 and up, since there is a significant uptick in armour, and the composite turret makes the available HEAT rounds mostly ineffective from the front. 

The HEAT rounds do not rely on kinetic energy, so weapons that can deliver HEAT over distance are obviously useful - the most accurate way to deliver a HEAT round over distance is an ATGM, and this is the logic behind the development of the M60A2 Starship. This vehicle was obsolete pretty much by the time it was deployed, owing to the changes in Soviet armour with the T-64, but the desire to take these extreme-range engagements is a reasonable one.

Those NTC training scenarios are the only all-armour scenarios I've actually enjoyed in CM, mostly as the terrain is excellent, and the opponent has a chance to actually win. The point of them really is to show the development of armour across the period, and partly to show quite how ridiculously dominant the Abrams are in 1982. That latter scenario is neither particularly interesting nor fun, but I think it's an important step in the conceptual process behind CM: Cold War.

In terms of tactics, the US is really built on these combined arms companies. Something like two platoons of mechanised infantry, a tank platoon, a couple of TOW launchers and some organic mortars. This unit is a self-contained, self-sufficient fighting element, which is useful since the assumption was that these would be overrun.

This is a really good reference for that, in this period:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=My8-u2rYNVoC

Broadly though, the TOWs define your area of influence, since they're your long ranged firepower. The infantry define the space you're fighting in, protecting flanks and holding ground, and the armour is a mobile concentration of power, either the thrust of your main effort, or a mobile reserve.

The 5-tank platoon should typically split into two fireteams of 3 and 2, with one covering the movement of the other. It's important especially against the Soviets to use terrain to mask your movement, and to use the terrain to control your engagements - there will typically be more Soviet tanks than US tanks, and they're superior to your armour, so you can't take them head-on. You need to set up situations where you have local superiority in firepower and numbers. 

IIRC, only the airborne divisions and the marine FMF completed the full transition to the M14 by the beginning of 1962, while the bulk of the US Army completed the transition by the end of the year. So, in that year, some American infantry units might still be equipped with M1 rifles.

Polish forces were also earmarked for the invasion of Denmark, so Danish troops should be present in a module featuring Polish paras and marines.

Yes, you're right. The diagram could show an earlier version or even a prototype. Maybe even the "infamous" Leopard 2AV that allegedly resulted less armoured than the M1 during the evaluation trials.

This chart doesn't say which Leo2 though, the 2A4 was introduced later in the 80s IIRC and has different turret armour ("and an improved turret with flat titanium/tungsten armour." according to wikipedia).

Will it have a 'Tankini''? 

That model will be introduced in the module featuring the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan! 😁

Sharing Intel, first we wish to share with the other platoons of the company. The scenario is Red Dawn (*SPOILERS*) and task of the first Sapper company is to get the intel for follow up forces. They found prepared foxholes and mines in the areas suitable for spotting. First, they spotted two MG Pillboxes and share with the other platoon members. As everybody somehow can contact the 'Fire Direction Centre' I use this feature in the game as my channel. We can access the Mortars and use this for light and short fire missions. Any HQ in the game can access this and find a path to the spotter.



The most realistic way I can think of to establish communication for units with no radio. This party was part of a Leaders Recon (Regimental Radio) who has contact with only the first platoon. 

First I explain first the scouting my method in more detail.