Amedeo

Then, to fix this glitch they'll have to remove the shadow on the T-64 and... add the guidance module on the T-80! 😄
Yes, this is said tongue-in-cheek but I'm not kidding too much. In fact, while there was a T-64B1, that is a T-64B without the guidance module for gun launched ATGMs, actually there was no T-80B1, ever. That is: no T-80B was ever produced without being ATGM capable. 
Of course, I am for keeping the "T-80B1" in the game, just to represent a different ammo loadout for the T-80B, but if one has to fix its 3D model, the ATGM sight should be added, not the shadow removed.

Selecting Units for a Task works very well for large scenarios. He has a minus 1 for leadership but a +1 for morale. His mission was probing suspected German positions.


We select the marksmen team for 'Overwatch'.
 

The PDF file which came with the game could have been more detailed about this in my opinion. 

Ok guys, you lit my fire and I decided to burn some bunkers...again.
This time I took the proven route and went left side. I throw smoke on the trench right in front of me and to my right, thus creating a smoking "box". The smoke was ordered 5 min from the mission start to get my troops ready. I concentrated them all on the narrow left side behind railroad, except for 2 tanks, 1 HMG and sniper on the far right. 
The engineers were essential to blast through barbered wire. The snipers were responsible for a large part of enemy casualties, ranging from 16 to 6 casualties per sniper (green guy made six). For comparison - tanks made about 2-4 casualties per vehicle, but they were pivotal in terms of fire suppression. I used them as HMG\artillery platforms and leave them far away from trenches, because I knew from the previous experience that they would be booged or killed by flak or stug fire. 
Almost all of my flame tower guys made to the end and spectacularly burnt bunkers!
This time my walkthrough was really positive and energetic. 
In the beginning on nomansland from the left side. The trick was to come as close as possible under the smoke cover: 

When my troops passed the first trench they stroke from the rear: 

 

This bunker was not burnt, but was exploded with dozens of hand grenades. The team from inside opened the door and tried to run only to be smashed by direct fire:



The smartest guy gave up:

The first flame:


The next one please:


Actually this bunker was bugged and didn't want to burn no matter what


Landscape in the end:



 





 
 

Using a game of chess anology cover and concealment promotes a pawn into a castle or bishop. He who shoots first tends to live longer. Here is a suggested cause of action. 



We need more intel before the final assault. All my key units will have their mission using the above method. It will be attrition and the plan is that the German units won't cope with the combat stress. 

Plan is the US tactics Search and Destroy. it is bad strategy but tactically sound. 
Here we meet a German HGM team. My troops are green and theirs are veterans. We have the numbers and can afford an attrition battle they can't.


The Russian HMG needs some time to deploy but with 2 Russian split up squads the German MG42 team must suffer combat stress too. While he can return fire at only one team at a time, we can return fire from six different directions at once. The Russian HMG joins the action. 

Yes, the German morale is broken with fatal consequences. Protect your HMG teams at all times.

By leading with the infantry, the plan of the AI becomes clear. The corridors of my T34's are limited, obstacles of barbed wire trenches undoubtely protected by AT guns. The choice is either run out of time or run out of men. So far losses of the infantry are acceptable more or less 1:1 and I receive intel of location of obstacles and fortifications. Postpone all-out assault in the last 15 minutes of the game. 
 

I would be incredibly surprised if it wasn't NVA/Bundeswehr (plus, I'd love to see a professionally done version of my mod!)
I have his book, Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland. I'll see if I can dig anything interesting from his maps.
Edit:
Found a map. He was in V. Armee so naturally his data is about its role in the "united armed forces" as he puts it.

Oh some translations to help you guys:
GSSD = Gruppe der Sowjetischen Streitkräfte in Deutschland, Group of Soviet Forces Germany
OK = Oberkommando, High Command
GdMSD = Garde-Motorisierte-Schützendivision, Guards Motor Rifle Division (likewise MSD for w/out guards)
GPD = Garde-Panzerdivision, Guards Tank Division (likewise PD for w/out guards)

Bringing the Khrizantema to a knife fight is a recipe for disaster. Haiduk already explained its intended use.

However, dont' forget that this missile tank destroyer has a radar sight that works in game. So, pairing a Khrizantema with e.g. a BMP-3 providing IR-blocking smokescreens will allow you to engage US armour at long range without risking being targeted by them (as long as the smoke doen't disperse). And, when it doesn't risk being fired upon, a Khrizantema can be very deadly, considering that it has enough penetration to frontally defeat an M1A2 and salvo fire to overcome APS defences.

Well, I don't dispute this. My only point is that, if one wants to but Khrizantema TDs in a QB, it would be pointless not to provide them with IR-blocking smoke cover, considering the only advantage its sensor have that is is the game is the capability to acquire target and shoot them through every type of smoke (real kife Khrizantema has also other peculiarities, i.e. mast mounted sensors and multplte targeting capabilities that, for reasons due to the game engine, are not represented in CMBS). 
Anyway, the Khrizantema-smoke ruse is old story, not a game-winning strategy but it seems I'm not the only one (see link below) that found it viable to enhance the poor game performance of that TD - then, that that increase in performance is enough to warrant buying them in QBs is another story, but, again, I'm not suggesting buying them, I'm only saying: if you buy them, then buy also smoke covering AFVs).
 

Bringing the Khrizantema to a knife fight is a recipe for disaster. Haiduk already explained its intended use.

However, dont' forget that this missile tank destroyer has a radar sight that works in game. So, pairing a Khrizantema with e.g. a BMP-3 providing IR-blocking smokescreens will allow you to engage US armour at long range without risking being targeted by them (as long as the smoke doen't disperse). And, when it doesn't risk being fired upon, a Khrizantema can be very deadly, considering that it has enough penetration to frontally defeat an M1A2 and salvo fire to overcome APS defences.

Bringing the Khrizantema to a knife fight is a recipe for disaster. Haiduk already explained its intended use.

However, dont' forget that this missile tank destroyer has a radar sight that works in game. So, pairing a Khrizantema with e.g. a BMP-3 providing IR-blocking smokescreens will allow you to engage US armour at long range without risking being targeted by them (as long as the smoke doen't disperse). And, when it doesn't risk being fired upon, a Khrizantema can be very deadly, considering that it has enough penetration to frontally defeat an M1A2 and salvo fire to overcome APS defences.

Bringing the Khrizantema to a knife fight is a recipe for disaster. Haiduk already explained its intended use.

However, dont' forget that this missile tank destroyer has a radar sight that works in game. So, pairing a Khrizantema with e.g. a BMP-3 providing IR-blocking smokescreens will allow you to engage US armour at long range without risking being targeted by them (as long as the smoke doen't disperse). And, when it doesn't risk being fired upon, a Khrizantema can be very deadly, considering that it has enough penetration to frontally defeat an M1A2 and salvo fire to overcome APS defences.

Bringing the Khrizantema to a knife fight is a recipe for disaster. Haiduk already explained its intended use.

However, dont' forget that this missile tank destroyer has a radar sight that works in game. So, pairing a Khrizantema with e.g. a BMP-3 providing IR-blocking smokescreens will allow you to engage US armour at long range without risking being targeted by them (as long as the smoke doen't disperse). And, when it doesn't risk being fired upon, a Khrizantema can be very deadly, considering that it has enough penetration to frontally defeat an M1A2 and salvo fire to overcome APS defences.

... and don't forget Leopard 2s! Possibly the best tanks NATO fielded in the game's timeframe.

... and don't forget Leopard 2s! Possibly the best tanks NATO fielded in the game's timeframe.

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

If one nitpicks Napoleon's blunders one can make him look a bad commander enough; but you know that he also won a lot of campaigns and he won them against Armies and States that, at the time, were considered the best in the world. Moreover, he won them with a level of success that was unprecedented (e.g. the magnitude of Napoleon's smashing of Austria in 1805 and 1809 was something that Frederick the Great could only have dreamed of).
To say that the best commander is the one that is never defeated puts too much weight on chance. Had Napoleon died for natural causes  in, say, 1810, according to your metrics you should have rated him one of the best commanders ever (if not the best). Also in sports, the best team is not the one that has never lost a match (especially if plays only with sub par adversaries in a single season) but is the one that routinely confronts and beat other top tier teams. So, in this respect, I do think that Napoleon was a superb commander.
Having said this, I admit that, yes, the 1812 Russian Campaign was a strategic blunder and this error eventually lead to the loss of his Empire. But even if his conquest were ephemeral, it was the personal fate of the individual named Napoleon Bonaparte that was defeated, not what he was actually fighting for: he eventually lost but managed to win enough to make the conquests of Revolutionary France shape the future of Europe, and not the pseudo-feudal institutions of most of the old monarchies that opposed him. In this respect, Napoleon's fate was in somewhat similar to Alexander the Great's one: he died, his Empire fell apart, his son died young and was never on a throne. But what he did influenced for centuries the future of the territories he had "lost".

Sorry had to! 😀

You could just say Japanese.  It's only five extra letters.

The armour on the T-64 (and on base T-72, for what matters) was designed to stop 105mm APDS, not APFSDS (simply because there was no 105mm APFSDS in service or near to enter service at the time). Thus, I expect the T-64A to be frontally impervious to the M728 (save for the lower hull and the occasional weak spot) and marginally effective against the M735. The M774 should not have particular problems at normal combat ranges.
On the other hand, the T-64B is a different beast. According to the infamous Kubinka tests, its armour (comparable to the one on the T-72A) should be very good against the M735 and fail against the M774 on the glacis (especially the upper glacis). I'm assuming that the alleged M735 test took place and that the M111 is more comparable in performance to the M774 than to the M735, we have no incontrovertible data about these assumptions but they seems reasonable to me for a number of reasons I have partially detailed in another thread.
Considering the data posted above and in the other aforementioned thread, I dare to say that in CMCW T-64A's armour is more resilient than it ought to be, but this advantage is offset by the fact that very few hits land on the turret cheeks (where there's the thickest armour) and a lot on the hull (especially on the lower hull), and US gunners are able to score a lot of hits even on extreme ranges.
I presume that some tweaking of the T-64A protection and hits distribution and rate is already in the works but I also presume that the next patch will be concomitant with the  Steam release, so we have to wait some more time.

Well, the Iraqi T-72s were issued 3BM15 APFSDS rounds, that is an early '70s penetrator that had no chance, frontally, against the depleted uranium armour of an M1A1(HA).
So, there's no need to assume Iraqi tanks were issued practice rounds to explain their ineffectiveness, since their best round available was just as useless as a candy bar.
Maybe the fact that the obsolete/obsolescent 3BM15 was relegated to "practice round" role in the Soviet Army at the time of the US-Iraq Gulf War, gave origin to the story about the issue of "practice rounds" to Saddam's forces. But, AFAIK, no Soviet client state, outside the Warsaw Pact, had access to anything better than 3BM15 before 1991. 
Long story short, an M1A1(HA) was able to obtain first round hits and (catastrophic) kills on a T-72M1 at distance at which the T-72 wasn't even able to see the Abrams (at night), let alone hit it. If we factor also the difference in numbers, training, morale, air support etc. I simply don't see the need to explain the one-sided results of the 1991 with further unlikely assumptions.

Doctrine and the TO&E go hand in hand - each absolutely lead the other. You're certainly free to use any tactical approach you'd like, but the kit is designed to be used in a particular way, and trying to force it into a different direction will usually be deficient in some manner.

The Tutorial scenarios do a very good job of demonstrating the core principles of Soviet doctrine.

The first (attack) will teach you about mass, maximising firepower and coordination with a layered plan for fires. The second (meeting engagement) will take those same core principles, and then show how they apply in a much more fluid and subtle battle of manoeuvre, in a manner which is suitable for implementation in the campaign, but also in the context of multiplayer quick battles.

This kind of tutorial scenario is something which I think is lacking in CM generally - there are an awful lot of questions that could be answered by this kind of thing. Typical examples have included how best to employ a Commonwealth rifle formation, and what the purpose of the two inch mortar is - if there was a simple, doctrinal setup that you could point to and say "if you can't win this with minimal losses, you don't understand it", that would be extremely useful, across all titles and factions.

The Cold War campaigns do an excellent job of demonstrating the doctrine of the two sides, but often with additional complexity, since we're no longer in a tutorial. There is at least one US campaign mission which is an excellent demonstration of Active Defence, and the Soviet stuff is well represented throughout their campaign.

There could always be more documentation, naturally, but field manuals exist and they're mostly very accessible. A "strategy guide" would mostly involve re-writing those.

Well, in game SPAAGs could be perhaps overperforming but, in real life, the M163 should be wimpier than the ZSU-23-4. I remember back in the '80s that the consensus was that US Army lagged behind the Soviet Army in the mobile air defense department, and the eventual demise of the ill-fated M247 Sergeant York added insult to injury.
It will be interesting to see the Flakpanzer Gepard in action when the Bundeswehr/NVA module will be released! 😁

T-34 turned into Leopard 1, used as an OPFOR by Polish army during Cold War. In the background another T-34 turned Chieftain.

Usual forum advice: "Never send a platoon where a squad hasn't been, never send a squad where a- section hasn't been, never send a setion where a single guy hasn't been."
Me: "Yeah yeah."