LongLeftFlank

Direct answer: no OIF campaigns exist. 
1. I did 2 historical OIF-2 Marines vs uncon ambush-and-relieve scenarios set in central Ramadi in 2003. 
2. @Combatintman did a number of OP TELIC British scenarios set 2003-2004, plus others set in A-stan. 
 3. @Sgt.Squarehead did 2 bloodbaths set in the Mosul siege 2016.  
Apologies to anyone else I left out here. I faintly recall someone once trying 73 EASTING but hazy on details.

Nice map! Loving the CMFI Mediterranean landscape and vegetation!
A few minor nits: except in winter (we can assume it here) or in well irrigated fields it won't be nearly so green. Lots more browns and yellows, even in the north highlands. And most of the year the watercourses will contain far less water relative to the cuts than in temperate areas. I might also sprinkle a few more cars and power poles to show this isn't a Volturno line time warp. Also, palms are still quite abundant until you get high in the mountains. Especially around houses.

Nice map! Loving the CMFI Mediterranean landscape and vegetation!
A few minor nits: except in winter (we can assume it here) or in well irrigated fields it won't be nearly so green. Lots more browns and yellows, even in the north highlands. And most of the year the watercourses will contain far less water relative to the cuts than in temperate areas. I might also sprinkle a few more cars and power poles to show this isn't a Volturno line time warp. Also, palms are still quite abundant until you get high in the mountains. Especially around houses.

The problem I have with creating ditches by using ditch lock is that the ditches look nice, but I find them a bit problematical in terms of gameplay. Often soldiers don't align on the action spot as you would hope. Some stay "outside" the ditch (exposing themselves to enemy small arms and especially artillery fire), others are in the ditch so that they can't see/fire anywhere, etc. Maybe I'm just too picky, but I find that the terra-formed ditches are not as protective and effective as they should be.
I've experimented quite a lot with different kinds of combinations of blue (ditch lock) and black elevations and also with placing fences/hedges on ditches in order to "force" soldiers to position themselves on the right spot. There is a combination that makes soldiers align quite neatly along the trench with a good field of fire and okay cover (if prone)*, but troops still remain very vulnerable to artillery fire.
That's the reason why I now place actual "trench" tiles (the ones you buy in the unit selection menu) in the ditches. Even though it doesn't look that nice (see picture), this makes soldiers align nicely and (I hope!) should also give them some better cover against artillery. But this needs some further testing (I think there are already some test-results regarding the protective effect of fortifications against arty to be found in the forum somewhere...). And also, as the trench-tiles need to be bought and deployed, it doesn't work for quickbattles (problem of point budgets, setup-zones, tedious work....).

 
More generally speaking, I find that creating proper defensive positions in Combat Mission is incredibly difficult. For more modern titles, it's even more difficult, as HE projectiles are so abundant. I was pretty pround of my MG position here (crater + log, + only gently sloped terrain around so that the chance of shrapnel striking into the crater from above was low and close misses would land farther away). It withstood quite a few HE shots. But then again a position such as this is too obvious - a human opponent can simply look at the map and search for a log and a crater): 
-------
* blue 0, black -1, blue 0 //  --> place the unit on a blue (not black) tile and face them in a right angle to the ditch
 
 

 

Addition/correction to previous post:: Test 1 / tank / tall grass:  460 / 650 / full lane (second value was missing)
Conclusions from the tests described in the post above
1. Weather and daylight conditions don't seem to have an effect on LOS per se. For dawn (05:00) and hazy conditions, the LOS is the same as for clear conditions. At night (00:00), there is a hard cap on visibility (400m in this case - I've read that CM titles do consider the moon phases, so the exact value may vary with the date respectively). As there clearly is an effect on LOS in adverse light an weather conditions, but LOS as given by the target command stays the same, it seems as if units might rather receive a "hiding bonus"?
2. I think that my theory from last year (based on observations in CM: Black Sea) is not too far off the mark: There must be at least two values for each terrain: 1) density/LOS blocking value, and 2) height (either as in an acutal hitbox of some sort, or a z-value for the whole action spot). Different densities must be the reason why the range of full lines of sight vary with terrain. For example,  forest terrains (105m full LOS) are not as dense as crop terrains (60m full LOS).
The tricky part is to explain the "reverse slope" line of sight zones and the difference of results between tanks and infantry. It's much easier to explain my theory in pictures so here we go: 

Eyes below terrain height (e.g. prone infantry --> creates limited "reverse slope" LOS)


Eyes above terrain height (e.g. tank --> creates unlimited "reverse slope" LOS)


Explaining hull-down results with different terrain heights


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If things work indeed as described in the diagrams and when you consider the test results from above, we end up with these terrain characteristics:
clear: no effect on LOS crops: large height, large density forest: medium height, low density tall grass: small height (but still higher than prone infantry), medium density  

I'm pretty sure that a blue line means that all weapons (for vehicles: weapon-systems) of a unit can fire at the targeted spot, while a grey line means that only part of the unit can fire. 
This is very obvious when you have an infantry squad and one guy is kneeling, while the rest of the squad is prone. You will notice that the blue LOS will be limited by the prone soldiers' LOS, while there is an additional grey LOS that ends where the kneeling soldiers' LOS ends. If you order the very same squad to hide=go prone, there is no grey LOS anymore. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Update concerning my problems with the functionality of ditches in Combat Mission games: I've done more experiments, but ditches that you create by shaping the terrain simply don't work. Soldiers will not stick to the trench, but instead still roam around at the elevated edges, horribly exposing themselves to artillery fire. I really wish that the placement of soldiers on an action spot will be improved so that they stick to the "lower" areas. Fortunately, placing trenches in ditches helps to mitigate the problem. As soldiers now stick to the depression (because they're placed inside of the trench, which is in the middle of the action spot), and because the trench itself might also provide some kind of bonus, they are now protected against artillery fire.  IN my testing barrages, the casualty numbers for ca. 20 men placed in a ditch decreased significantly. With the natural ditch, I lost ca. 12-17 guys, with the ditch + trench, the casualties are down to 1-2., which is still very high for 2 minutes of bombardement but far better than a wipe-out. 
There are still many problems though. While the trench "in" the ditch provides good cover versus artillery, the protection against small arms fire and LOS is a different matter (see my post from 16th June in this thread, where I describe a way to create positions that offer good protection against small arms fire and good LOS, but are very vulnerable vs. arty). Also, moving along a trenchline can still result in soldiers exposing themselves on the elevated borders of the ditch. Also, you still get the problem that units tend to leave the trench (for whatever reason) when they come under artillery fire and prefer to get killed in the flat open.
Pictures to make the problem clearer:
Natural ditch: horrible soldier placement - all but one soldiers are on the high terrain at the border of the ditch. If an artillery shell strikes anywhere close, half of the squad is dead.

 
Trench placed in ditch: good soldier placement. Nobody gets hurt unless a shell lands a direct hit in the trench (for that reason, I wished that trenches were narrower...)

Something similar can be achieved by placing walls/hedges in the ditch. It looks totally stupid, but it leads to slightly better soldier placement.

So, generally speaking, if you want to have a trench/ditch that actually works (i.e. offers protection to infantry), you have to make sure that the infantry will stick to the ditch/the center of the action spot somehow.  
I really think that these issues are a major concern. I'm pretty sure that the game uses a very sophisticated system to determine hits, both from artillery shells and direct fire. For example, when I was creating good MG-positions for CM:BlackSea by using craters and logs, I noticed that in many cases the MG gunners (behind the log) survived while the MG got destroyed by enemy fire! Until then, I didn't even know that MGs could be destroyed in that way! So it's a pity that the game engine is so sophisticated when it comes to determining hits but doesn't really let us "fine tune" the amount of cover and create proper positions.

What vile incantation hath awakened me from my non-Euclidean slumber in the nameless deeps?
Oh, and 
 

What vile incantation hath awakened me from my non-Euclidean slumber in the nameless deeps?
Oh, and 
 

Damn, what a map!

“Look at their trucks,” said Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed, a community elder, as he sat by the main road leading into the city. “They were all given to them by the Americans, and not one of them hasn’t been hit by a rocket. All of their windows have been hit by snipers. They look like they have been fighting for five years. It is closer to two months.”
And this is why.... 
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/11/islamic-state-defends-mosul-with-dozens-of-suicide-bombers.php
According to Amaq, the Islamic State carried out 58 “martyrdom operations” during the first week of the battle for Mosul alone. Eighteen “martyrs” purportedly blew themselves up during the second week of the fight (ending on Oct. 31) and an additional 29 martyrdom operations were orchestrated during the third week of the battle (which covers the first week of November). In total, Amaq claims that 108 of its “martyrs” have defended Mosul in the first three weeks of fighting.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1006576/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-coldorrian-via-teleconference-from-bagh/
Iraqi forces have gotten about a third of the way into eastern Mosul.... There's no question that U.S. advisers are in harm's way.  We do advise the CTS.  They are in the thick of a very tough battle.  So there is a significant amount of danger here, especially on the eastern axis as they moved into the city.  They moved through some very tough resistance as they've approached the city... 
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1016840/department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-british-maj-gen-jones-via-teleconferenc/
The CTS has continued clearing in the east of the city, despite tough resistance from Daesh elements.... the coalition has disabled four of the five bridges connecting east and west Mosul, and increased terrain-denial missions.... seems to be reducing the number of VBIEDs the enemy has been able to use.... In the case of Mosul, the decision was taken to advise the population to stay in their homes so long as it was safe to do so....
Counter-Terrorism Service who have broken into the eastern side of the city. They've done so, as you indicate, at great -- great cost.... We continue to do that by adjusting our tactics, by giving them better and better fire support. But also, we can help them by replacing some of their battle-damaged vehicles.... part of that is about cratering the routes so that those suicide vehicle born I.D.s physically can't get down the routes and strike the Counter-Terrorism Service in their flanks.
Driven by cheerful good looking young kids. Heartbreaking, but also a sign that Daesh are tapping out their manpower.... 

Yes, one would think that the primal response is similar to that when crossing a street and the light changes abruptly: get out of the way of speeding metal at once!
Primarily, get low and put something solid between you and it, right **now**,  not after first dashing 30 meters across beaten ground. If the enemy is tossing grenades into your hole, well perhaps that's a different calculation.

"Perhaps he meant the Camargggggggggue region in France?" 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Art

Repeat post, but "AAAAAAA!"

Repeat post, but "AAAAAAA!"

"Perhaps he meant the Camargggggggggue region in France?" 

As many have noted before, BFC is just a couple of dedicated guys (and a disembodied brain in a jar) with a vision and mad hacker skilz, working at remote secure locations offworld, guarded by Space Lobsters and Waffelgrenadiere clones.
They are the only shop that attempts to marry the tactical hex and counter wargames most of us grew up on with the look and feel of tactical shooters. The customer market is "niche" but also extremely particular, as are the designers. To paraphrase Conrad: "They are 'one of us'." 
So to use the ancient pillars of project management: Cost, Scope and Schedule (and in the real world, you can only really have 1 and part of another).... 
with limited budgets and artisan quality required, time must be BFC's slack variable.
No need to be shocked. There are plenty of fantastic tactical shooters out there to divert yourself with in the meantime, but they won't scratch our particular itch.
Patience! 

As many have noted before, BFC is just a couple of dedicated guys (and a disembodied brain in a jar) with a vision and mad hacker skilz, working at remote secure locations offworld, guarded by Space Lobsters and Waffelgrenadiere clones.
They are the only shop that attempts to marry the tactical hex and counter wargames most of us grew up on with the look and feel of tactical shooters. The customer market is "niche" but also extremely particular, as are the designers. To paraphrase Conrad: "They are 'one of us'." 
So to use the ancient pillars of project management: Cost, Scope and Schedule (and in the real world, you can only really have 1 and part of another).... 
with limited budgets and artisan quality required, time must be BFC's slack variable.
No need to be shocked. There are plenty of fantastic tactical shooters out there to divert yourself with in the meantime, but they won't scratch our particular itch.
Patience! 

As many have noted before, BFC is just a couple of dedicated guys (and a disembodied brain in a jar) with a vision and mad hacker skilz, working at remote secure locations offworld, guarded by Space Lobsters and Waffelgrenadiere clones.
They are the only shop that attempts to marry the tactical hex and counter wargames most of us grew up on with the look and feel of tactical shooters. The customer market is "niche" but also extremely particular, as are the designers. To paraphrase Conrad: "They are 'one of us'." 
So to use the ancient pillars of project management: Cost, Scope and Schedule (and in the real world, you can only really have 1 and part of another).... 
with limited budgets and artisan quality required, time must be BFC's slack variable.
No need to be shocked. There are plenty of fantastic tactical shooters out there to divert yourself with in the meantime, but they won't scratch our particular itch.
Patience! 

I usually think of Green troops as being able to do one thing. You can rely on them to take that hill, defend from this position, kill one vehicle with their AT assets etc., but you can't rely on them to do more than this.

In CMFI, Italian troops are usually Green by default. Ideally, you use them in the attack against a fixed position. You give them a ton of supporting fires, preferably from Brixia mortars, and you hope that enough of them make it to grenade range to make the difference.

Any more complex plan is inviting failure - you can't guarantee that any individual part of a Green formation will actually be able to do it's job, but with careful hand-holding and limited expectations, they can still be useful.
 

Interestingly in combatting al Sadr the US took the approach of disrupting access to funds like this. The wall built along route Gold had as one goal to specifically target revenue acquired from criminal activity at the Jamiliyah market. Much of al Sadr’s support was from simple criminal gangs running rackets.  Their relationship with al Sadr was more a franchise opportunity. This became increasingly problematic when he would try to call a ceasefire. These groups could not afford the truce period as the US would actively move to disarm them. Without their weapons they were effectively neutered whereas al Sadr was playing more for political legitimacy and authority.  This lack of a unified organization was evident in the attacks on the wall.  Each sector would attack as the wall was being built at their location with the net result they would wear themselves out as the wall progressed  They could simply have allowed the wall to get built and when US and Iraqis forces moved onto the next section just blow the wall forcing them to come back to repair it.  There was however no coordination at that level  
ISIS seems to have vastly expanded the criminal enterprise aspect in a much more centralized fashion. . 

Based on summer foliage, this is the Fourth (final) Kharkov, right? the Rudmyantsev offensive after Kursk?

Considering all the suffering Ukraine went through in the Holdomor, the Soviets certainly poured a pile of money into the industrial centres in the late 30s, didn't they? That architecture would not have been out of place in contemporary Detroit. Only the best for the New Soviet Men being cooked in the workers' pot!
Oh, and kudos btw, from one deranged urban mapmaker to another....  

Yes, this is of course all highly unlikely, for reasons you and C-IMan properly note.
Tu comprende, copains, I am in "Twilight 2000" apocalyptic fiction gaming space here, seeking plausible casi belli for BLUEFORs to find themselves on opposite sides, and Uncle Sam badly outgunned for once.
That has not happened to a US mechanized force since when?  Task Force Rose? (my Korean War history is squishy).
I also draw parallels to Operation Castor 1953, where Navarre's strategy of a forward deployment into the Tai highlands at Dien Bien Phu to draw out and then crush 2 Vietminh divisions made perfect, even brilliant, strategic sense, up to the moment when its core assumption of Western fire superiority proved false. So too here, the AdT intervenes to restore the peace and prevent the Anglo-saxonnes making a hash of it yet again, but find themselves unwillingly drawn to pick sides. Quelle irony!  
Naturellement, we could say simply fight a QB and dispense with the convoluted backstory altogether, but I personally like my fiction to cohere within boundaries it has set for itself, as a mirror aux realite.
Just jawing here, y'all....