c3k

Ditto. If I'm using a battalion, I'll generally do what you've described for each of the "up" companies. So, If I'm attacking with a battalion, I'll have 2 companies "up" with the third in reserve. (Or just one up and two in trace. Shrug.) The "up" companies will generally have one or two platoons in the lead. Each platoon will have one or two squads up front...with 2 man scouts leading them. So, for a battalion attack, I'll have about 8 "leading" scout teams and their respective squads, or less. That's manageable to me. And it's rare for all the lead elements to be moving at once. I'll generally stagger the movement so that someone, somewhere, is in overwatch and/or has flanking fire opportunities if something kicks off. Trailing elements or support elements just get platoon-sized group moves. I'll tweak the endpoints and a waypoint or two (like keeping them in the field instead of the swamp), but otherwise not worry about them. It's about shifting centers of gravity. Once bullets fly, I'll get more precise for the units in contact. Othewise: Find, Fix, Flank, Finish.

give them a face command then try. Seems off...

There are three different weight bolts, used to modify the rate of fire. The heavier the bolt, the slower the fire. I do not know how frequently they would be changed out or what the SOP is for using them.

Ahh...the C ration pound cake. Yum.

What? You want to bring back the Soviet WWII anti-tank mine dogs? Woot! Or should it be "woof"?

As posted, and shown above, friendly tanks DO give cover, both static and dynamic. I don't know (or care) where the opinion came from that they do not. What they (by "they", I mean friendly vehicles) DON'T do, is provide cover to the ENEMY. Your men can shoot through your tanks. The enemy cannot. This simulates the micro-positioning necessary to fire around a friendly/cooperative AFV. We can't do that positioning in the game, so the code allows it. Yes, this does create some asymmetries, but, overall, it works very well. Do some tests.

Cost? Sure it's expensive. Price out the US gear. Crash helmet, night vision, audio gear: let me know how much you find. Then, add the rest. Yeah, this is why other nations don't do it.

That close, with the vehicles/convoy/crunchies behind the tank, I don't think the tank's weapons could depress enough. Crushing the car would immobilize it. Parking a tank on it would help tamp down the blast effects. Yeah, it may've set it off, but points to the tankers (or at least the driver) for showing some aggression and taking action. Was their decision the "best" decision? Hell, sitting here in an air conditioned room, drinking a cup of coffee, looking at it from an elevated perspective, with no threat of harm and no emotional attachment to the action, sure, something "better" may have been possible. But that's Monday morning quarterbacking...or doing what politicians do. Personally, I'd promote the tank crew, stick medals on their chests, give 'em some leave, and send them some bottles of good booze. Or lemonade. Not sure about whether the whole Halal thing applies to Egyptian armor crews.

Fantastic! Obviously, the armor thickness/hardness/angle you're using in the models are going to be important. If you include that information in your final results, well, hmm, I'm not sure if I'd have any other wishes. Great stuff...especially the analysis of how the incoming artillery angle and offset at time of detonation makes such a critical difference in airburst effectiveness against armor. (Don't have the nose of the shell pointing at the target when the shell goes "boom"; better to have the target perpendicular to the shell's line of flight.)

This. Training is training. If two forces (different nationalities) have the same experience level and the same equipment, in-game the two units will be equal. Same experience level, but different equipment, will mean different in-game advantages/disadvantages. Motivation also matters.

Agreed.

FOW keeps the German player from seeing (accurately) the status of that jeep. It seems to be destroyed pretty quickly and then the driver bails. (The explosion (grenade?) seems to do the job.) The first set of bullets seems to impact the windshield in front of the passenger seat. But, yeah, kind of interesting. There seems to be a disparity between halftrack gunners and jeep drivers and who can live longer. Maybe halftracks just need the windshield?

Infantry who are not moving and are in tall vegetation are VERY difficult to spot. I haven't bothered to look at your test: are you using tall grass/bushes/shrubs, or just short grass?

Most folks consider it unsporting to fire at the enemy's setup location on the first turn. There are some exceptions: 1.) If the enemy is in a prepared defense and this is a planned assault, then first turn artillery would be assumed to be a natural extension of pre-battle planning. 2.) If you can SEE the enemy, then, after the first turn, you can call in artillery on that location. There are several threads about this. The best technique is to communicate with your opponent first and have a conversation about what each of you prefer.

The original Tiger I's had command detonated mines attached to the hull from the factory. (Four, I think.) Hmm...this gives me an excuse to look over my Jentz books. Claymores (or other anti-personnel mines) on AFVs is nothing new. It's interesting that they're not on tanks in current use. I suppose the thought is that infantry anti-tank weapons have sufficient standoff range that any anti-personnel mines would have too short of a range to be effective. (Of course, similar thinking started stripping machineguns off of tanks, and telephones, and canister rounds, etc.) The photos seem to me to clearly be some sort of easy add-on ERA.

LOL... Nice pic, but something from inside the CV90 would've been so much groggier. Looks like you guys were going to, or coming from, having fun at a beach. Hope it was as much fun as this thread. Thanks.

Great! Thanks for doing...and sharing.

Skilled designers "lead" you to the fords by creating paths and other visual cues that there are crossings there. And/or, they put a "Ford" label on it. Edited to add: Another technique is to widen the water obstacle out at the ford. This shows a shallower area and less current.

Driving: Track care? How often does it throw a track? What kind of slope can it traverse (parallel to the slope)? How much engine maintenance must be done? What about the reliability of the weapons, sights, hydraulics, auto-loader, MG belt feed, etc? ...and, of course: any pictures? (Of HER, you dolt! )

^^^ Thanks! Best part? The brass ejection.

Wow. These look very nice!

What is the actual ability to hit targets while moving? Vision systems: how well do they permit acquisition and moving at night/smoke?

Hmm, it's kind of tough to bridge the two topics. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

As much as BFC got so much right when they predicted Syria's future, now we see that Russian and Iran are meddling, as well. That's room for an expansion pack.

I'd go with 85mm. Compare the hit with the bore on the Tiger. It's definitely too small to be 122 and too energetic to be 76. IMO.