c3k

This is something I threw together in my own time. Please remember that this is from a beta build of the game and is subject to change. 

With that level of research and details.... I suspect a LOT of folks are looking forward to this Cold War Ride = Meeting Engagement at Dolbach Heights, 1980 🥳
Buzz

“Here, across death’s other river, the Tartar horsemen shake their spears.”
T.S. Eliot
 
This BETA game is being played against Warren (The_Capt), and we are very familiar with each other’s style, strengths and weaknesses as we’ve been playing CM against each other for close to 20 years now.
CM Cold War was our brainchild and has been on our wargame design table, off and on, for eight years now, but now it is a real thing.  You’re welcome.    With that said it is only fitting that Warren and I play in this BETA AAR.  We haven’t played in public since our original CMBN BETA AAR, Not your Father’s Combat Mission. 
I hope you enjoy the ride, and welcome to the COLD WAR!!

Sidebar!  I strictly use the Movie Mode when I play so all of my screenshots use that feature.  I don't mean it to insult anybody, but I just think the game looks better.
Meeting Engagement at Dolbach Heights, 1980
When Warren and I laid out the design for this game we wanted it to be primarily and ultimately a sandbox for experimentation and reflection.  A tool to test the tactical theories that were prevalent at that time.  Time… yes, we also wanted to be able to examine the different sides from different time perspectives, and this release, the base game in the CM Cold War series, contains the years 1979 to 1982.  We also only cover the months March to October, mainly so we didn’t have to generate winter textures and models which would have been one feature too many.
This particular scenario is one that Warren and I threw together that we thought would be fun to play and show off.  The map is from the US Campaign and when you play that you will see this map eventually.  I will start my METT-T analysis in my next post, but for now, sit back, enjoy the existence of this game, and don’t go away!
Bil

CONTENTS:
METT-T Analysis MISSION ENEMY TERRAIN TROOPS / TIME Tentative Plan The Action: First Three Minutes! Fourth Minute - First Contact! Fifth Minute - Return of the Blood Board! Sixth & Seventh Minutes Eighth Minute - One Meter Too Many Eighth Minute - BDA & Some Movements Ninth Minute Tenth Minute Eleventh & Twelfth Minutes - "...damn your eyes." Thirteenth Minute - The Board is Set Fourteenth Minute - Spoiling Attack Plan Fifteenth through Seventeenth Minutes Eighteenth Minute - Relearning Old Lessons Nineteenth & Twentieth Minutes Twenty-First & Twenty-Second Minutes - Beyond Here, There be Dragons Twenty-Third & Twenty-Fourth Minutes - Saga of Tank Section 1

indeed, instead we are getting something equally as awesome, finally get to use my superior Slavic doctrine.

I had to lobby hard to get Valentine into the game. Steve was originally not going to include it. He'd imagined Valentine numbers had petered out due to attrition by the title's timeframe.  But I provided documents with Valentine numbers in specific Russian units in the closing months, plus photo proof of their use in battle. Steve said he was genuinely surprised how many Valentines were still active. One reason why the Russian loved their Valentines was the darned things just didn't break. As reliable as a hammer. It also had a tiny light tank silhouette while mounting a medium tank's cannon. So yeh, its a MikeyD favorite. 

I don't seek out armor duels because they are a bit like tossing a coin, but they come up again and again. So I was interested to learn what I can do to maximize the chances for my tank in a duel if it gets into one.
So I put two identical Pz IVH (late) tanks with regular crews, no modifiers, against each other at 600 m range. I called one "Attacker" and the other "Defender", although it does not mean anything. I put both on a mild slope (partial hull down) and varied different conditions. Crew hatches open/closed, vehicle movement, terrain type, crew experience. I ran each case at least 1000 times and recorded the percentage of wins by each side. A 'win' means that the other vehicle was destroyed or the crew bailed out. If both vehicles were alive after 5 minutes, neither side won - usually one vehicle got hit and retreated back down the slope. If neither vehicle survived, both sides got a win.
The tables show the win rate on each side. The statistics were not perfect even with 1000 duels per case. Results of repeat runs could vary by up to +/- 3%. Notably I did not get a perfectly symmetric results even for reference cases R1 and R4 where the vehicles had identical conditions on both sides. So, don't take the numbers as the absolutely accurate truth. They just show what works.
Pz IVH was a good tank for this purpose because it can easily kill itself - powerful gun and vs weak armor. Therefore, the duels were mainly about who is able to spot first and land the first round accurately on target.
I did not find anything revolutionary - mostly stuff people already know and do - but it was still interesting to see the numbers. Here it is:
1. Keep your crew hatches open when expecting to fight an enemy AFV. If you can, force the enemy to close theirs.
Table 1. Effect of crew hatches open/closed. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
49%
49%
Closed
Open [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Open
Open
76%
21%
Closed
2. Minimize movement when within enemy LOS. Stop as soon as your vehicle can see the place where the enemy is (represented with the "Hull Down" command in the table below, which gives additional advantage of being harder to see and hit due to being hull down; this is not to say that the Hull Down command is always useable, but it worked here well because the Attacker was going up the slope). Movement makes you more visible - and it does not appear to matter what kind of movement command you use - in fact the faster movement commands seem to work a bit better.
Table 2. Effect of vehicle movement. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using different movement commands. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Hunt [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Stationary
Slow
35%
63%
Stationary
Move
39%
59%
Stationary
Quick
42%
56%
Stationary
Fast
41%
57%
Stationary
Hull Down
61%
29%
Stationary
Quick: Minimizes the time interval when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Therefore, Quick works well as it gets the attacker into position quickly, whereas Slow works poorly.
Hull Down: Better cover than the Defender and minimizes time when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Also: Easier to disengage when damaged – probably for both sides. High percentage of duels with no winner.
3. If you have to Hunt, point 1. about crew hatches still applies and can reverse the odds in your favor.
Table 3. Effect of crew hatches open/closed while the Attacker is moving. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using Hunt. The Defender is stationary. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
37%
60%
Closed
Open [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Open
Open
64%
34%
Closed
Closed
14%
82%
Open
4. Target arc can serve various purposes but does not help with seeing or hitting the enemy. TRP helps, likely by increasing the chances of a first hit.
Table 4. Effect of using Target Armor Arc and Target Reference Point (TRP). Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
No arc [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] No arc
Target Armor Arc
50%
49%
No arc
TRP on Defender
72%
28%
No TRP
Note: Target Arc can still help by pointing the gun and the Commander’s attention to the right direction if the vehicle is not moving directly towards the defender. Also, it prevents distraction of the Attacker by other, low-priority targets.
5. Ground type can provide some help by concealment. Tall types of grass (T and TY), Weeds, Brush, Lt Forest (without trees) and Crop 1 give a small advantage over hard or bare surfaces. Very tall types of crops (2-6) and Grass XT give significant advantage. There is no disadvantage in being on road or pavement compared to grass, but sand, mud and cobblestone seem to hurt a little, possibly because they lower the chances of disengaging when retreating in damaged condition.
Trees are complicated and depend on type. Type A trees are somewhat helpful if there are 2 or 3 on the tile. Type B trees are not helpful at all. Type C trees seem to be best, especially if there are 2 or 3. Type D trees are somewhat helpful independently on their number. Type E are like Type A. Bush does not make much of a change.
Stone and brick walls and low bocage give some advantage - can be concealment as well as cover. But bocage is the big one. A tank behind bocage almost always wins against a tank in open ground.
Table 5a. Effect of Defender ground type – bare surfaces, hard surfaces and roads. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass
45%
51%
Dirt
Grass
47%
50%
Dirt Red
Grass
49%
48%
Hard
Grass
50%
48%
Rocky
Grass
49%
49%
Rocky Red
Grass
52%
47%
Sand
Grass
52%
47%
Mud
Grass
50%
49%
Pavement 1
Grass
50%
50%
Pavement 2
Grass
52%
47%
Cobblestone
Grass
47%
51%
Gravel
Grass
46%
49%
Dirt Lot
Grass
49%
48%
Dirt Road
Grass
47%
50%
Gravel Road
Grass
51%
48%
Paved 1
Grass
48%
51%
Paved 2
Grass
47%
49%
Foot Path
Sand, Mud, Cobblestone (?): Can impair movement, possibly making retreat of a damaged vehicle slower and less likely to succeed before the Attacker fires another accurate shot.
Table 5b. Effect of Defender ground type – low vegetation and cultivated fields. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass
Grass
50%
47%
Grass Y
Grass
50%
48%
Clover
Grass
50%
48%
Flowers
Grass
49%
50%
Plow NS
Grass
50%
50%
Plow EW
Grass
43%
57%
Grass T
Grass
43%
55%
Grass TY
Grass
44%
54%
Weeds
Grass
44%
55%
Grass + Brush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
[R3] Lt Forest
Grass
42%
57%
Crop 1
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 2
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 3
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 4
Grass
40%
58%
Crop 5
Grass
39%
59%
Crop 6
Grass
38%
60%
Grass XT
Table 5c. Effect of Defender ground type – foliage. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass, no foliage
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
42%
54%
Grass + 3x Type A Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
46%
Grass + 2x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
47%
Grass + 3x Type B Tree
Grass
43%
52%
Grass + 1x Type C Tree
Grass
33%
62%
Grass + 2x Type C Tree
Grass
32%
62%
Grass + 3x Type C Tree
Grass
44%
52%
Grass + 1x Type D Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type D Tree
Grass
40%
55%
Grass + 3x Type D Tree
Grass
50%
47%
Grass + 1x Type E Tree
Grass
42%
55%
Grass + 2x Type E Tree
Grass
41%
55%
Grass + 3x Type E Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type A Bush
Grass
52%
47%
Grass + 2x Type A Bush
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 3x Type A Bush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
 [R3] Lt Forest, no foliage
Grass
44%
54%
Lt Forest + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
39%
57%
Lt Forest + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
37%
59%
Lt Forest + 3x Type A Tree
1x Tree: Can be detrimental because it does not provide enough concealment and can trigger APHE shells passing high, wounding the exposed Commander.
Table 5d. Effect of Defender ground type – walls and fences. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R4]
48%
51%
[R4] Grass
Grass
46%
54%
Grass + Stone
Grass
47%
52%
Grass + Brick
Grass
 
 
Grass + Rural Stone
Grass
43%
55%
Grass + Low Bocage
Grass
7%
89%
Grass + Bocage
6. Crew experience - there is a big change from Green to Regular to Veteran, but Crack gives little advantage over Veteran.
Table 6. Effect of crew Experience. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Green
33%
66%
Regular
Regular
36%
61%
Veteran
Veteran
44%
57%
Crack
Green
20%
78%
Veteran
Regular
32%
67%
Crack
Green
18%
82%
Crack

@Zloba, congrats on your new addition to your family! And also on your newborn.
In many games when you select difficulty levels, the game changes the characteristics or the numbers of your enemies. Not so in this game. Instead, the different difficulty levels affect artillery/air response times and, most importantly, how spotting is dealt with (both friendly and enemy).
It may seem counter-intuitive, but I suggest you start on Iron mode. That mode will allow you to see what each unit sees and it will give you a much deeper understanding of what's going on with the game.
For example, in Iron, if 3rd squad is unaware of the enemy LMG section, then when you select 3rd squad, that enemy LMG disappears from the map.
Similarly, if 2nd squad is isolated, when you select it, then your other friendly units all disappear. That shows you that 2nd squad has no knowledge of any friendlies. That's important to you as a leader.
Don't think that Iron is harder: it is not. It is more realistic (support response times) and allows you better knowledge about your units.
Good luck!
Ken

@Zloba, congrats on your new addition to your family! And also on your newborn.
In many games when you select difficulty levels, the game changes the characteristics or the numbers of your enemies. Not so in this game. Instead, the different difficulty levels affect artillery/air response times and, most importantly, how spotting is dealt with (both friendly and enemy).
It may seem counter-intuitive, but I suggest you start on Iron mode. That mode will allow you to see what each unit sees and it will give you a much deeper understanding of what's going on with the game.
For example, in Iron, if 3rd squad is unaware of the enemy LMG section, then when you select 3rd squad, that enemy LMG disappears from the map.
Similarly, if 2nd squad is isolated, when you select it, then your other friendly units all disappear. That shows you that 2nd squad has no knowledge of any friendlies. That's important to you as a leader.
Don't think that Iron is harder: it is not. It is more realistic (support response times) and allows you better knowledge about your units.
Good luck!
Ken

Oh buddy, you're in the right place.
I am new to Combat Mission as well, but oh my god, am I ever glad to have found it.  Never been able to get into RTS games, they often look kind of neat, but the base building and whatnot are just not compelling for me. They may be good games, but realism takes a very, very distant backseat to creating an intense gaming experience, and honestly I'm neither good at them nor enjoy them.
I'm much more of a combat flight sim and FPS guy, and what I enjoy most in a game is its ability to allow me to use real life tactics as realistically as possible and achieve success with them. Whether or not it's a "game" matters almost nothing to me, and my ideal situation is a simulator that has as realistic of features as possible, and presents a sort of sandbox or toolkit you can use to create or at least experience a simulated vision of reality.
Well, after literal years of searching, I believe Combat Mission is exactly that, in terms of battalion level and smaller infantry and combined arms engagements.
I only found CM thanks to the Shock Force 2 listing on Steam, and stumbled across it pretty randomly. I was immediately captivated by the mechanics of the game engine, even though the modern setting wasn't really my thing. Like you, I prefer the WWII setting. Curious, I searched Battlefront, and realized that, in addition to Shock Force 2, they had a whole WWII line. I immediately downloaded the Battle for Normandy demo and was super impressed.
Granted, the price is not inexpensive, and the graphics are serviceable though obviously dated. But I really got impressed when I tried out the Roadblock scenario - I was amazed. It was like everything I'd been looking for in a tactical combat simulation, but had never been able to find. While CM veterans probably find that scenario to be a dawdle, I was really pushed to learn the mechanics, and I really got immersed and invested in the engagement. When I ultimately prevailed - with relatively modest casualties - I was so pleased. What an incredible sim this is!
Then I found the Assault on Brecourt Manor scenario and oh man... talk about wish fulfillment! Getting to assault those gun positions was amazing. I got inspired and downloaded some free mods from TheFewGoodMen.com to get proper 101st Airborne uniforms and Lucky Strike's very nice "Hedgerow Hell" scenery upgrades. This lead me to getting under the hood in the Scenario Editor (so I could apply the correct uniforms to the units), and checking out not only the preset scenarios and campaigns, but also the Quick Battles and Map Editor, and I really fell in love. There's also a very comprehensive manual that ships with the game and reminds me of game manuals of yore - it's got tons of great info, and explains very clearly how to use the tool to achieve your goals, whatever they may be.
Over the past couple days, I got inspired to recreate the "German Hedgerow Defense" diagram from Captain Doubler's famous "Busting the Bocage" essay about hedgerow fighting in Normandy. From a cold start, I was able to use the Scenario Editor - with minimal confusion or pain - to setup a roughly 200 x 200 meter field, with German machinegun emplacements, some farmhouses, and similar. I created a US infantry company with a two rifle platoons, a weapons platoon (with MMGs and medium mortars) and attached a couple Sherman M4s for support. Wow! What fun I've had learning how to move across a large open field.
This, to me, is what makes Combat Mission so great. There are a wide range of settings depicted across the various offerings, and your ability to customize the experience you want is nearly unlimited. Want to simulate a single rifle squad taking on clearing a building? You can do it. Want to simulate a battalion or large engagement? You can do that, too. It's really up to you, and the editor is *so easy* to use, it makes it relatively simple - and FUN!
I haven't even dipped my toe into multiplayer yet, either - but oh gosh, Combat Mission is like the ultimate replacement for my miniature wargaming collection. It's much cheaper, has much more accurate rules, and doesn't require any assembly or painting or physical storage.
I'm just over the moon with this find, and I'm so glad it exists. I hope you give it a shot, because despite the high price relative to other video games, this is the real deal! It's probably my favorite software purchase of 2020.
Anyways, wishing you the best of luck!

Wego because of what Mike Churchmoor just wrote. He hit each of the reasons quite well. If I want an RTS, there are a lot out there. If I want a carefully researched, high fidelity combat simulation game, there's CM.

Regards,
Ken

save early and save often.

save early and save often.

See title.
Anyone else got simple advice for new players?
Here's a short list of mine:
Do not get shot at. Shooting makes you easier to see. Cover arcs are not magic. Maybe allow your troops to wait a minute before flogging them onto their objectives. Don't call in that airstrike. No seriously, don't. It'll hit your own guys. It doesn't matter how thick your armor is. You don't assault a position by running straight into it. Use more ammo, you don't get bonus points for frugality. Limit your leaders exposure. Split your squads. Three guys in one action spot are not as vulnerable as six. Maybe we can make a community contributed list Murphy's Laws of Combat Mission.
At the very least, let's have a fun thread for once.

It is interesting to play the Brits and the Commonwealth. Between their manpower shortages in the latter stages of WWII, the lack of squad-level firepower, and the tinker-shop nature of so many of their vehicles, they're quite the challenge. They force the player to marshal one's support, maneuver to advantage, and cautiously feel out the approaches. A squad made up of 2+2+3-man teams is not very good for assaulting. Contrast that with the CMSF2 USMC squads. 
But, that makes it all the more satisfying when your PIAT takes out the two PzIVs blocking the road. (Yes, SPOILER REDACTED I'm looking at you!)
 
This is THE overriding strength of the vision Battlefront has executed with the Combat Mission series: showing how TOE has such an effect on tactics and combat effectiveness. 

It is interesting to play the Brits and the Commonwealth. Between their manpower shortages in the latter stages of WWII, the lack of squad-level firepower, and the tinker-shop nature of so many of their vehicles, they're quite the challenge. They force the player to marshal one's support, maneuver to advantage, and cautiously feel out the approaches. A squad made up of 2+2+3-man teams is not very good for assaulting. Contrast that with the CMSF2 USMC squads. 
But, that makes it all the more satisfying when your PIAT takes out the two PzIVs blocking the road. (Yes, SPOILER REDACTED I'm looking at you!)
 
This is THE overriding strength of the vision Battlefront has executed with the Combat Mission series: showing how TOE has such an effect on tactics and combat effectiveness. 

Where are the guitars?

I decided to try and dig up my first hand accounts - here is part of one
 
 

Yes, the Flaktürme seem to have had plenty of steel-shuttered windows perhaps because of the extra facilities they housed. At the height of the Battle for Berlin the Zoo tower was said to have sheltered about 30000 people in a space meant for 8000. The towers were each equipped with a water source/well, but with that amount of souls they would have exhausted their supplies in no time, and God knows what the sanitary conditions were like.

One of the Berlin towers, the shuttered windows seem to be on fours levels. That item being lifted up is one of the massive armoured ammunition elevators covers.

Armoured shutters on one of the control towers

Inside one of the towers, the window and armoured shutter.
The towers bristled with other smaller calibre AA which also looked like it could provide fire directed at ground targets:

Dual 37mm on a lower platform of the Zoo tower, the control tower in the background.

One of the many quad 20mm mounts, again with control tower in the distance.
For our German speaking colleagues there are a few others titles:
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Flaktürme.html?id=g6JzAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
There are few others on that page as well.
 

By splitting up your post, the numbering scheme you used has been thrown into disarray.
I've found that if I select "Show All Movement Paths" (one of the various hotkey selections), it is pretty obvious when I do this. Yes, I have done this. Yes, many of my men died before I learned that lesson. They were grateful that their sacrifice was able to help me.
Otherwise, be very aware of how many of your units are orange (selected). 
 
First, I agree.   However, after a LOT of experience, I've gradually discovered what hedges, bushes, walls, fences, and hedgerows are passable and by what units. 
Yes, it still takes some re-calibration if I've been gone for awhile, or if I'm playing a new theater.
Why doesn't the game do this "on the fly"? Because the PATHING calculations are NOT calculated until AFTER you hit "go". 
But, there are still issues. For example, I just had a team at a gate in a wall behind a house. I ordered them to run to the back of the house, look inside (face + pause), then enter. Instead, they ran around to the front of the house...and all died. (I consider that a bug, so I've posted it as such. If you get a solid example of mis-pathing, pictures and a save are very helpful to squash them.)
 
 
 
See my answer above. Yes, it'd be helpful to have a red underline or some other obvious toggle to see what walls/hedges are impassable to vehicles.
 
 
Hmm....I don't see that as much of an issue. Is there a specific squad type to which you're referring? (And that they would historically split their sniper/marksman out to operate on their own?)
 
Ken

I have some content but it's for my first campaign compilation, Rollbahn D.
I started building in March. It's based on KG Peiper.
The ambition is/was to produce an historical scenario for every 6 hours or so of the KG and associated units, their advance and eventual destruction, from the 16th to Xmas. 
So far in the "can" I have 
Murky Merlscheid (Fallschirmjäger) Leaving Lanzerath (Fallshirmjager) Minen The Gap (Losheim/Scheid, Spitze) Breakthrough (Bucholz/Honsfeld) Bull-in-gen China Shop Butchers Of Baugnez (thanks for the Cafe/Hotel/Signpost mods Kohlenklau!) Storming Stavelot Trois Is A Crowd Jabos! (Cheneux) Probe At Stavelot Neufmoulin Rouge Duel In The Mist (Stoumont) Too Tight At Targnon Ster Way To Heaven (Parfondry/Stavelot) For the remaining 15x scenarios I will be using mostly maps already created... but realistically it is still going to be next autumn. 
I've made my own maps apart from Cheneux with some edits. Working on KG X and Y/Skorzeny's attack on Malmedy and the 82nd's first attempt on Cheneux (including using the captured Stummel) at the moment.
Considering releasing some or all as individual battles and maps?  Open to requests. Stick with it? Release  a map or 2? Release a battle or 2?
I've published 3x scenarios in the past with mixed reviews,  Mission to Mass V2, CMBS Korsun 2017 and Summer In The City. 
I enjoy the research/creative process, you think you know stuff, then you realise you don't quite know as much as you thought you did.
Bibliography:
The Devils Adjutant by Michael Reynolds
The Leibstandarte Map Book Part IV
The Leibstandarte IV Ralf Tiemann
Duel In The Mist Parts 1,2 and 3, Vosters, Weber, Haasler, Meyer, MacDougall
Jochen Peiper, Patrick Agte
A Time for Trumpets, Charles B MacDonald
Battle of the Bulge Then and Now, Jean Paul Pallud
Panzer Truppen 1943-45, Thomas Jentz
Tigers in the Ardennes, Walden
Ardennes the Secret War, Whiting
KG Peiper:The Race to the Meuse, Cooke, Evans
Battle of the Bulge: Thee 3rd Fallshirmjager Division in Action
The Longest Winter, Kershaw
A Tour of the Bulge Battlefields, Cavanagh
Smashing Hitlers Panzers, Zaloga
Ardennes 1944, Beevor
And last but not least Combat Mission Community Forums

From my experience, if you decide to produce content (mod, make maps, scenarios, campaigns, post pictures of Kate Upton's jugs, etc.), do not expect anything in return. Maybe enjoy a few pats on the backs from forum buddies. Expect to get very little feedback or comments. Do it because you might enjoy the learning process. Do it because you really want to fight the CM battle you are researching and trying to create. Do it if you HAVE TIME to invest. Like after a divorce or recovering from a cardiac surgery!  
 

The "devs" never "should of" done anything. But, perhaps they should "have" done something. A public information announcement from those oh so nice people at CAMHAVE (The Campaign for the preservation of the word have). Of course they are slightly more tolerant than that angry bastard Cromwell, who would "have" just chopped your napper off.

So we can solve the THOR equations to figure out what kind of velocity a fragment needs to penetrate a certain thickness of armor:

As you can see, the heavier fragments (as expected) perform better at penetrating armor - requiring less velocity to do so.  As the armor gets thicker, the fragments begin to require prohibitively fast speeds to penetrate.  Typically on an artillery shell it seems the initial velocity is in the realm of 1.5 km/s.

Using the data generated for the angular dispersion plus some more to accommodate the shape of the shell, we can arrive at the fragmentation pattern for a shell travelling in the negative x direction.
The dip in the negative x direction comes from the nose of the shell obstructing some fragmentation, and the larger dip in the positive x direction is the same for the base - a more significant effect for the more significant blockage provided by the base of the shell.
This can all be combined together by some clever interpolation (good god it took a while to figure out how to massage the data to make that possible!).  If we select a fragmentation density - say 1 fragment per square meter, we can generate a contour plot showing us the thickness of armor required to generally have no perforations.

Note the axes are not the same scale - this is to provide a better visualization of the regions.  At this density, a single artillery shell is likely to perforate a BTR 12 times at ranges up to 7 meters.

If we set the criteria to only 1.2 perforations per artillery shell (on average), we can see that our BTR isn't safe even up to 20 meters away!

This can all be consolidated into a few lines showing the maximum distance that you're likely to penetrate a 1x1 meter target with 0.2, 0.4 ... 1.8 fragments per artillery shell.  The flat region at the top might be because I capped the maximum fragment size I analyzed.

You can just say 'Ukraine' you know. 

hello...
Have you guys read any good books lately (about WW2)...That you recomend as christmas holidays bedtime reading ?
Personally i'm considdering bying this one...the  2020 version...As a nice companion to CMRT 😎
 
https://www.bokus.com/bok/9781912866137/bloody-streets/
Has any one bought this one ? If so...do you recomend it ?