Erwin

I met Chuck Yeager, who first broke the sound barrier and got a signed copy of The Right Stuff book. 
He's now 95 and still around!
 

Wish the Stryker crews exhibited the same care.  I see them being killed regularly when they pop up to reload the 50 cal.

Yes, lots of suppressive fire.  After that, in the game, some players report that it's effective to SLOW move into the building.  If enemy is still not spotted by an adjacent to the building unit, I generally QUICK move in.  If you HUNT the unit could get fired upon and get "stuck".
The biggest challenge I have faced is when the enemy are not in the building but behind a far wall.  So, one's unit enters the deserted building, then gets mowed down by enemy hiding behind a wall on the far side.  Smoke may help. 
Otherwise I have learned to have them enter the building on QUICK and immediately FAST move back out the same way they entered.  That way they can "recon" the interior and far wall, but don't stay to be massacred during the minute you can't issue new orders (in WEGO am talking about obviously).   
One can also use PAUSE so that they unit enters the building only in the last few seconds of a WEGO turn.  That way they may spot the enemy first and can fire at the far wall immediately at the start of the next WEGO turn.

Uh, yah...  that's what we really need...

If you are a "ferner", am impressed with your English grammar.   
I had to look up the rules LOL:
"Where things get really messy is in statements in which the object or subject status of the pronoun is not immediately obvious. Example: “The police gave tickets to whoever had parked in front of the fire hydrant.” The object of the preposition “to” is the entire noun clause, “whoever had parked in front of the fire hydrant,” but “whoever” is the subject of that clause, the subject of the verb “had parked.” Here’s a case where the temptation to use “whomever” should be resisted."

But, as he says, he WON when he felt he should have lost by all common sense measures.  That's the point I thought Warts was trying to make.   
The sorta corollary is that one can do very well in a mission, think you've attained all objectives, but find out one has lost cos maybe the enemy has one guy cowering suppressed (but not panicked or routed) at an objective.
I get the impression that it is VERY hard for designers to determine appropriate victory levels.  So, perhaps that is not their fault.  However, there are a couple designers (and you know who you are!) who seem to delight in throwing in one very hard mission in an otherwise enjoyable campaign that require their "customers" to replay that one damn mission over and over (and over) again till one can win it so that one can progress to the next mission.  

If you are a "ferner", am impressed with your English grammar.   
I had to look up the rules LOL:
"Where things get really messy is in statements in which the object or subject status of the pronoun is not immediately obvious. Example: “The police gave tickets to whoever had parked in front of the fire hydrant.” The object of the preposition “to” is the entire noun clause, “whoever had parked in front of the fire hydrant,” but “whoever” is the subject of that clause, the subject of the verb “had parked.” Here’s a case where the temptation to use “whomever” should be resisted."

Many Ospreys and many lives were lost in testing and training as well.  The thing was a widow-maker.  Unfortunately, no medals or awards for the bravery of those folks.  Glad it seems to be at least flying ok these days.

I gotta say, I felt more safe in Turkey, Jordan and some of the other ME countries.   Yes, they have lots of guys with guns, but they are there to protect visitors.  My wife and I experienced no problems and even shared a laugh or two with bored checkpoint guards.  They even let me fire their 50cals and shoot off an occasional RPG!
 
 
 
 
(Just kidding about the last sentence b4 anyone gets too excited.)

Nobody is saying we should all go back to CM1.  But for some reason there seems to be this kneejerk reaction to pretend that CM1 was made by a hated competitor or somesuch.  CM2 exists because of the brilliance of the concepts pioneered in CM1 and its success. 
While in theory, CM2 maps can be what 5Km x 5Km??  How many CM2 scenarios exist with those dimensions?  How many systems could run that?   
In CM1, 8Km x 4Km is a very playable size with more than a regimental Task Force on each side.  So, if one wants to play on a huge map with a huge number of units, CM1 is still the only way to go.  If you don't want to play on a huge map, that is fine.  No problem.  Why the need to denigrate the game as well as the players who find that an attractive option?
CM1 is a different game than CM2.  It is more of a fun, and easier to play, game than CM2.  CM2 is more of a complex simulation .  Which is why CM1 is still being played over 10 years after CMSF was released.  That should be something to celebrate and not get one's knickers in a twist about.  When I burn out on CM2, I go back to CM1 (amongst other games) for R&R.  Maybe those who get upset every time CM1 is mentioned never actually played it.
The comments on this subject will be very familiar to those who follow the Star Citizen controversy.  Why the heated reactions to someone simply saying that they enjoyed another of BF's products - and in fact a product that had features that are missed in CM2?
 

To my mind, the only thing important about someone is the date they joined the forums.
That's all that really matters, were you here long enough to know what the heck you're talking about...

Scratching backs. 
Need to start a kickstarter to get a mere 33 upvotes so I can beat Sgt S.   

I for one have always appreciated your dumb-ass jokes.  (Please upvote me now.)

Wait, you’re trying to sucker me in for another round so you can further your lead over Gen. Ripper!  What the hell....

and back at you, pal. 

Lol, I’d give you the dollar, and drinks would be on me, Erwin, but you wouldn’t tell me where you were before, so you'll have to settle for another upvote!

Dollar already spent (in my head).

Well, somebody give me one so I can get to an even 100 (and I’ll give you a dollar!).

Remember when the reputation system was turned off entirely because people were mass-downvoting other members they didn't like?
It should have died then, and stayed dead.

Done and done

I for one have always appreciated your dumb-ass jokes.  (Please upvote me now.)

Howitzer can fire at a steep/high angle ( a bit like a mortar trajectory) and thus can shoot at targets closer than a "gun".  Good for landing on targets behind walls for example.  Not sure if that effect is modeled in CM.
All calibers are good vs infantry - altho' the larger (105mm) and larger are increasingly effective vs buildings and vehicles - so may be a waste to use large caliber vs infantry (unless inf is your primary problem).
The smaller calibers are usually faster to call for and arrive - so 60mm and smaller can be kept close to your inf and used for direct fire (assuming the mortars are safe from enemy fire).
 
 
 

Howitzer can fire at a steep/high angle ( a bit like a mortar trajectory) and thus can shoot at targets closer than a "gun".  Good for landing on targets behind walls for example.  Not sure if that effect is modeled in CM.
All calibers are good vs infantry - altho' the larger (105mm) and larger are increasingly effective vs buildings and vehicles - so may be a waste to use large caliber vs infantry (unless inf is your primary problem).
The smaller calibers are usually faster to call for and arrive - so 60mm and smaller can be kept close to your inf and used for direct fire (assuming the mortars are safe from enemy fire).
 
 
 

The Victory calculations for CM2 many times make little sense (compared to CM1).  In CM1, one could sense much more accurately if one was winning or losing.  In CM2, one can end a battle in terrible shape, but win a Total Victory, or believe one has met all Victory conditions and find that one has a Loss.  Sometimes, the difference between a loss and a big Win is a single man surviving.  
To stay sane, recommend that you judge your own performance and not worry too much what the game's Results page says.  However this can be more problematic in Campaigns where one may have to win to progress to the next mission.

It sounds like someone was using the AT guns properly - ie: at much longer ranges than the small maps we usually see in CM2 games allow.  Because nearly all CM2 maps are small and/or have short LOS due to blocking terrain, gamers have become accustomed to playing almost exclusively short range "knife fight" battles.  It's obviously much easier to spot at short ranges.  On small maps, AT guns usually get to fire once and are then KIA.  Perhaps we CM2 gamers simply don't have the experience needed for dealing with long range fights.
That's a primary reason that many of us still like CM1 games and also CMSF - they often feature much larger maps and much longer LOS/ranges.
What is your scenario?