General Jack Ripper

This is just your perception. You notice it when a squad leader/platoon leader goes down more because it is more damaging to your immediate combat effectiveness. Same goes for the automatic gunner in a squad/platoon. These things provide you with a distinct advantage that you rely upon (either leadership from the leaders or firepower from the machine guns) and when you lose them, you lose that advantage. Thus, you notice it a lot more. 
You aren't alone in this perception either. Its very common in many war memoirs and anecdotal stories for it to be constantly pointed out that the leaders  are always the first to die. Especially the good ones. Vietnam was infamous for having a high platoon leader fatality rate, and bocage fighting during the Normandy campaign seemed to claim all the good squad leaders at alarmingly high rates. Again, this is mostly because these assets really hurt when you lost them, in Vietnam because the platoon leader with his radio was the link to the outside world and greater support, and the squad leader in the bocage because due to the nature of the fighting, small unit leadership was extremely important. 
Again, its all just a perception. In reality, you aren't losing a high number of leaders. You're losing a proportional number of leaders along with the rest of the casualties you take. If you can show me a battle where you only lose leaders and machine gunners, and then can reproduce it 100 times consistently, then I'll start to think something is wrong. 

What's that you say?  The bad guys shoot at unit leaders and chaps who are lugging really big guns around.....That's just not cricket at all! 

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. 
If you want to demonstrate an issue, you need to create a test and run it many times, upwards of 100, to get a sample size. For example, if you created a test where you had a squad get hit by one mortar round and 75% of the time the only casualty suffered was the squad leader, then you would have real evidence to make an argument with. Thats just an example though. 

Many Armies during World War 2 were still using regimental guns or infantry guns in a direct fire role to reduce particularly strong or pesky defensive positions. Quite a few light artillery pieces had sights for direct fire too. An entire class of armored vehicle existed to get a set of tracks under a 75mm gun and carry it right up into the thick of the fighting with the infantry ie: Assault Guns. In an age of bolt action rifles and machine guns capable of reaching out 2km it seemed rather insane to actually have big artillery guns still around the frontline firing at clear targets in the Napoleonic tradition. During World War 1 short ranged guns didn't prove to be unreasonably vulnerable to infantry fire as much as counter battery fire, but a pre-war belief that the Next War would be more fluid and mobile than it actually was meant most Armies had large numbers of light field guns that just weren't powerful enough to really defeat entrenchments and were overly reliant on shrapnel and case shot which was literally useless against infantry that had dug in even lightly. Erwin Rommel's troops suffered numerous barrages from French 75mm guns firing shrapnel shot early in the war and as long as they were in foxholes casualties were almost always negligible. (According to his book) 
The sIG 33 for instance is often depicted in most games like an artillery piece...but as far as I know it was actually incapable of indirect fire and had to be laid at a target over open sights. It only had a range of around 4,500 meters so it wouldn't have been a very practical weapon for indirect fire. Generally it was expected that infantry guns would be far away enough from their target so as not to face any acute danger from return fire. However by the 1930s it was being increasingly realized that the guns and their crews were highly exposed to mortar and artillery fire so their usefulness ended up being more circumstantial than mortars would be. Mortars were just becoming increasingly better at delivering stronger and more accurate fire, and were much less vulnerable and lighter. 
Most Armies were trying to replace their cannon companies with mortars but shortages may have precluded this so it didn't always happen. As far as I can tell only the Americans were serious about maintaining their own Regimental Cannon Companies in spite of all the alternatives around...but they had a very good Regimental Gun, the 105mm M3 with an 8,000 yard range making it practical for use behind defilade. It took until the Vietnam War for the Americans to come around to the fact that what they needed for the infantry was a proper Heavy-Mortar like the 120mm mortars the Germans and Soviets had adopted but for some reason nothing too useful for that was found until the Soltam K-6. 
As far as the question for the topic goes, yes, cannons and field artillery are highly valuable in a direct attack. It'll be crucial to both screen them properly and force the enemy to divert as much of his supporting fire as he's got to other parts of the battlefield than where your guns are. This means that you should consider very high minimum ranges for them, like never closer than 800m to  a target and the farther the better. Distance is safety for the crews.... 

Or at the very least, the Stryker engineering vehicle already in the game should have a mine-clearing dozer blade, LIKE IT DOES IN REAL LIFE.

You could even use the existing mine clearance command from the sherman crab, just without the chain flails.
It can't be that difficult, can it?

The original mission in CMSF1 mentioned a minefield, but there were no landmines in the game.
Seems logical to add them into the mission now they are available.
A clear lane through the mines is designed into the mission. You need only detect all of the mines with your engineers.
The mines themselves are antitank mines, and pose no threat to your troops, feel free to walk around the area and find them all. Once you've found them, run your vehicles through the gap single file.
See below. My engineers begin their work at 5:00.
 

This is an overview of how things worked out so far, and some news.
I hope to get another gameplay video done by next week, subject to the requirements of the service.
 

Or at the very least, the Stryker engineering vehicle already in the game should have a mine-clearing dozer blade, LIKE IT DOES IN REAL LIFE.

You could even use the existing mine clearance command from the sherman crab, just without the chain flails.
It can't be that difficult, can it?

Or at the very least, the Stryker engineering vehicle already in the game should have a mine-clearing dozer blade, LIKE IT DOES IN REAL LIFE.

You could even use the existing mine clearance command from the sherman crab, just without the chain flails.
It can't be that difficult, can it?

Maybe my eyes are too old, but I am not able to see any difference...

What we really need are Mine-Roller/Plough/Bulldozer-Tanks.....In ALL of the CM titles! 
@Battlefront.com  Please! 

I currently have a two-man ex-Panzer crew in my test of 'Alarmeinheiten', they're armed with a MP-40 and a MG-42.....Waste not, want not. 

@General Jack Ripper You're right about the 105's seeming a bit small. I did have a lot of fun with the M2 GMC's 155mm in the Aachen campaign, so I'd like to have a go at blasting Berlin with some big beasts. 

Well, we have no idea if there was a contact marker or not given the sad lack of video coverage.
 
If you want issues like this to be investigated and taken seriously, you might want to take your reporting of them a little more seriously.
You could at least include a save game. I mean, the absolute basic level of effort might pay off, if you did anything with it.
Otherwise, yes. You should keep it to yourself because you are doing absolutely nothing of consequence.

I see no evidence of that.

Your math is basically correct. Can I give a +1 for some heavy artillery? The 105's we have these days feel like popguns.
 

But the presence of contact markers can at least inform the TACAI that SOMETHING is over there.
A "kill zone" might be a bit complicated, but "possible enemy presence" is not.

Your math is basically correct. Can I give a +1 for some heavy artillery? The 105's we have these days feel like popguns.
 

@BluecherForward LOL. Jesus...Those weren't jokes about rape. It was @PIATPunk's way of saying the thread is about to be locked...as in "hi mom". And me agreeing. You know, because if there is one thing game forum owners want being discussed on their GAME forum, it's rape.
EDITED: Sequoia back doored me...without my consent.
Now, THAT was a joke.
Mord.

Hello mother or Hi Mom is an old meme on these threads meaning the thread will soon be locked.

Memoirs as a whole are generally rather poor sources, being entirely subjective in perspective.

I see none of these jokes you mention.
Are you off your meds?

I see none of these jokes you mention.
Are you off your meds?

Asking for an artillery piece to be included in a game is not in any way related to your supposed second point.

I see none of these jokes you mention.
Are you off your meds?