Sequoia

I went into the game and clicked a pict of it.

Just Heer. The Austrian Military is called Bundesheer, and Bundeswehr in Germany. Maybe missleading for foreign people.
Here a CH-53 by the Heer, in which you can see it:

That might be true, but "Wehr" does have more the mening of defense.
A "Wehr" can also be a technical building reducing the flow of water in a river.
"Brustwehr" is a parapet.
"Wehrhaft" means somebody is ready for defense.
"Sich wehren" means "to fight back"

the etymology might be related to war, but it be more like the english word of defense, which is also connected to fence or fencing, which in itself might be connected again to the German word "fechten" (fencing) or "Gefecht" (Battle)

Glad to see everyone's keeping their expectations of follow on modules reasonable.

Glad to see everyone's keeping their expectations of follow on modules reasonable.

Glad to see everyone's keeping their expectations of follow on modules reasonable.

Glad to see everyone's keeping their expectations of follow on modules reasonable.

IMHO what was done with the choice of the time period was perfect as it allows us to experience the transformation between '79 and '82,  when material factors switched. It was also not too far into the 80's during which a US build up numerically occurred, especially with the Navy which is an important factor. If the Soviets were going to go for it, they would have done so before the mid to late '80s.

Glad to see everyone's keeping their expectations of follow on modules reasonable.

Glad to see everyone's keeping their expectations of follow on modules reasonable.

I wonder if there was a similar article for the MBT 70?

Yes, I suppose I'm saying the team (developers and playtesters) have a better feel for what's important than what you see in wish lists, but that shouldn't be a surprise really.

They can. I can tell you having been play testing the US 1979 campaign, the AI is a challenging opponent, so lots of credit to the designer for making it 1) challenging and 2) as much as possible act like a real Soviet opponent doctrine wise. You won't be disappointed. 
From the questions above, I'm not sure it's completely clear, but there are 2 completely separate US campaigns included - one set in 1979 and the other set in 1982. The course of the campaign is the same/very similar depending on how you do, but your forces and equipment are appropriate to the period. For example 1979, M48A5s and early M60s, M113s, M150 TOW vehicles, and if you are lucky some brand new M60A3s and a few M1s, facing a bunch of T-62s and BMP-1s. In 1982 you get new stuff. Of course, so do the bad guys. 🙂  The premise of both campaigns and the area fought over are the same. 
Dave

Does the M577 do anything other than carry the company and BN HQs? I suppose a MG could be mounted on top, but I don't know if that was common practice,

We had a saying that the two most dangerous things in the peace time Army were a private in a jeep and a 2nd lieutenant with a map. 

See the 'A Word on Follow on Modules" thread:
 
 

Hey Guys,
  I would love it if Battlefront would open a Merch store with Combat Mission t-shirts, mugs, hats, hoodies, autographed 0.50 Cal rounds. Can I get a thumbs up?
  Some ideas may be your title's logos, pictures of your 3D models of rare or popular tanks (and assault guns with soldiers in artillery uniforms). Also 2D pics with listings of the tanks statistics for us armor geeks.  I'm sure the community has many ideas for Merch and online outlets that would make it relatively easy.

We had a saying that the two most dangerous things in the peace time Army were a private in a jeep and a 2nd lieutenant with a map. 

Sequoia - Regarding the M47 Pattons, I believe that none were in service by 1979, though I don't have any sources on this. It appears that the 90mm guns from the decommissioned M47's were used to arm the 90mm Kanonenjagdpanzer tank destroyers. Those would still be around in 1979, but they were becoming obsolete going up against T-64's and T-72's.

Only tank porn allowed on this board!

Don't know if it was standardised but there was the VW Type 183 Iltis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Iltis

I can see it now, you guys will get someone to mod the infantry models for MOPP4, mess with the fitness etc., create one scenario.. find out how crappy it plays, and then never touch it again. 
Just a little prognostication from your Uncle Bil.   

When I served in the Bundeswehr 40 years ago, I always hoped that if this goes hot, it will be as during WW II. Everybody had chemicals and, therefore, nobody used it. Maybe due to own experience not even Mr. Hitler used them at the end of the war. And at least my unit was nearly not prepared for it. I did not have the impression to be well trained for the case. The British Army showed a different picture judging by the small insight I had at that time.
In a game like this it is most certainly a factor which can easily unbalance a scenario and a whole bag of new interdependencies which need to be researched, designed, and programmed. So, I can very much understand the decision to keep it out.

Right, I think the only way that an invasion by the Warsaw Pact in the time frame would be if the Soviets did something along the lines of:
1. Announce they would not be the first to use NBC weapons.
2. Announce limited objectives. i.e. they'd stop at the Rhine and Dutch and Danish Borders.
3. Announce they'd pull back once the political reason for launching the invasion was met.
By doing the above the Soviets might be able to convince NATO not to go nuclear first.
The objective could be simply to limit NATO power by "Finlandizing" (that's not a word coined by me) West Germany. With a neutered West Germany the Soviets would be in a position to repeat the invasion with ease whenever they wanted to, and become the dominant world power. Marxist ideology was not to conquer the whole world by external military power but that eventually all Western countries would go Marxist by internal factors.
 
Just my two cents.
p.s. I know the actual Soviet contingency plan was to go nuke from the get go. They never implemented that plan. I don't think it was because of pity. I think it was because the Soviet leaders felt that plan was unworkable or too risky whatever you want to call it. 

Re: NBC:
From our Design Document (and before you ask... no, sorry I won't be sharing it):
In our mind representing NBC was a rabbit hole best stayed away from.
Bil