IHC70

0% Vehicles can get replaced but im very careful with my infantry and air assets

I always play aiming for zero casualties, especially single player. That obviously doesn't always work out.

The Game didn't get it wrong, Russian MoD got it wrong. 
CMBS is uncomfortably correct and accurate in how RUS should have done it, and frankly if they had copied CMBS op plans we'd all be talking about the Fall of Kiev and POW Zelensky right now.
 
 

Actually there is one area where CMBS  might be overmodelling the Russians in a way that players can't do much about: ERA and active defense systems. The t-90s and upgraded t-72s in CMBS tend to come fully stocked with ERA packs and Shtora. On the evidence of what we've seen in Ukraine so far, they are significantly lacking in ERA coverage, particularly on the hull sides. Tanks in Ukraine seem rather more vulnerable to infantry AT weapons (aside from the Javelin) than the in-game counterparts. At least when it's my guys committing suicide by using their AT-4s to achieve nothing but drawing fire.
On the other hand, it's hard to say how much of that is selection bias. By definition, the ones we see photos and videos of are the ones that have been successfully knocked out, not the ones where someone missed, where a hit didn't penetrate, or where ERA was present and worked,

To get a good approximation of Russians in CMBS go look for those Youtubers who decided to give the Steam CM franchise a spin without ever having played the game before. A lot of 'How does this work?', 'Oh! I just blew up!', 'Oh no, my men are dying!' and 'I'll just run him into the middle of the field and..."

But they also have poor quality armour and manufacturing failures modelled. Much more in the vein of "provide the Russians with poor/previous gen sabots" than your example, I would think. 

Hello,
In light of recent events (I do hope this thread remains as non-political as possible) and also given that Steve has expressed interest in expanding Black Sea to cover the current conflict, I think it is worth having a discussion about whether Russia might be over modeled in CM. Just a few suggestions to kick off the thread:
1) Steve has said before that in WW2 CM titles things like inefficient slave labour is modeled by having German armoured vehicles suffer catastrophic failures, I think you could bring this to Black Sea by having a chance for Russian tanks to have no ERA or Russian vehicles having low supplies.
2) High-end Russian vehicles such as the T90 may need to be made rarer to represent Russia's reliance on older vehicle models.
3) Typical Russian soldiers should have severe morale and leadership penalties. I think your average Russian unit needs to be set to green and negative leadership. Then more "elite" units like the VDV can be set to Regular (but they should clearly still maintain the leadership issues).
Just want this to be a friendly thread where we discuss ways to improve the simulation 😁.

Hetzer!
 
 

It helps to use the right names.
SU-122 (T-34 chassis, very short gun):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-122
The SU-122 was an assault gun akin to the StuH.42, not a tank hunter.....The tank hunters of the T-34 family were the SU-85 and later the SU-100 (& SU-85M).
ISU-122 (IS-2 Chassis, long gun with no muzzle brake, same mantlet as ISU-152):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-122
ISU-122S (IS-2 chassis, long gun with muzzle brake, new ball shaped mantlet):

This is the one to go hunting big cats with! 

Thanks for the kudos for the Carius CMRT scenario. That is based on the facts and focussed on the main event and used both German and Russian sources to create the narrative (Note: carius in his account creates a totally fictional and non-corroborated meeting engagement after the encounter at Malinava). The mysterious heavy tank brigade (‘Josef Stalin’) as described by Carius and engaged by the Tigers never existed. In fact the company commanded by Carius was in action against the 41st Tank brigade (T-34 and M3 medium tanks) and the 48th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment, both from the 5th Tank Corps. The first lost some 10 T-34 destroyed at Malinovo/Malinava on 22.07, the latter - 5 IS-2 (sources http://zhurnal.lib.ru/m/marchenko_r_a/poteri5tk.shtml).
So 'fraid video gets a huge thumbs down from. A mish-mash of incorrect factoids. Even simple corborotion with Carius' own account would get this half way correct. Such poorly researched slick video productions really boil my piss though - its al clicks and likes and nothing of any substance. The men involved all deserve better, especially the Soviet tankers who were killed in this engagement. For the full Soviet KIA names list scroll down. A key factor in the success of Carius’ unit attack can be attributed to fact that these tank crews of the Soviet 3/41st Tank Brigade were mainly inexperienced reinforcements. The battalion has come up to brigade on the evening of the 21st June 1944. It appears the tank drivers had experience of only 3 hours driving their tanks, whilst many of the officers were inexperienced and not ready for a fast and dynamic close range armoured fight. Anyways the full account and sources is below. The vdieo - meh...
Historical Background
On 22 July 1944, 1st Lieutenant Otto Carius with his company of eight Tigers from sPzAbt (Heavy Tank Battalion)502 advanced towards the village of Malinava.
They had been tasked with halting the spearhead of the Soviet 5th Tank Corps, the tip of 4th Shock Army’s spear, which had cleanly broken through Army Group North’s defences.  
The Soviet 5th Tank Corps during their drive towards Dunaburg/Daugavpils were intercepted by a German assault gun battery (on probability most likely elements from Assault Gun Brigade 912 – although it’s difficult to pin this down with any certainty) around 1200Hrs. 
After a short sharp firefight the Soviet armour brushed aside an attack by the assault guns destroying 7 of the assault guns in the process. 
The Soviet tanks went on to cut the main highway, from Daugavpils to Rossiten in Latvia, at Malinava. Their next objective was the city of Daugavpils to the south. 
As panic stricken German troops fled the area, 2nd Company from the sPzAbt 502 under the command of 1st Lieutenant Otto Carius were tasked with intercepting this Soviet armoured spearhead. After refuelling and re-arming they headed out. On their approach to Malinava they heard the sounds of an armoured battle – the firefight between the Soviet armour and the hapless Stug unit. The Tiger unit stopped behind a slight rise to investigate. 1st Lieutenant Carius, along with Sergeant Albert Kerscher (one of the most decorated commanders of sPzAbt 502) took a Kubelwagen and went on ahead to identify the source of the gunfire. 
Somewhere south of Malinava they bumped into a fleeing army Sergeant who warned them of the presence of Soviet tanks up ahead in the village. He was invited into their kubelwagon and the little group carried on. Just before the village, on a reverse slope they parked and proceeded on foot till about a kilometre from the village. Here Carius observed the Soviets moving into position in Malinava and noticed that several T34s were standing sentry on the southern approach into the village. As Carius watched the Soviet tanks begin to ‘circle the wagons’ a motorcycle approached the south. In it was the adjutant from the ill-fated German assault gun battalion. He confirmed that the firefight Carius had heard was the contact between the assault gun unit and the Soviet tanks now taking up position in Malinava. 
Carius recognized that the Russian tanks in the village were only advance troops waiting for the main force to arrive. He decided to recapture the village with a daring 'coup de main' before reinforcements arrived. He decided to attack the village using only two tanks. 
His reasoning for this approach (as he describes in his book “Tigers in the Mud”) was because the situation was so unclear and, in his judgement, would be too risky for the unit to attack on line. Therefore to avoid risking his other vehicles and crews - six Tigers (under the command of 1st Lieutenant Nienstedt who was new to the unit) remained in reserve while Carius and Kerscher's Tigers moved towards the village of Malinava. Speed was the essence of Carius' strategy, as was his desire to avoid unnecessary casualties.
Entering the village, two T-34/85 tanks were observed rotating their turrets. At that moment, Kerscher's Tiger No.213, trailing Carius, opened fire and knocked them out. Both Carius and Kerscher’s Tigers penetrated into the village where they engaged the other Soviet tanks at close range. Carius recalled that the entire battle lasted no more than 20 minutes - Carius and Kerscher's Tigers knocked out 17 Russian tanks (as claimed by Carius in his account in ‘Tigers in the Mud’) during this brief but violent action. His quick and accurate recognition of the situation and the excellent tactics used were the main factors in the decisive outcome. 
Controversy and Discussion 
These are the key facts. However this action (and the following one Carius describes in his book – Tigers in the Mud’) have gathered some critical views – did this really happen? This link provides some background detail regarding the discussion including some very interesting Russian research by S.Morozov about the action simulated in this scenario and the second event described by Carius in his book: 
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=163515 
The discussion and links provided in this forum were crucial for working out what happened where – especially the detail provided by S.Morozov. 
There are a few points regarding Carius’ account (bearing in mind it was written from memory a long time after the actual events) that the evidence available now to researchers doesn’t corroborate. They are: 
The mysterious heavy tank brigade (‘Josef Stalin’) as described by Carius and engaged by the Tigers never existed. In fact the company commanded by Carius was in action against the 41st Tank brigade (T-34 and M3 medium tanks) and the 48th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment, both from the 5th Tank Corps. The first lost some 10 T-34 destroyed at Malinovo/Malinava on 22.07, the latter - 5 IS-2 (sources http://zhurnal.lib.ru/m/marchenko_r_a/poteri5tk.shtml). 
The Soviet brigade commander killed by Carius is a pure fantasy. The most high-ranking Soviet tank officer killed at Malinava on this day was Captain Orlovskiy, CO of the 1st battalion, 41st Tank Brigade (Same source as above). 
The subsequent ambush east of Malinava, in which Carius allegedly destroyed 28 Soviet tanks seems to be a fantasy as well. There are no recorded Soviet tank losses for that day that corroborate the story (or subsequently in the area). However the evidence tallies for the action at Malinava and for it happening reasonably close to Carius’ account of events. 
In Carius’ account there is no mention of the German assault guns being involved in supporting his attack. However there is evidence that indicates that the surviving assault guns from the unit previously engaged by the Soviet tanks, joined in attacking by fire from the north west when the Carius attack went in. It’s also likely they KO’d some of the Soviet tanks claimed by Carius in his book. The evidence of this comes from the German AAR and ironically a German newspaper article about this very action (It can be found as document 18 in "Tigers in the Mud"). Dated 28 July '44, "Review of the War Correspondent Reports - The Bronze Shield". It was written by Herbert Steinert, and it provides some interesting snippets of information. It writes that most Russian tanks were destroyed outside the village (which corroborates well with Morozov's account above and his locations of KO’d Soviet armour in and around Malinava), and here is the interesting part - "Leutnant Carius can chalk up 10 kills for himself, the second "Tiger" had four. Three of the fleeing bolshevist tanks were destroyed by assault guns which had followed the penetration of the tanks." 
A key factor in the success of Carius’ unit attack can be attributed to fact that the tank crews of the Soviet 3/41st Tank Brigade were mainly inexperienced reinforcements. The battalion has come up to brigade on the evening of the 21st June 1944. It appears the tank drivers had experience of only 3 hours driving their tanks, whilst many of the officers were inexperienced and not ready for a fast and dynamic close range armoured fight. 
It can also be speculated that after their victory over the German assault guns that they’d relaxed, or had become overconfident or had perhaps most likely (either because they simply forgot or due to their inexperience) that a vital part of mechanised combat is attentive and alert observation of all arcs that a possible enemy could approach from. Whatever the reasons the young inexperienced Soviet tank crews paid a heavy price – 20 officers and other ranks were killed in the fight. Many were buried by the wrecks of their destroyed tanks on the battlefield. Note: A full list of the Soviet tankers killed at Malinava can be found at 
http://zhurnal.lib.ru/m/marchenko_r_a/karius1.shtml 
These discrepancies aside the bold and decisive attack made by Carius and Kerscher was successful and inflicted heavy casualties on the advancing Soviet armour. When playing this scenario I hope you’ll appreciate how much luck played a part in the success of this attack and in both Carius and Kerscher’s survival. It’s an indication of the odds they gave at surviving this fight that after the fighting was over they’d jumped down of their tanks and hugged each other – relief and thanks? 
As Napoleon once said “I know he's a good general, but is he lucky?” On a tactical scale it was a superb display of AFV technology, skill, training and luck by the German Tiger commanders and their crews – notably Carius and Kerscher. Several days later – on the 24th July 1944 Nienstedt went on to display his own prowess in armoured combat commanding Tiger tanks when outside Dunaburg his command of six Tigers knocked 17 out of 20 attacking Soviet tanks, including 2 assault guns. His Tiger alone accounted for 10 enemy tanks. 
Soviet Casualty List for Malinava
This is the casualty list for the Soviet armoured units engaged at Malinava. Unfortunately the information concerning the detail of the Soviet units is very scarce. However these young men died fighting against Nazi Germany so it’s only fitting their sacrifice is remembered.
Source: http://zhurnal.lib.ru/m/marchenko_r_a/karius1.shtml
Casualty list for 41 Armoured Brigade July 22 1944
KIA
Officers
Captain I.Moroz;
Captain K.Orlovsky;
Lieutenant P.Prokopev;
Lieutenant N.Ravvinsky;
ml. Lieutenant A. Knorpel;
ml. Lieutenant S. Polozov;
ml. Lieutenant F. Bozhenov. He died in hospital from wounds
ml. Lieutenant A.Egorov.
Sergeants.
St.serzhant M. Cherepanov;
Sergeant M. Averyanov;
Sergeant A. Maslov;
Sergeant S. Melnikov;
Sergeant Efimov;
Sergeant E. Krylov;
Sergeant S.Nemirov,
Loskutnikov ;
mL. Sergeant A. Vinyukov;
ml. Sergeant F. Sokolov . 
Casualty list for the 48 Guards Tank Regiment July 22 1944
KIA
Officers
Guard Lieutenant G. Romazanov.
Sergeants
 St.serzhant A.Mikhailov
Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502
During the 502nd battalions’ deployment (22-26th July 1944) on the north side of the Duna River they destroyed 73 Soviet tanks and 24 anti-tank guns for the loss of only four Tigers. 
The mobile operations the unit undertook severely stressed the Tigers mechanical reliability resulting in a 44.5% operational readiness rate for it’s Tigers. Despite this the penetrative qualities of the Tiger’s 88 allowed small numbers of Tigers to destroy large numbers of Soviet tanks, thereby helping delay the Soviet capture of Dunaburg.
Notable ‘aces’ that served with 502 Johannes Bolter (usually credited with 139 destroyed tanks but the exact number is unknown)

Otto Carius (usually credited with 150+ destroyed tanks but the exact number is unknown)

Alfredo Carpaneto (usually credited with 50+ destroyed tanks but the exact number is unknown)

Albert Kerscher (usually credited with 100+ destroyed tanks but the exact number is unknown)

Heinz Kramer (usually credited with 50+ destroyed tanks but the exact number is unknown)

Johann Muller (usually credited with 50 destroyed tanks but the exact number is unknown)
Designers and Research:
Charlie Meconis and ‘George MC’ McEwan.
 References and Sources
 “Tigers in the Mud: The Combat Career of German Panzer Commander Otto Carius”
Personal account of his combat career – it includes a detailed personal account of this action plus an appendix that has original German sources.
 “Otto Carius Meine Dienstzeit”
Photos and stories chronicle Otto Carius entrance into the Wehrmacht as a volunteer, his life as a soldier, and his victories as a Panzer commander for three and a half years on the Eastern Front. Detailed photos and illustrations of his numerous medals, decorations and documents as well as an interview with Otto Carius about his time in the military.
 “Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II”
Useful overview of Tigers in action operationally and tactically. Has a detailed overview of the ‘big picture’ in which Carius’ 502nd Heavy Panzer Battalion were deployed post Operation Bagration.
 Overview of 502nd’s Combat history covering vehicle losses in combat
 http://www.alanhamby.com/unithist.shtml#502
 Interesting discussion, with numerous views and conjecture plus some new evidence regarding the actions described by Carius in ‘The Ambush’ chapter of his book ‘Tigers in the Mud’:
 http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=163515
 Detailed stats and accounts from the Soviet side of the hill. However it’s in Russian and google translate struggles with an easily understandable translation plus brevity is not one of it’s merits
 http://zhurnal.lib.ru/m/marchenko_r_a/poteri5tk.shtml

Interesting question, although I am suspect of the intent behind it.  Regardless, the bigger question is whether Soviet tactics would have worked at all.   At the operational level the theory was centralized controlled maneuver, which worked in WW2 but was a serious leap of faith in the much faster and comms denied battlefield of the 1980s. Air power is the other issue as without air supremacy those long lines of logistics were never going to work.
 At the tactical level the idea that mass would beat quality was also weak and built on hope.  The idea that massed arty would smash all-mech forces of NATO was a serious leap.  It takes a well shaped, dense piece of exotic metal to kill a tank, metal fragments from HE can damage it but would not likely sweep away NATO formations.  I would argue that CMCW is accurate (with caveats) in demonstrating the weaknesses of Soviet doctrine at the tactical level (jury is out on operational).  Every Soviet campaign scenario gives the Soviet player at least 2:1 advantage and in cases 3:1 and better.  But they show just how hard it is to “smash” through well prepared and sighted terrain that your opponent has owned for over 25 years.  Arty may be a little weaker, testing is probably required and this is not a new issue, but you will note that engineer obstacles for NATO are no where near what would have been employed in RL so I am betting it evens out closer to RL when the “most effective offensive tool for the Soviets” is blunted along side that of the most effective defensive tool for NATO.
So what?  I personally think the Soviet theory was broken.  It worked in WW2 but they were not keeping up with the times and would have been seriously crushed in late 70, early 80 which would have likely led to nuclear options being employed and inevitable escalation…let’s be grateful it never happened.  CMCW is only demonstrating the weaknesses of the Soviet approach, which is what a simulation should do.
Now all that said, we have players who have clearly mastered the Soviets, @Grey_Fox and his series of the Soviet campaign definitely show what can be done to with the Soviets in the right hands.
 

To your larger point, as I cant comment on the effectiveness of arty, the problem with the CMCW simulation is that its limited by numbers, which forces battles which can only be *so* big. Id argue that NATO also suffers from this issue in its own offensive situations. In real life, as best as I understand Soviet doctrine it would have been not to fight first and foremost, if the spear can flow  around an enemy position then it ought to do so. But if it had to fight that it was up to HHQ, either at the regimental or divisional level most likely, to concentrate maximum force onto a single axis. Probably this would mean picking one battle and dumping the entire divisions artillery pool on it, plus helo and air support. This concentration of arty assets would be possible in engine, certainly it would give you the effect youre looking for, but I think it would drive most players insane. Moreover, the idea of the balanced battalion on battalion boxing match is IMO probably not as it would have actually gone in many situations. If the forward detachment and combat patrols located a serious NATO obstacle, division HQ would make a determination as to the best case of action. If it was decided to attack, several battalions from the regiment would be moved into position to overwhelm the position, and depending on the situation perhaps several regiments from the division would also engage in the attack. The goal being to make the fight unfair, to hit the enemy with as much as the can from as many directions as possible to fold up resistance quickly and get back to moving. CMCW doesnt simulate any of this because it doesn't do the operational side of the conflict and anyway I doubt many players would like the lopsided engagements that commanders would try to produce on the battlefield. 
As I understand it NATO doctrine is mostly the same re: concentration and dispersal. FM71-2 in one of its scenarios recommends that the commander concentrate several companies of his battalion to systematically destroy each enemy platoon. Operationally the same thing would apply at the higher levels. Several battalions ideally would want to hit a single one, several brigades a sole regiment. 
Ultimately CM is a game, not real life. Its a cool game. But it cant capture many of the factors actual Cold Warriors would likely have faced. 

Using Battleorder as a reference, since pretty pictures:

Russian Motor Rifle

Bradley Platoon



A couple of things notable here - CM's modelling of any kind of organisation will be a compromise. The Bradley FO is supposed to be an attached element, so having that as a separate team (rather than as part of a five man HQ squad) makes some sense in the way the CM C2 system works, but it's still a choice that's been made for the sake of the model.

As noted, the Bradley platoon on paper can't actually fit into it's transport. This is another of the compromises that CM makes - it chooses to represent the on-paper strength at all levels. Because of this, and the hellishly complex cross-loading that has to happen, the choice in modelling all Bradleys which aren't in CMCW was just to artificially increase their available seats. That's ultimately a sensible decision, but it is a fudge, and does have some consequences.

The Bradley platoon nevertheless has a whole additional vehicle - where the BMP platoon might have 8 x 3 = 24 available seats, the Bradley platoon has more or less 7 x 4 minus one, or 28 seats.

The role of the IFV is very different - the US doctrine is that the IFV is there to support from distance, so it's important that the HQ element has dedicated radio operators embedded within them. The two elements are supposed to work together, but also be able to operate independently when required. This is not true for the Russian BMP platoon, where the BMP is to work in close coordination with any dismounts, where dismounting even happens.

The "HQ squad" in the Motor Rifle platoon, then, includes all of the attached weapon systems, as well as the platoon sergeant, who does not dismount, and therefore acts as the main C2 link between the dismounts and the vehicles.

Now, Battle Order doesn't have equivalent graphics for Cold War M113 platoons yet, but the principals are mostly the same - the US doctrine was and is to push down decision making and options to as low a level as it can get away with, and that means kitting out their HQ elements with things like dedicated radios, Forward Observers, etc.
 
The Soviet and Soviet-style formations don't have or want that kind of flexibility, instead opting for a simple, robust approach with minimal load on their command structure. A Soviet-style platoon is fundamentally a simpler, more direct tool. That doesn't make it "worse" by any means - overloading people with too many tasks and responsibilities is a very real thing.

Yeah, so that's one of the choices/compromises that CM makes (for good reason).

The "HQ" element of the above BMP formation are the platoon leader and assistant, the GPMG team, the SVD and the medic. In Black sea that's broken into three teams of two men each, GPMG, SVD and the Platoon leader.

That's certainly done in reality - you don't want your PK following your platoon leader around all day - but in reality we're not limited to strict teams and action spots like we are in CM.

I have no idea what BFC will do. I have asked/suggested they make certain small scope, like a vehicle pack, "war gamers kits" for CMRT and CMFI. Now I have decided to have some dignity and I will no longer even ask for anything from them. 
Since 2014 or so, I have made some small humble attempts to create in CMRT the following mods: Finland Mod, Romania Mod, Hungary Mod.
I don't think I can do a mod for the 1939 Invasion of Poland. 
I have a hope to work next year on a CMRT Italian Mod.
I hope to create "early war Soviets" using mdr tricks and shenanigans. I hope to make some scenarios that represent Barbarossa.
They are good words Wang. 🙂
 

I object to calling that thing a 'man', myself.

These are kohlenklau's selfish ideas for what he would want in the "CMFI Ci Vediamo Dopo pack".
I appreciate the BFC principle players time, the time of the BFC second echelon folks and the time of the BETA testers. I would not want any new TOE's, scenarios or campaigns to hold up the release of this pack.
A good sifting through and gathering of previously developed material in the other titles but not in CMFI would be very cost-effective. Think outside the box. Send it ALL. Anti-tank rifles from CMRT for example. 
But the pack needs a vision or 2 of what it might "allow" for the community after it is released.
To me this #1 vision would be better ability to portray Pre-Husky events. That means British vs Italians (pre-DAK), then golden years of DAK, Crete, and finally Torch-Husky timeframe. The old double-turret Grant technical hurdle took until CMAK to solve, maybe it would not get to us. It would be awesome if it did.
Can the dropdown menus in the editor be "unlocked" so to speak? Can we have the date range go from September 1939 to May 1945? I am sure the answer is yes, but how many man-hours and what hassles does it cause? I don't know. I am asking for lobster on my pizza. You're the waiter or cook, YOU just please tell me how much it costs. 
Some amount of BETA testing is needed. I officially volunteer!
I will update this thread as I develop a list of specifically what I see as fruit able to be plucked and gathered from other titles. 
Ci Vediamo Dopo!  

LOL when i first saw the last pic I thought the girder bridge was floating above the destroyed bridge.

it sure seems that CW is popular, so hopefully all these wishes will come true.  "Battle for Scandinavia" module, with all the above forces.  Heck yes.  Probably a bit lighter forces than in fulda gap, we'd get more infantry/AFV and less MBTs.  In the snow!  W forest & hills & frozen rivers. 
campaign where beleaguered force (danes, nords, swedes, or some such) fighting it out in defense/delaying actions w soviet paras & amphib forces, then USMC shows up to help out.  I gotta have that.  I guess could do same kinda thing in Black Sea also, please 😀

Most likely happy with any theater/force combination set in the cold war era.
But my first choice for a module would be:
CM: Scandinavia
Wintermaps!
Hypothetical scenarios between Swedish forces and Soviet or US/NATO.
And much more!
 

Downloaded an Osprey Publication about this topic and see how to apply it in Red Thunder. Here we embedded a marksmen team in an infantry unit. Embedded to make him harder to spot among other infantry. Sure, enough the engine did the right thing. Scenario 'Bunkers Burning'. 

Had to do plenty of postprocessing to make him visible. The scenario is winnable but take your time to carefully plan every move.

The MG42 is awesome but the gunner can't hit a target he can't see. I enjoy playing Soviets and don't ignore the infantry. 
 

Please. Any discussions about all that, take to your own separate thread. Talk all day and night THERE. 

Kohlenklau 7/29/2021
BACKGROUND
I got involved in this CMRT Warsaw Uprising Mod back a few months ago when I was making a CMRT Romanian Mod with forumite JM. He had shown a Mod in the forums and it was several years old. I told him we would work together to make it take flight and become alive. It has been a lot of work. JM does GiMP uniform work and also some Blender work. But he doesn't (yet) know maps or scenarios or campaigns. So, you get stuck with old kohlenklau...
CREDITS
Others helped with the mod and JM has thanked them in his release posts. umlaut, juju, Frenchy56, Suchy, Probus, NPye, I think that is the list of people who helped directly or indirectly in some way. I also will give a thank you to the main playtester Vacilllator. He played many of these scenarios over and over as I TRIED to improve them. If they suck, it is my fault.
SOURCES OF INSPIRATION
I saw a couple movies about the Warsaw Uprising these past few months and those movies burned into my brain a vision of what I could create in CM. I did my best. 
THE POLES
The unit in the scenarios is a fictional unit called "Kompania Tomasz" and has 3 plutonu (platoons) and a few teams with the company HQ. Each plutonu has 3 squads and some teams. My strategy was that the Polish resistance had a variety of folks. Some would be classified as veterans due to age, maturity, experience, physical strength from their job, toughness, firearms and weapons ability. A middle group would be classified as regulars due to less of the above. Finally the 3rd squad would be green but ironically they have the higher motivation. Maybe they only know life under the nazi boot. They are inexperienced but ready to kill and/or die. Snipers for the CMRT partisans are 1 man teams. These guys will be your "message runners" in a later scenario. Then there are some special teams to aid the player in the scenarios. 
THE MAPS
I did do **some** research for the maps. Looking at old maps of Warsaw and current Warsaw in Google Earth. I did take some poetic license but within the limits of CM map making and what buildings we have at our disposal, I am happy with the results. I didn't want to go crazy modding buildings. I added in some new colors of buildings that seemed to match 1930's Warsaw. I stretched a lamp post in Blender to make it match Warsaw old photos of very tall street lights. I modded the images in the Berlin kiosk flavor object. I made a red civilian truck out of the Gaz MM. The second wave of scenarios will have some more new mods to show the damage of Warsaw. Just a few broken windows, shot up walls, burning buildings, rubbled streets, bent street lights... KOHLENKLAU'S GOLDEN RULE OF MODDING: keep it accomplishable!
THE GERMANS
I decided early on that I personally would not make a mod of Germans or make scenarios from that point of view. For this conflict, I think they (Dirlewanger Brigade, ROA) do not deserve any attention. If somebody else wants to...help yourself.
THE SCENARIOS
I started thinking of the various things that happened and boiled it down to my scenario list. They are very short scenarios and on tiny/small maps. KOHLENKLAU'S GOLDEN RULE OF SCENARIO WRITING: keep it accomplishable!
I hope it plays out smoothly and looks decent!
Thank you,
Phil

Who claims this? Battlefront?
I look at CM games as miniature wargaming - an abstraction that captures reality well on an abstract level, but not necessarily in every detail on zoom level 1. The latter had never been my expectation, and that has surely saved me a lot of frustration.