akd

Spotting is weighted by facing, not by target arcs.  The only affect of a target arc on spotting is to set the unit’s facing.  This makes sense as the order is not intended for controlling observation, but controlling fire.  Caveat: on moving vehicles with weapon stations that can pivot, setting a target arc away from the direction of travel does modify spotting.

Spotting is weighted by facing, not by target arcs.  The only affect of a target arc on spotting is to set the unit’s facing.  This makes sense as the order is not intended for controlling observation, but controlling fire.  Caveat: on moving vehicles with weapon stations that can pivot, setting a target arc away from the direction of travel does modify spotting.

Spotting is weighted by facing, not by target arcs.  The only affect of a target arc on spotting is to set the unit’s facing.  This makes sense as the order is not intended for controlling observation, but controlling fire.  Caveat: on moving vehicles with weapon stations that can pivot, setting a target arc away from the direction of travel does modify spotting.

Spotting is weighted by facing, not by target arcs.  The only affect of a target arc on spotting is to set the unit’s facing.  This makes sense as the order is not intended for controlling observation, but controlling fire.  Caveat: on moving vehicles with weapon stations that can pivot, setting a target arc away from the direction of travel does modify spotting.

Seems “Terminator” will be in this year’s parade:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QUwgJemgSKs

Wargamer published a list of the best WW2 strategy and wargames, but did not include any CM titles.  The locals revolted and now there is a V2 of the list with CM at the top.
https://www.wargamer.com/articles/best-ww2-strategy-games-war-games/

Probably not unless BFC decides to do a 2025 vehicle pack* or something.  Same for JLTV, AMPV, SCOUT SV, etc.
*this would actually be pretty cool and probably popular.

Your memory on the Armored Rifle Platoon HQs is not faulty.  It was an error that was corrected.
Mortars have never been able to be in contact in the fire support menu by using the local, temporary C2 feature of an adjacent higher HQ.  IIRC, they must either:
1. Have a good chain of C2 up through their normal chain of command to a higher HQ with a radio.  In this case that would be the Platoon HQ.  In other cases it might be the Section HQ.
2. Be equipped with a radio themselves.
3. Be located next to a vehicle with a radio.
Basically, they cannot leap frog up to a higher HQ and take over their radio for fire missions.  They either need to use their organic C2 structure to receive fire missions or poach a vehicle radio.

Your memory on the Armored Rifle Platoon HQs is not faulty.  It was an error that was corrected.
Mortars have never been able to be in contact in the fire support menu by using the local, temporary C2 feature of an adjacent higher HQ.  IIRC, they must either:
1. Have a good chain of C2 up through their normal chain of command to a higher HQ with a radio.  In this case that would be the Platoon HQ.  In other cases it might be the Section HQ.
2. Be equipped with a radio themselves.
3. Be located next to a vehicle with a radio.
Basically, they cannot leap frog up to a higher HQ and take over their radio for fire missions.  They either need to use their organic C2 structure to receive fire missions or poach a vehicle radio.

I am travelling today, but will try to follow up on both issues.  I suspect they are simply limitations of the mounted/dismounted on-board mortar system.  I am assuming the M4 is behaving the same as other mortar carriers?

This not correct.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM17-27.PDF
"It may be moved rapidly into position and fired either from the vehicle or the ground. It will usually be fired from the carrier."

Tested in CMFI and found the same.  Reported the issue.

There are two types of 2-inch mortar in game: the regular crew-served version that comes only in a team, not a multi-team squad, and the short airborne version that is organic to some CW parachute squads.  Due to limitations in the engine with equipping multi-team squads with deployable crew-served weapons, this is short 2-inch mortar is treated basically like a handheld grenade launcher, which means no restriction on firing indoors or even from a height directly down on a lower target.  However, its purpose is primarily tossing smoke.  Can't remember exactly how many HE grenades they are allocated, but it is a small number (and perhaps it should be zero).
RE: acquiring the 2-inch mortar carried in some vehicles: haven't looked at this in a while, but it is the full size mortar and the problem may be trying to acquire it with a multi-team squad rather than a single team.  Will have to double check that one.

But if seriously concerned about their country's future autonomy, T-72B3, BMP-2 and BTR-82A might be better enemies to know.

My favorite:

M4A3E2 “Jumbo” upgraded with 76mm, relocated M2 for loader, M1919 for commander and M3 .50 cal (1000rpm) in coax position.

This is probably a TO&E bug that got baked into the scenario.
edit: nevermind, it is bug with the 250/9 when purchased through the Single Vehicles menu in the editor.  Will report.  That said, it is only supposed to have about 2k rds, so that ammo will simply be removed, not reassigned to the vehicle.

Nope, 66mm are HE grenades.  The AT grenades are shown separately by icon in the special equipment panel.  Your example team has 3x HE-frag rifle grenades and 1x AT grenade (M9A1).  I think there is only one 3D model, however, and it is the M9A1.
Ammunition in the special equipment panel is not shown in the squad ammo counter and vice versa.

If a spotting round is fired with significant error, then the next round and the one after do not have significant corrections toward the intended target, cancel the mission.  The FO is not seeing the spotting rounds.  Basically, if spotting rounds are not correcting and you let the mission continue, you are saying go ahead and try fire for effect with error.

If a spotting round is fired with significant error, then the next round and the one after do not have significant corrections toward the intended target, cancel the mission.  The FO is not seeing the spotting rounds.  Basically, if spotting rounds are not correcting and you let the mission continue, you are saying go ahead and try fire for effect with error.

Okay, SAS squadron + Maquis cells would a be a reasonable stretch.  And certainly this would be amusing:

I was kinda joking with CIA part, but then...
MOSCOW, January 9. /TASS/. A US Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft was detected cruising between Tartus and Hmeymim during a UAV attack on the Russian military facilities in Syria, which was carried out by terrorists, a source in the Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday.
"…it is a strange coincidence that during a UAV attack on the Russian military facilities in Syria, a US Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft was cruising for more than four hours over the Mediterranean Sea at an altitude of 7,000 meters," the source said.
http://tass.com/defense/984293

Panzer Aufklarung battalions were intended to be able to hold their own and fight for information if needed, so they were allocated a greater variety of support weapons than a standard Panzergrenadier battalion.  They were also often used as a fire brigade / reserve for the division, so having a full range of organic support weapons also helped with that role.  All support assets in the battalion were fully motorized on trucks or halftracks, but obviously for infantry-only QBs vehicles are stripped out.

Not an opinion piece, but the conclusions are built on some big assumptions (for example, what is the scientific basis for their definition of suppression) and very artificial test conditions.  How often is an LMG likely to be attempting immediate suppression on a single spotted individual.  Much more likely for the LMG to be tasked with immediately suppressing an area with an unknown number of targets, and for that it is pretty well-suited, especially if we are talking about 4x rifles vs. 3x rifles + belt-fed LMG.

Not an opinion piece, but the conclusions are built on some big assumptions (for example, what is the scientific basis for their definition of suppression) and very artificial test conditions.  How often is an LMG likely to be attempting immediate suppression on a single spotted individual.  Much more likely for the LMG to be tasked with immediately suppressing an area with an unknown number of targets, and for that it is pretty well-suited, especially if we are talking about 4x rifles vs. 3x rifles + belt-fed LMG.