Sgt.Squarehead

Here is exactly the issue, no one reads the threads, even the ones they start.  UltraDave already answered that.

To complicate matters a little. I don't know whether the issue of fire control for Soviet and Soviet-like armies was mentioned here or in the other thread. It concerns the statement that company commanders decide in creation of fire systems, along with the platoon commander. That statement is not entirely true.
To elaborate further. Creation of system of fire is a task for the squad leader. He is the one that says to the rifleman this is your main direction of fire, this is your supportive. He creates it in such a way that at least two riflemen are covering the same direction. He says to the machineguner this is your arc of fire. To the designated marksman he says this is your sector of fire (either a rectangle or sqaure). He assigns to the marksman an area of observation, usually to augment his own observation capacity. Furthermore, he also must know the basics of engineering, mostly minelaying.  Squad leaders do this in realization of platoon leaders plan, who in turn is realizing company commanders plan and so on. Platoon leaders can make changes, of course, but in most cases it is not needed, the squad leader is usually far longer in the army and is experienced. Most commonly, platoon leaders will directly influence the placement of and fire arcs of support weapons that were given to them (think of AGS's and heavy machineguns and AT assets), and that is natural, they were given to him to augment his fighting capacities.
As far as soldiers are concerned, most orders to fire will come from the squad leader. Platoon leaders can override the squad leaders, but it is not common. Again, this is in realization of common plan, a system of fire, whether it is in defensive actions, offensive actions or ambushes. This is not to say that squad leaders have complete autonomy, of course there are situations where you wait for a command to issue orders for fire, but there are situations where it is almost weapons free at any time. Those who have served know the value of sudden platoon sized fires and understand that what is written is not set in stone.
As far as company commanders, they really have no concerns about individual fire systems. They are to busy coordinating three rifle platoons and a fourth support platoon, and along company nco,  worry daily about unit sustainment.
As far as unit movement and C2 is concerned, I have no real issues with what was said. Still, might be too rigid, but staying in C2 is far easier in modern titles.
I realize this may be nitpicking on my part, but it was bugging me. This is all written from my experiences in Serbian army. It is a successor to the Yugoslav Peoples Army, influenced by wartime experiences in 90-ies and current developments in cooperation with NATO forces and Russian Army. Most of my handbooks had a red star on it. On the field, we were taught that the best way to assault a dug in position is (after a lenghtly fire preparations and move and fire manouvers) to storm it after an URA shout. Then it is standard procedure, split into threes (security, grenadier and rifleman to shoot those that continue fighting after the grenades go off) and cleanse it. I don't know if that makes me Red OpFor commander, or if it does whether the Soviet-like ones will accept me as their own.  😄

RE: Restriction of direct fires
I actually think this is one of the single best elements of these rules, and I would actually love to see something like this added to the Iron difficulty mode. There are tons of reasons why having fire like this be directed by a command element is more realistic. For one, there is basic psychology. Men will tend not to fire (even if they are shot at first) unless their leader tells them to shoot. This is slightly less true in the modern era as lots of training is devoted to instilling muscle memory responses, but it is still a factor. Much more so in WWII. Then in the modern era you have more concerns over what constitutes a safe target. Teams and squads aren't just going to go around blasting any building they think looks suspicious. Stuff like that requires the go ahead from a leader at the very least. Overall I think these types of C2 restrictions makes the game much more realistic in this regard.
RE: Irregulars
This one is tough and complicated, but I tend to agree with Bil. 
This is very true, but it is worth mentioning that this is by and large the main way irregular forces move around cities. They tend to form large groups and then move down streets towards the sound of fighting. This happened constantly in Mogadishu, and helicopter gunships took advantage of this. Crowds of fighters would mass and start making their way towards fighting, only to be strafed and rocketed by gunships. However, the irregulars did not adjust their tactics. They continued to form large crowds and move down the same streets and continually get blown apart. Similar things happened at night, where a small group (2-3) fighters would try to infiltrate a perimeter, only to be gunned down. Then, just a few minutes later, another small group would attempt the same thing, across the same path, with the same end result. Repeat that all night. 
These behaviors have been repeatedly observed in other urban environments with irregulars operating as well. For example, the drive to Baghdad in 2003 saw Bradley gunners killing tens and hundreds of Fedayeen fighters who kept assaulting in groups down the same roads directly at the IFVs, and then after the invasion in the city fighting that sprung up similar things were observed. Groups of enemy fighters moving through streets towards strongpointed positions and getting cut down in the open, only to have another group follow shortly thereafter and suffer the same fate. This can even be directly viewed by watching some now infamous footage of gun cams on places like YouTube. An Apache or F-16 strafes/drops a bomb on a large group of people clustered in a street. Out of context, it looks rather horrifying and barbaric. In context however, these are combatants forming up and getting ready to walk down the street towards fighting raging a few blocks down the road.
Of course there is plenty of nuance to urban warfare, especially when irregulars are involved, but I think what Bil is trying to capture is that while irregular forces can move faster (less weight carried, personal knowledge of terrain) when it comes to actual warfighting coordination, there essentially isn't any. The only thing they have to go by is, "move towards the sound of fighting, and when you get close, start shooting in the same direction your buddies are shooting in." It's also important to remember that in high stress, terrifying situations like these, basic human psychology causes people to group and bunch up together. This is one of the fundamental things that modern training has to overcome in soldiers. Irregulars by and large do not get any type of modern training or conditioning to combat this, so they default to bunching up together. You actually see the same type of behavior in city gangs. Men from the opposing gangs have a general idea of where they want to confront the others, and then everyone groups up and makes their way to the confrontation.
A final note, irregular forces tend to take atrociously high casualties on the tactical level for reasons detailed above and more. Aside from a lack of training and advanced weapons/sensors, the main contributor to their high casualties is their tactical inflexibility on the battlefield. Again, this has nothing to do with their operational flexibility, purely the behaviors used once a fight has started. 
All of this is to illustrate my thinking as to what I think Bil is trying to achieve with the rules regarding irregulars. 
P.S this isn't a direct response at you @Sgt.Squarehead just my general thoughts using something you said as an example.

"Hey guys.....Go up to the roof and check for helicopter gunships!" 

IIRC we have something like that in the game too. Though abstracted I think. Another FUBAR modifier might be a -1 or -2 leader, putting his guys to the wrong windows sort of.   

Hitting the forest with arty is something I should have done sooner. However, it was difficult to pull my infantry out of that environment, partly due to the nature of the terrain and partly due to the enemy presence. It’s another example of why fighting in dense woods like this fortified by a decent sized enemy force is a nightmare. I’m certainly glad to be rid of the place, doubly so now that friendly artillery is plastering it. 
 
At this point in the battle I was feeling confident in my bases of fire, but I was still concerned about clearing the bridges and immediate areas surrounding the MSR. Based on what I’ve been up against, I’m expecting the enemy to have a significant amount of infantry still in play, plus there are likely more tanks out there somewhere. 
To add to that, my unit organization is very helter skelter right now, especially my tank platoons. The killsack engagement  really scattered them. In a few instances I have tanks that are paired up with tanks from different platoons. It’s an organizational nightmare and it degrades C2 a bit. It’s also hard to reorganize them because they’re all in overwatch positions, and based on prior experience I’ve put a premium on overwatch over organization. Needs of the battlefield and all that. 
Thanks for the compliment Bil! I appreciate the feedback on the more technical aspects of the AAR, such as writing, formatting, etc. I’m always open to suggestions on how to improve the presentation as a whole. 
Speaking of improving the presentation, what do people think of the font for the picture captions? I defaulted to using it as it’s the same font I use for labeling pictures, but after posting a few sections of the AAR I’m reconsidering it. To my eye, unless the image is full sized, the font seems a little hard to read. Has anyone had issues with it?

That would be my interpretation of this.
Blast effects can do some crazy stuff, so IMHO this is perfectly plausible.....If nothing else their ear-drums would be rather the worse for wear.

Vicious fight, but you seem to have the upper hand.

That's a tricky one.....Perhaps rather than attempting to define the above, might it be more effective to restrict the free movement rule to the 'Move' order only? 
If the Red player needs to 'go tactical' within a building cluster (however one defines it), your normal two waypoint rules should apply.
I don't disagree in general, but negotiating something like this:

Is kind of waypoint heavy! 
PS - On my maps all adjacent modular buildings with identical skins and window types will be found to interconnect in some fashion.....They are meant to be (and using the rule suggested above, could perhaps be treated as) one building.

I appreciate you giving the point some consideration. 
I was trying to come up with a definition for a 'Building Group' (compound, large house, cluster of interconnected houses etc.), within which all movement could be treated as one (thus allowing one to adhere to the single waypoint rule, but giving the Uncon player the option of free movement within that compound on arrival or prior to exit). 
This would prevent the problem of overly coordinated uncons and also minimise the difficulties of urban maps.....But how to set that definition such that it is not open to unconscious abuse? 
 

I have updated the rules to allow one waypoint, two legs of movement.. I have also made this standard for regular out of C2 units and that should allow more unit controlled behavior like moving into hull down, entering a building with a pause on the outside first, etc. without giving too much control..
I also am making the Irregular movement rule optional.  I understand your concerns, but really IMO I think this will force players to move them slower and use shorter movement paths... that could be a good thing I think as it would illustrate poorer flexibility and coordination and more closely replicate the command and control problems these units (all out of C2 units and Irregular forces) must face than what is possible in the game right now.
I will update the initial post in a bit with the latest iteration reflecting this change.

Absolutely not, but when it comes to manoeuvre in a complex environment that would intimately familiar to them, IMHO they should not be placed at a disadvantage.
If I didn't value your content so much I wouldn't comment. 

Here's the thing about these rules, they can be used ala cart, keep what you like and discard what you don't.  As for the irregulars,  What you are telling me is that an irregular force made up of farmers, shop keepers, and high school drop outs with little to no tactical training can be more effective than a fully trained Western style force of the same size.. sorry I don't believe that.  Throw that rule out if you disagree... no hard feelings.
As for direct fire.. I think of fire in two ways... area fire which is really recon by fire or suppressive in nature should be directed by a leader in support of a maneuver or other operation/action of some sort.  I also think that the commander's role is to assign sectors of fire not to micro-manage how every unit under his command fulfills his responsibility within their assigned sectors, thus the restriction to direct fire.
Those are my thoughts anyway, and you are free to disagree,  I really do appreciate the feedback @Sgt.Squarehead and @Zveroboy1... you have given me food for thought.
Bil

Sorry, it never occured to me to check the download link. I´ve added a Dropbox link in the post above.

Don't Syrian Airborne troops have individual NVGs though? 

I can not help but share my joy
I have just bought this day the Enigma of General Harmel of the 10th Frundsberg
This Enigma was discovered at the beginning of the year 80 in the ashes of a tree stump which had been burned for clearing a field
this tree was about a hundred meters from the castle of Bas Aubry who had served as HQ at 10th SS Frunsdberg during the fight in the pocket of Falaise Chambois (scenario 4 Kampfgruppe Engel)
To avoid falling into the hands of the allies and having no time to destroy, it was hidden in a hollow tree where it remained until it burns 25 years latrter
In the hands of a private collector she was auctioned that day and I bought it she will be exposed to the Memorial of Montormel
I am like Saint Louis when he acquired the crown of thorns of Christ

@General Liederkranz This should do it for you
MG Borderland_vp.btt
Let me know that it works ok and I'll get it loaded at the SD
P

Oh, I wasn't aware this was a thing. I'll take a look at this after this week. 

Via Lindy Beige's latest video on tactical psychology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRB9IU3Vt2g I came upon the book "War Games"  by Leo Murray which also featured an account of the battle at Longdon hill, which, in turn led me to this interesting video:
 

Actually all the beta testers and even Steve are just bot programs run by Charles.  I would question my existence but Charles disabled that feature.....

+1.  Very cool.  Back in the day @LongLeftFlank had a pacific mod for one of the CM titles (CMBN?).  He might find this interesting so I tagged him. 

That would be pretty effing sweett if done right. I'm mostly an infantry kind of guy

Inspired by the work of @Zveroboy1 on the ANA, I decided to try out a few things with the Syrian Airborne.
This is the result...
It's rudimentary at the moment & with many placeholders but I think with some work from a few modders/scenario/campaign creators we could get an interesting project going.
 

+1 For Partisans!!! 

I've been out and about, sorry the links are down. Mods are up and working again, for both engine v3 and v4. 
DOWNLOAD.