Sgt.Squarehead

This area was dense forest 75 minutes earlier:

Now it's a graveyard! 
The Horror! 
(First Battle, Tali-Ihantala).

I did my best in CM:SF2:
 

Screenshot dump from one of the Fire and Rubble scenarios. Soviets get something like 900 men and a crapload of tanks in this one.


 
Soviets are attacking a series of hills against dug-in Germans. I chose to mass my forces in multiple huge waves and attack the Germans head-on, going straight uphill. I made especially sure to keep my tanks massed together in one big group, advancing in close coordination with the infantry.


 
As I expected, there were a lot of Germans deployed in reverse slope positions all over the place, but I was able to completely overrun them. Most of the Germans were not able to get more than a few shots off before they got blasted by overwhelming return fire from the masses of onrushing troops.



 
There were some intense last stands from a few German troops here and there, but it was mostly a rout. This panzerschreck team fought to the death, taking out a tank at point blank range and gunning down several Soviet troops:

 
I got lucky several times, like when this Stug got shot right down the middle of its gun barrel:

 
The Soviet tide rushes on.


 
At times I was advancing so rapidly that I simply bypassed several enemy positions. Here you can see some Germans fire into the flanks of my advancing troops. They mostly had bolt-action rifles, which was pretty ineffective. Rifle fire nipping at the flanks of such a huge force felt like nothing more than mosquito bites and I just ignored them, heading straight for the objectives.
 
Whenever my force did halt, the amount of firepower they could deliver was devastating. The 152mm shells from the ISU-152s were especially devastating. I can only imagine how horrifying it would have been to have to sit in a foxhole and face down an attack like that in reality.


 
One of the highlights of the battle was when I had some men charge at a German AT gun, pinning down the crew with small arms and grenades for several minutes while I ran a flamethrower around the side to BBQ the survivors.


 

 
The Germans totally collapsed, losing 363 men to my 108. I kinda want to try this again as the Germans just to see how I could stop such a powerful Soviet force. Seems like it would be difficult even against the AI. What I was most afraid of as the Soviets was artillery, but the German artillery was way off target and didn't do much. I would think good use of artillery would be essential for breaking up a massed attack like that.

I like the idea @benpark. Having a second game running with troops on very tiny circle arcs could solve admin issues I have with my Radzy game. It would make it simpler to player.
 
I'm thinking toss a small team for every company on the battlefield, a halftrack for mechanized company, a tank, etc. They would be named appropriately. I could even extend the map and make a deployment/destroyed units area to the sides of the map. I wouldn't have any scripts on this map since I am actually in the middle of a custom multiplayer campaign.

I've posted about this a bunch ever since we were teased with another FI module a few Bones ago:
^ Rome To Victory ✅
^ Remaining Fortress Italy Modules 🔜
I've tried to sew some of those posts together, I apologize for the dead links.
A few things:
Italy 1943-45
 

What I would gently suggest is a major pack for Fortress Italy filling out the Italian roster in Sicily, then moving on to add Partisans, RSI and Co-Belligerents.
This way all of the work needed to bring the Italians to North Africa is done in advance and the pack is at least making money in the meantime during the very long development time needed for maps, scenarios, campaigns and TOE and OOBs for the other nations.
All of that Italian content needs to be created anyway, why not put it in an existing product line rather than sit on it until the base game is ready for release? 
Why Add Italians In Italy?

A few years ago where some bones came out for FI, there was discussion about possible roadmap.
iirc, a pack containing Commandos and partisans was mentioned as being a possibility after R2V, as well as adding the RSI, Italian Co-Belligerents and fleshing out the existing Italian roster to add dismounted Breda Model 35, Solothurn and Cannone da 90/53 as a module. Is this still possible? 
I would gladly pay for a pack with partisans, commandos and goumiers and would certainly pay for a module expanding the Italians from '43-45
e: I had no idea that an Italian Co-Belligerent unit liberated Venice. They made pretty significant contributions to the Allied cause.
Catching Up To The Engine:
It's more that engine updates have left Italy behind. Italy has no AT bunkers, no AA, no flamethrowers not even tank hunter teams.
Now, I'm not sure what guns they had casemated on Sicily, or if those played any part beyond the first day, so I suppose that can be discounted.
On-Map AA would make a big difference. It would be a nice addition to scenarios where the Italians are defending a static position, and in QB both for fire support and to lessen the plastering by Allied air.
The Italians have both Pioneers and the specialized assault troops - Guastatori who had flamethrowers.
There are perfectly serviceable AA guns and AT rifles mounted on the AS.42 Sahariana. They would just need to be added in the dismounted role. 
These are all small additions, more to bring Italy up to the engine standards, using much of what already exists in Fortress Italy and laying the foundations for the larger role Italy played in Africa.
Moving on from what we mostly already have:
Some of the Italian artillery in the 75mm - 105mm range would be nice to have on-map in Sicily, and crucial to have on-map in Africa. Italian Artillery was not only commonly used in the direct role (they had slow and inefficient management of indirect fires) but the Italian Artillerymen were almost uniquely courageous and competent. Field Guns were often the only component of entire Italian brigades that gave the British any trouble. They had some pretty good guns, although rare compared to museum pieces or French trophies.

The Italian Dual-Purpose AA/AT guns were also pretty good. Never as famous as the 88, they gave the allies trouble. The 90/53 is already in Fortress Italy in a SP mount.
Having a HMG would be nice, and the ballistics are already done because this is mounted in a SP mount in Fortress Italy as well.
The Parachute Division "Nembo" was present in Sicily. It would be a nice addition, but I think more importantly would lay the foundation for the "Folgore" which became famous in Africa. The best of the Italian infantry in Africa, Italian Paras were also the better units available to the RSI and Co-Belligerents.
Why Partisans in Fire and Rubble Make Revisiting Italy, and the Italian Civil War Possible
 

The Vehicle Pack and Battle Pack for Battle for Normandy were outstanding. What I like best is how the additions of each module and pack make it over to other titles. I think that was a really smart way to do things.
I wouldn't expect Steve to tinker away at partisans just for Fortress Italy, but the addition of partisans elsewhere helps lay the foundation for an Italian module or pack (43-45) for Fortress Italy. The way I see it a pack or module focusing on Italy would require four things: The Partisans, The Co-Belligerent Army, The RSI and the Royal Italian Army. Because of how complete Fortress Italy is due to the other titles, the work that remains to be done for an Italy pack/module is also what would be needed for Africa, or at least Tunisia.
With Soviet Partisans and Volkssturm coming with Fire and Rubble, partisans may not be as remote a possibility as it used to be. Most of the work is already being done by making partisans from scratch over in Red Thunder.  Italian names and voice files are already in the Fortress Italy base game. Of course the exact organization, equipment and appearance of a partisan band in Milan would be different from one in Minsk. Luckily Stens and Brens are already in the game thanks to Gustav Line (Which is thanks to Battle For Normandy: Commonwealth Forces and that interconnected development strategy).
It's a smart way to use the work done for other titles. Allied and German equipment through the end of the war was done in Final Blitzkrieg and made it over to Fortress Italy with Rome to Victory (and the work bringing the Commonwealth to the end of the war in FI is now being used for FB). Equipment for British and Americans through the end of the war, plus the voice files, ranks and so on in the base game gets us most of the way to the Co-Belligerent Army.
A combination of the German equipment we have and the Italian Equipment already in the base game goes a long way towards the RSI. There would need to be a bit, maybe quite a bit of work done on ranks, uniforms, TOE and OOB there. Luckily that work wouldn't go to waste! Why? Because the RSI mostly used equipment and uniforms left over from the Royal Italian Army, plus some  rare mid-war vehicles and equipment which could be a nice treat like the Strumtiger, Elefant and Jagdtiger (To clarify: Not that the RSI used those AFVs! Mostly Pz IIIs and IVs - which already exist in-game - Just that the P26/40 might be fun in the way those other rare AFVs are).
The field guns, AA, AT and so on needed for their TOE from 43-45, and to match the rest of the forces across titles would also complete the Royal Italian Army in Sicily.
With a change of tan uniforms for the grey, a complete Italian Army in Sicily gets you North Africa at least through 1943.
It's a good way to add more to an existing Base Game while laying the foundations for a new title.
Give The Herman Goering Division The Right Uniforms For Mainland Italy

In Fortress Italy, the troops of the Herman Goering Division display the correct white Waffenfarben in Fortress Italy, but in Gustav Line and Rome to Victory bear the green Kragenspiegel of the Field Divisions. Simply, the tropical uniform in Sicily is correct for the HG Division, but the temperate uniform for Italy and Northern Italy is, I would venture to guess, ported from Battle for Normandy or Red Thunder unmodified. The cuff title is also present in FI but disappears in the later modules.
This seems like a pretty quick fix - just a uniform option like Greatcoat/Camouflage/etc. that substitutes white collar badges for the green and adds cuff titles for Luftwaffe troops during the dates the HG was involved in the campaign. Call it "Herman Goering" or something in line with the Gebirgsjäger option added in Rome to Victory.
With Field Divisions making an appearance, will the HG Division finally get a second look? Their depiction in Sicily is great but once the fighting moves to Italy it’s fairly apparent that their uniforms are a copy-paste from CMBN. HG in mainland Italy often had cuff titles and wore SS Oakleaf camoflauge smocks. Additionally, their ranks were white and not green as in Field Divisions. This applies to both the unit skins and the unit information screen.

Battlefront should hire him for the 'Bones' threads. 
"It was ready tomorrow & in non-infidel regions it will be released last week."

Any chance we could get the CM:SF1 'T-72M1V (2001) back, but labelled as a T-72BM? 
It would be very useful for scenarios that 'extend the BF timeline. 

When the BMP-1/2 and BMD-1/2 were created, the average height of the soldiers was ~ 170 cm and then there was still no body armor and other equipment. The maximum that the soldier was carrying was an assault rifle, 4 magazines for the assault rifle, several grenades, an OZK with a gas mask and a duffel bag. The BMP-3 is actually only soviet vehicle that was made taking into account the equipment of a soldier and his height, which by that time was already an average of 180 cm. 

Battlefront should hire him for the 'Bones' threads. 
"It was ready tomorrow & in non-infidel regions it will be released last week."

Did the Chinese manage to keep all the wheels on their tanks this time? 

Oh FFS! 
PS - Thanks @Vergeltungswaffe.....Saved me the effort! 

Or an Abrams with a mine-plough:

Either would make sense.....Both are desperately needed IMHO.

These should help:
http://www.andreaslarka.net/
https://www.panssarimuseo.fi/en/
 

I believe we were told that CM:BS would be the next game to receive some attention.....Personally, I can't wait. 

Yes.....It's superbly done, challenging too if you stick to strict C2, which you should. 
PS - @MOS:96B2P put a lot of thought & effort into this scenario, it's a technical tour de force.....If you play the 'Historical' option, it's a pretty reasonable model of an ad-hoc German 'fire-brigade' type unit rushing to react to yet another Soviet breakthrough attempt.

Browsing YT, I came across this video:
https://youtu.be/zMf55PrCR1E
 
To date the best overall account of the battle between the 3rd Infantry Division and the Panzer Brigade „Westfalen“, which I know. Much better than the two Marc Felton videos about the battle.
 

Nothing odd about those tracks.

First they laugh at you  
Then they curse you 
And finally they see that Bradlies are ugly overpowered. 
 
 
 

Those must be very special engineered tie downs.

So for anyone still interested.  The War thunder forum (these guys are as bad as we are) has a pretty interesting thread on tank ammo performance center on the Gulf War:
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/446384-m829-and-l26-shell-effectivness/
The Desert Storm report by the GAO (always watch the accountants) is pretty definitive (i.e. the Iraqis were unable to manage a single tank to tank kill, pg 4), it is tragic that your colleagues were having heart attacks over this just 5-6 years before.
Dunno what to tell you John, I would love to see a picture of a Soviet 76mm penetrating the front of an early M1 too.  Regardless, you can see how hard it is to really unpack true performance for some of this.  There will always be outliers but they are just that.  The trick is to make sure we don't take those outliers as the center of the bell curve.
The other thing to watch out for is myth.  I was a young troop commander in central Bosnia in 1994 during the war and there was this lunatic in the hills who would take old JNA aerial bombs and turn them basically into V1s, they made a helluva bang but he could only manage about one every 6 months.  That whole thing got way out of hand with legends of German scientists and V1 stocks armed with mustard gas.
The truth is often stranger but also more mundane at the same time.
desertstorm.pdf

John, well if we are going to start citing anecdotes…
I met a US Sergeant Major in 1997 who was in VII and at the Battle of 73 Easting.  He told this story of one of his company tanks taking a T72 sabot round to the front at 500ms.  The tank did come to an abrupt halt but the sabot round stuck in the frontal armour “like a dart”.  At the same time they were killing Iraqi tanks at “3 miles”.  
Personally I will take an eye witness accounts over what sounds like intelligence community hysteria to me, I mean c’mon (heart attacks?!) these are just tanks and warfare is a lot more than that. Like if you kill their crappy Soviet logistics and they run out of fuel?  Land mines and DPICM still work, let alone AirPower.  And let’s not forget C4ISR, and the nuclear equation.  If I saw people getting “physically upset” on tank tactical disparity alone, my advice would to stop being amateurs and start thinking about the whole system.
Regardless, M1s in game are tough but not invincible, while that T64B shrugs off frontals like a beast…
 

As much as I have been trying to stay out of this, I think this brings up a interesting background info point on "How to Research for a PC game". 
I am not going to weigh in on the specific argument, except to say I don't think we are going to see modeling of the current ammunition characteristics change dramatically - if for the reason alone that it basically feels about right.  We may see minor tweaks but right now we are not advocating for major mechanical changes to weapon systems (we would like to see some shifts in ammo types but that is another issue).
So as to these CIA documents.  Well first off, as impressive as the CIA is as an intelligence agency (and here movies and media have probably done more to promote the myth than anything), it is in the end a government agency.  Being government means that any information you glean immediately must take into account the broader context, and all of it with healthy grains of salt.
So John's first link I have actually seen before and it basically lays out the "threat" as they understood it in 1984.  It is a "memorandum" and as such is probably one of the better sources one could draw upon.  It really lays out the Soviet "tank position" and is not bad.  My only concern is that I am left wondering if it is a "say nothing new...because" report that sticks to the party line that the current administration wanted to hear...remember it was 1984 and the US was trying to attrit its way out of the Cold War, which turned out to be a good strategy.
The second link I take with a lot more critical eyes.  First off, it is a "thought piece" which the agency clearly puts at arms lengths ("the opinions of the authors"), so this is a trick that gets played all the time.  When one is trying to make a big argument, get some reputable senior folks to write an "opinion piece".  If it works, great.  If it creates blowback we just say "well it was their opinion".  Further, any "thought piece" sponsored by the agency that basically promotes "a modest improvements in intelligence..." (pg 2) set off that little yellow light. Was this real or was it a promotion piece to try and get more CIA funding. 
Then when one starts to dig a bit and open the aperture, I get more odd smells.  This piece was written in the Carter administration and that was not a great time to be in the CIA (we allude to this in the CMCW backstory), or National Defence for that matter.  Finally, the Director of the CIA at the time was ADM Turner ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stansfield_Turner) who not only was a big fan of technical intel (and put HUMINT in the back seat) but was Navy through and through.  This thought piece is very technical - play to the boss - but also very Army who were competing heavily to get their AirLand Battle concept off the ground and fighting for tenuous funding, all after Vietnam. 
In this context that paper really should be taken cautiously.  It does lay out what was a dangerous situation.  We know the US had fallen behind both technologically but also in over all mass, all the while with no offset strategy beyond nukes...not good.  But is it possible that an Army General is over-polishing the threat to simultaneously promote agency and Army funding...absolutely. 
In the end, when researching one has to remember that we can only see snippets of a much larger game being played at the time...and that matters.  Probably some of the best historical references that I found (and used) weren't locked away in TOP SECRET CIA drawers (and trust me, government overclassifies everything) they are in minutes from appropriation meetings: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Department_of_Defense_Appropriations_for/llZ5mbGatSYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=US+defence+spending+TOW+missile&pg=PA534&printsec=frontcover
These are not dark assessments, made in the shadows...this is the money trail of what actually happened.  The "truth" is far more mundane in reality and is largely guarded by accountants.

Hey guys, been tracking this and a couple points that may defuse things a little:
- I don't think John can prove his identity/work history without seriously compromising his personal security/information...so let's not go there
- Ultimately John (along with others) are sources of information and because they are human, they are going to be imperfect sources of information.
- When we do research for the game we not going to simply take any one person's word for it. (and John, taken at his word, knows exactly why).  We do a lot of deep digging and cross referencing before we put anything into the game in order to try and be as accurate as possible (e.g. filtering out bias and myth).
So this is not a game issue as we factor this sort of stuff in.  Now if it is personal, well that is different and frankly why the forum has a private message system.  But if it is worrying that somehow we are going to introduce features based on single sources...let me put your minds at ease.
 

It seems like his blog has been mentioned a few times in the past. I have absolutely zero experience in the defense sector or handling classified documents but I feel like most people with that level of experience wouldn't feel the need to bring it up whenever possible, or at least when they make outlandish claims would have some sort of related declassified document they could share. After reading his blog I question whether Rockwell would have even let him past security at the front door.

From 'Greatest Tank Battles':