Roter Stern

Did a bit of repetition - recorded the outcome of 550+ Dragon hits on various Soviet tanks at various aspects.
I'll keep it to the point:
If a Dragon manages to score a penetration, it is a guaranteed K/O - 292 penetrating hits recorded, all of which resulted in a (often catastrophic) K/O. The real weakness of the Dragon is reliability. I didn't keep track of how many nosedived and hit the dirt short of target, but it was a lot; and that's considering the Dragon teams were not being fired upon. T-55s and T-62s have no protection against the Dragon - first hit to connect is a guaranteed penetration at all aspects and hit locations. I stopped recording 55s/62s results after the first 48 frontal hits resulted in 100% K/O rate. All other Soviet MBTs seem almost impervious to the Dragon in the upper frontal arc (front turret, weapon mount, upper front hull). Of 280 hits that landed in upper front, only 2 managed to penetrate (0.07% rate).  At the same time, all other arcs offer no protection - of the 290 hits recorded to sides (even at rather shallow 30* angles and including turret sides) and most importantly lower front hull - all scored a penetrating hit, a 100% K/O rate. So a true case of YMMV:
On one hand, a T-64/72/80 in a perfect hull-down position might appear "invincible". During one contrivance, I had to stop after 30 (thirty) consecutive hits failed to K/O a single T-72; however, make no mistake, there was not a single relevant subsystem left functional on that tank. Where as on the other hand, something as simple as a 30-degree traversal of the turret relative to the ATGM team pretty well guarantees a K/O on the first shot to reach the target. I think no matter which side of the Dragon ATGM you find yourself in, such dramatically polarized results can most certainly lead to frustration.
p.s. In case anyone is curious what my last two hours looked like, here's a 12 min segment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2midc46M9CA
(You can also get a sense of how many missiles fail to reach target ... or even clear the launcher, as a few unlucky teams caught their own shrapnel)
 

Did a bit of repetition - recorded the outcome of 550+ Dragon hits on various Soviet tanks at various aspects.
I'll keep it to the point:
If a Dragon manages to score a penetration, it is a guaranteed K/O - 292 penetrating hits recorded, all of which resulted in a (often catastrophic) K/O. The real weakness of the Dragon is reliability. I didn't keep track of how many nosedived and hit the dirt short of target, but it was a lot; and that's considering the Dragon teams were not being fired upon. T-55s and T-62s have no protection against the Dragon - first hit to connect is a guaranteed penetration at all aspects and hit locations. I stopped recording 55s/62s results after the first 48 frontal hits resulted in 100% K/O rate. All other Soviet MBTs seem almost impervious to the Dragon in the upper frontal arc (front turret, weapon mount, upper front hull). Of 280 hits that landed in upper front, only 2 managed to penetrate (0.07% rate).  At the same time, all other arcs offer no protection - of the 290 hits recorded to sides (even at rather shallow 30* angles and including turret sides) and most importantly lower front hull - all scored a penetrating hit, a 100% K/O rate. So a true case of YMMV:
On one hand, a T-64/72/80 in a perfect hull-down position might appear "invincible". During one contrivance, I had to stop after 30 (thirty) consecutive hits failed to K/O a single T-72; however, make no mistake, there was not a single relevant subsystem left functional on that tank. Where as on the other hand, something as simple as a 30-degree traversal of the turret relative to the ATGM team pretty well guarantees a K/O on the first shot to reach the target. I think no matter which side of the Dragon ATGM you find yourself in, such dramatically polarized results can most certainly lead to frustration.
p.s. In case anyone is curious what my last two hours looked like, here's a 12 min segment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2midc46M9CA
(You can also get a sense of how many missiles fail to reach target ... or even clear the launcher, as a few unlucky teams caught their own shrapnel)
 

No infantry body armor is likely one cause. We had nothing but our fatigues, helmet and web gear for protection then. Never once saw any kind of body armor, flak jacket or any other kind of protection.
Dave

I cannot choose the "counter-attack" option in the NTC campaign decision point 2. No matter what I do I get the "delay action"

More pictures: https://imgur.com/a/B5XFO3B
I am not the only one having this problem

Yes I had the same problem, and also in the decision point 2 it is impossible to choose the counter attack mission. (I opened a ticket on this to battlefront)

Can confirm that CM works well in Ultra-wide. Can't comment on 4K, but others seems to not have issues.
Here's what 1080p Ultrawide looks like:

Almost all CM titles have demos with like 10h of content. Try and see for yourself. I don't know about graviteam demos
And it doesn't have to be "either or". Get them both I you like them.

CMCW.

The assumption (by me at least) is CMCW is a war of choice for the Soviets. That means they could have given themselves some lead time to get serious about training-up the troop, throw in some patriotic indoctrination and a bit of anti-west propaganda on top of it. In the meantime US forces in Germany are smokin' weed, drinkin' beers and readin' Playboy ('79 Playmate of the Year was the ill-fated Dorothy Stratten). 

Indeed, in the context of scenarios tailored for a single-player perspective (i.e. the campaigns) it makes perfect sense to use gameplay parameters to drive the gameplay for the player, rather than be representative of real-world realities. Scenarios meant to be played from either side or multiplayer is a different story, in my opinion.
It's part of the simulation abstraction.
For example, in the first mission of the US campaign ("Racing The Moon") the US player is not at all meant to fight and eradicate the OPFOR, since the scenario depicts US forces pulling back from a rapidly advancing vast Soviet force. In theory there is an entire Soviet division pushing into the area, however it is unreasonable from a scenario design perspective to keep adding ever increasing amounts of OPFOR reinforcements (and creating complex coordinated AI plans) on the off-chance the US player manages to hold off the first wave. 
Instead, an abstraction has to be made - in this case setting OPFOR units to "Crack" experience - in order to represent an overwhelming force. The alternative (flooding the game map with Soviet battalions and expecting the AI to make use of them) would end up being far more "unrealistic".

Can confirm that CM works well in Ultra-wide. Can't comment on 4K, but others seems to not have issues.
Here's what 1080p Ultrawide looks like:

Indeed, in the context of scenarios tailored for a single-player perspective (i.e. the campaigns) it makes perfect sense to use gameplay parameters to drive the gameplay for the player, rather than be representative of real-world realities. Scenarios meant to be played from either side or multiplayer is a different story, in my opinion.
It's part of the simulation abstraction.
For example, in the first mission of the US campaign ("Racing The Moon") the US player is not at all meant to fight and eradicate the OPFOR, since the scenario depicts US forces pulling back from a rapidly advancing vast Soviet force. In theory there is an entire Soviet division pushing into the area, however it is unreasonable from a scenario design perspective to keep adding ever increasing amounts of OPFOR reinforcements (and creating complex coordinated AI plans) on the off-chance the US player manages to hold off the first wave. 
Instead, an abstraction has to be made - in this case setting OPFOR units to "Crack" experience - in order to represent an overwhelming force. The alternative (flooding the game map with Soviet battalions and expecting the AI to make use of them) would end up being far more "unrealistic".

Well I think I can answer some of these questions.  First off, let me say that the experience levels in-game are already a pretty soft concept to begin with, so trying to figure out what a "realistic" experience level is for anyone side is accepting a level of abstraction from the start.
So first, the in-game context as outlined by the backstory.  This is a desperate Soviet gambit, they are on a very tight schedule to break through West Germany as quickly as possible before the West can 1) move reinforcements to theatre or 2) collectively decide on a nuclear response.  As such the Soviets are going to put good troops in the initial attacks (as seen in the Soviet Campaign) and their best troops in the break out, which occurs during the US Campaign.  So basically these are the best troops the Soviets have in the entire theatre in this break out push down Route 66 to the Rhine (that is why you see T80s later).  This fits with Soviet doctrine, as well as the strategic/operational picture on the ground.  
The US side is different.  The US put its best troops (in this region, the 11th ACR and 3rd Armd) forward as a screen and held second ech in depth.  This makes sense as the strategy was not an offensive breakthrough but attrition and delay until the West could build mass (or agree on WMDs).  In the US Campaign the player has troops from the 8th Inf Div, that was very deliberate as this division was always considered a depth division in the grand scheme of things.  It had lead elements forward but that is not the 28th Inf Regt, which was actually based west of Frankfurt.  That is why the 28th get M60A1s and not A3s to M1s and is also reflected in troop quality - went with Regular-High-Fit.
So right off the bat, in this what-if universe (remember this is a fictional timeline) there would likely be qualitative disparity between Soviet break out forces and in-depth US ones as portrayed in the campaign due to strategic/operational context.  Now how does that translate to CM?  Good question, probably closer to Reg-Vet, but considering that the vast majority of combatants on both sides have never seen combat and none/very few (perhaps some that observed the Arab Israeli conflict) have ever seen mechanized warfare on this scope and scale, we would realistically be seeing a whole lotta shades of Green.
Then there is play balancing.  The campaign is single player, which means that a human brain is playing a machine.  As strong as the Tac AI is in CM it cannot compare to a human player, so to offset this very real abstraction, a level of tweaking had to be done to make things challenging.  So for some scenarios we went with Crack Soviet troops to ensure that the very unrealistic fact that this is not two human players did not throw things out of whack too far.
Hope that answers your question somewhat.

Well based on the time period we are more likely talking the Pattern 64 webbing.

"Hyena Road"...yeesh that brings back the nightmares.
Anyway, I can shed some light on the mystery.  So as I recall back in the day when they were putting all this together the questions was "if Canadian deployed to Syria in 2007 what would they be wearing?".  This question was being asked in, I wanna say 08-09 while the NATO pack for CMSF was in dev.  We went around the tree a lot on this as we were in the full arid sets by 09 but as can be seen Canadian uniform procurement is a splendid affair.  In the end, as I recall, the decision was made to go to the green/arid mix (not sure why it is straight olive and not CADPAT) because it was probably more accurate of where we were wrt FG in 06-07 and it also made the Canadians more distinctive.  Not sure where it all went from there...largely due to the fact that I was in Arid CADPAT for a significant slice of the next two years.

I don't want to alarm anyone, but there appears to be a HUGE problem with the Canadian uniforms in CMSF:2.
Have a look at these fellas that greeted me when I loaded up the Cunuckian campaign:

Year 2008. Arid CADPAT - check. C7A2s - check. BEWs - check. Olive green Load Bearing Vest circa Bosnia 1994 ... what in the tabarnak is this?
Alright, drama for the sake of comedy aside, this is a strange one considering in CMSF:1 Canadian troops were (correctly) represented as wearing all Arid CADPAT gear. Where as it seems for CMSF:2 a conscious decision was made to change the Canadian uniform artwork and clad troops in their ancient OG LBVs.
Yes, the Canadians kept using the LBVs well out of the 90's - even surviving the introduction of CADPAT. In fact the initial force into Afghanistan wore Temperate Woodland CADPAT and OG LBVs. Afghanistan c.2002 (source and  source) :

Not long after in 2003, the new Tac-Vests are introduced, albeit still in "Temperate Woodland"; the LBVs are never seen in combat operations again. (source and source) :

Then in 2004 Arid uniforms and C7A2s were introduced. Can you believe they still drove the ILTIS in Afghanistan in 2004? (source and source) :

"Arid uniform - Green TacVest" combo survived for a while, well into Op Medusa in 2006 (source) :

By 2007 however, the entire ensemble can be seen in Arid CADPAT; also issued ballistic eyewear is introduced (source and source) :

Thank you for making it to the end of my brief on The Woes of the Canadian Military Equipment Procurement.
Seems pretty clear that by mid-2008 CMSF timeline the gear would be all Arid CADPAT and new-pattern TacVest ... as it was in CMSF:1.
Anyone have any insight into what happened in CMSF:2 with the LBV's? @MikeyD or @BFCElvis perhaps?
Cheers!

Absolutely! Let me make it clear, that the issue I take with CMFB is not a financial one. If $60 is what it costs to justify the volume of work to introduce proper winter conditions - then so be it.
I just wish they released it as a $60 module for CMBN and built up on the existing content, instead of splintering away from it. After all, the British were present in the Battle of the Bulge, so no real reason to explicitly exclude them from appearing in that time frame.
That said, I still think CMFB is a little thin on features...
How exactly are the hedges treated?
"Light snow / snow / deep snow" is just a map-wide setting - much like "damp / wet / muddy" in every other title. As far as I can see there is no way to create localized impassible snow drifts, as it would've been the case during the actual Battle of the Bulge.
What effect does the temperate have exactly? Do troops left on a wind-swept open field suffer injury? Do vehicles stall? 
The manual makes precisely zero mention of any winter or snow mechanics, beyond "vehicles have been given a new coat of whitewash". Excuse the eye roll here.

@Lethaface, you know @LXGTR might be onto something here.
The largest length of a loaded PzF3-IT that I found is reported as 1.35m - so let's assume that's what we should have in game.
From that we have the following:

Seems like a rather below average height German pixeltroopen to me.
Wikipedia lists "average human height" as 1.7m - from that it does seem the PzF3 is in fact 30% too large.
Here's a fairly similar side-by-side of CMSF2 and real life. Granted it's not the "IT" model on the right, however the launch tube should be fairly close in size across the PzF3 family.

 

Started playing though - I'm only three missions in and already had to come here to say how well done this is!
Being rather burnt out on "shock and awe" from the official campaigns and majority of scenarios - this is a breath of fresh air!
Never has poking your head over the crest of a hill as BLUFOR has been so tense! The fewer assets you have, the more you care about them.

I get the impression you come back from the shops like this ...

I know warrant officers who would have had you on repeat restriction of privileges for your love of scruffy clothing and otherwise ... 😉
Just to add - professional soldiers look after their kit and the raggety-taggety look can be overdone and perhaps is not so common in certain environments as many may think ...

Same uniform same tour ...

Looks really good.  Coming November 26:
 
https://www.netflix.com/title/81041495

Abdul-Jalil and his battered T-72 - 1 part good position, 1 part unyielding AI plans:

Yes, completely true. Therefore should be a complete non-issue to add it to the other NATO countries.
However, if you currently play a quick battle as the Canadians you won't get an option to purchase anything non-Canadian.
To best honest, I'd rather get an option to select "All Blue" and "All Red" forces as combatants in a quick battle setup. That would then also allow multi-national NATO ops, as well as a Syrian Army+UNCON mix, with the side-effect of giving Canadians and the Dutch some UAV's in QBs.
  
You're right - the MQ-1C might've been developed in 2004, but seems like it wasn't operationally deployed until 2010.

Well to be honest, I did not fully get it right there about the ScanEagle, because it had to be the RQ-11 Raven, the same as the Canadians (Which means less work for Battlefront to implement😀)
To compensate:
Sperwer in Afghanistan: 
Raven in Afghanistan: (1:50 - 2:12)
 
Not meant to hijack the thread, but had to correct my info.

+1 Indeed.
I am surprised they didn't add the Gray Eagle, since it's been around well before 2008.
It would be nice to see other NATO drones as well. In 2008 in Afghanistan the Canadians were extensively using the SAGEM Sperwer and the RQ-11 Raven.
Additionally: