Lethaface

what is 'a house'? The big advantage of direct fire is that you can aim the thing at where enemy fire is coming from. Indirect 75mm rounds exploding on top of a house with a sturdy roof and some concrete rebar floors underneath wont do much to people on groundfloor. But if a shell goes of right next to someone inside a house. Well that's not good for that person I think.

Mm my post editing didn't work. Anyway I was confused by your question / manual (and it being late). The launcher is called the 9K114 Shturm while the missile it holds/fires is the 9M114 Kokon (intended for use on helicopters). Later they also developed the 9P149 Shturm-S ATGM tank destroyer. However, the 9K114 Shturm + 9M114 Kokon = AT-6 Spiral.

Actually I think it is the same as AT-6. The ATGM vehicle is called the Shturm, it fires the 9M114 Kokon missile. That missile has NATO reporting name AT-6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K114_Shturm

No, that launcher is not featured on helicopters (although it is utilized by the 9P149 Shturm-S vehicle). Although I'm not sure if there is difference between missiles AT-6 Spiral and 9K114 Kokon. Edit: I was somehow confused by the manual / your question (and it being too late). The launcher is called Shturm, the missile Kokon. Nato calls them AT-6. Then there is the Shturm-S ATGM vehicle which came later. So the AT-6 Spiral = 9K114 Shturm.

From my anecdotal experience they do, but only if the infantry can actually occupy them while manning the gun. That's not always possible with hedges or other terrain. Even the sandbags can soak up some fire (I believe). In smallish QBs usually points go to some form of infantry company with support. Usually there not enough points for both both mobile stuff and AT guns (apart from mortars & MGs). So in a defending QB my pick goes towards mortars and machineguns and some mobile stuff, with static AT guns guns taking the short straw. But in a larger game where the opportunity cost is lower and featuring on a map with some open spaces and nice positions they can give very good value for money. If used correctly!

My experience with AT guns is a bit twofold (both SP and PBEM). If I encounter them I can usually scout them and mortar them or suppress m with MGs / whatever and force them to abandon the piece. However in trenches or foxholes they can be rather resilient. Often opponents don't use covered arcs with them and let them open up at infantry scouts or at a range / situation where I can just reverse or move to cover and plan for it's demise. I think for that same reason I usually prefer mobile stuff in QBs. However the couple of times I got some of them in a scenario PBEM, they have been quite a force to reckon with. Some enemy players will try to duel with it using their tanks, which is usually not a good idea. Also using hide, (armor) covered arcs and foxholes/trenches plus a good fire discipline they can be very valuable. Don't let them open up on the first vehicle you see, but rather wait till a few have moved in it's arc and ideally when cover isn't around. And indeed they need some terrain for good positioning, where you can maintain security against infantry overrunning it. Small maps are probably not ideal for static guns. These boys did a good number on enemy tanks and infantry in a PBEM (I waited for good opportunity to open fire). Tanks and later infantry in buildings with nowhere to run. The same goes for these boys: Both took out ~5 Shermans before biting the dust.

The website was up for me, but I noticed there was an old (expired 2019) selfsigned certificate in place. Supposedly issued by fasthosts, could very well be but no way to be sure.

My grandfather fought in the Dutch 'politionele acties' aka Indonesia independence war. He wasn't part of the elements which are known to have committed warcrimes. But it sure as hell wasn't no nice war. Seemed he was a good soldier as they asked him to stay 4 years / until the end. He did. I never knew him unfortunately, but he almost never talked about it with my father. We do have quite some pictures and insignias / medals etc. The pictures show, especially the earlier times (and that's most of m), that he was a 19year old boy. Posing with guns, having fun with girls, drinks, etc. But also funerals of comrades, dug-in positions with descriptions of enemy mortar fire, etc. For the reasons he fought it was probably the only alternative for working in the mines or being a servant in a farm for cost & lodging. Plus the idea of adventure, going somewhere, helping the country. Sometimes I wonder what the difference was for him vs a German Wehrmacht / SS soldier. We sure do look at them different.

Well in the end meant 'overall, looking back with hindsight'. But even in your example there might have been quite some 'boys' looking for a good time believing what the 'media' / peers / whatever told them, whether they were brainwashed from birth and didn't knew better or not. Not to excuse something whatever. But at the same time I think it's hypocritic to call out WAFFEN-SS BAD whenever the name is mentioned, or believing that in every combat report where their involvement is discussed it is necessary to demand their warcrimes are also described.

Haven't watched the video fully, although I saw him standing in his suit all crisp and stuff, posted with SS paraphernalia.could very well be there are some sympathies. However, most Waffen-SS soldiers in the end were soldiers and ordinary humans. Brainwashed probably, torn up mentally by years of brutal war most likely, I don't need to spell out the things which happened as they are well described. But one thing that I notice is that some people think that all Waffen-SS troops were some kind of hell hounds pure evil beings from the cradle to the grave. While more likely most of m were ordinary kidz who grew up in a specific time and place and thought to have some adventure and perhaps do 'good' (or what goes for good in their context). The end result wasn't pretty often and quite some of m turned out to become mass murderers. But the mistake is to think that this couldn't have happened to you or me. Dehumanize them at your peril, I'd say. There is also ample examples of soldiers, who have been in a war for long, doing stuff we think is inhumane. War is hell.

Great!

In a PBEM played recently I had a pair of Mi-24P Hinds with AT-6 missiles (Playing as UKR vs UKR in CMBS 2.16 BFC). Over the course of the battle I guess some ~10 ATGMs were fired, all of which exploded off map. The Mi-24 were doing fine on gun runs. I thought it was a bit too much for bad luck, and just came upon a post in CMCW where a similar issue seems to be present: I do have saves available if needed. Screen:

Lol I also noticed that hehehe

Some nice bones indeed, seems like quite a packed year! Any chance the CMSF2 Syrians will get their PKM ammo (SF & airborne) and RPG ammo (all formations) sorted before the tournaments? Assuming the tournaments use QBs, that will make the Syrians quite a bit more interesting / competitive for tournament play.

Did the puppy live?

Recently completed a PBEM in which I was playing Soviets against USA, with an interesting force mix (1979, no T-64s). Can't say too much about the details yet because it's part of a tournament and some matches still ongoing, but imo it certainly showed me what tactics can work for the USSR if you have some decent numbers. Anyway I tried to mix some of the things I picked up in the USSR tutorials (and earlier reading) in my game. Worked quite well, although I adapted some things to the situation and my own preference/ideas. Anyway keeping up the pressure all the time while closing the distance moving from position to position in force, committing all forces together as much as possible; especially in the final brawl and coordinated with artillery etc, did work out quite well (albeit bloody). What certainly wouldn't have worked out good was long range sniping / shoot & scoot from hull down, committing platoons at a time while keeping others in overwatch. It probably would have gotten some results, but I'd be playing in the hands of the USA forces which were just better suited for such a play.

Every (motorized) vehicle has a reliability factor. My 2006 volkswagen so far is doing rather fine on that front. The mix of heavy and hastily developed WW2 German tanks and the lack of standardization / multitude of models didn't help on the reliability factor. From another perspective: German tanks deep in Russia were very far from there homebase on extended supply lines. T-34s could roll out the factory directly on the frontline ;-). A bit exaggerated, but the strategic context does matter. So reliability and field-repair capability was more important for German tanks compared to Russian tanks, at least when the fighting was going on inside Russia. Also, German industry and war production wasn't on the same scale as US. So if anyone standardization could have helped Germany a lot, probably more than the USA forces. If Germany had only built PzIV long 75 since '41 with standardized parts they probably could have fielded a lot more (operable) tanks. So Sherman tanks also broke down, but since it wasn't as hastily developed and more standardized reliability was better/less of an issue. But yes every vehicle has reliability issues, some more than others.

Well it is quite well known and documented that Panther / Tiger / King Tiger etc had reliability issues, from hasted development, lack of spareparts, etc. Not only from German reports, but for example France tested out quite a few after the war. Also, I think those 'shocking' revelations about T-34 aren't really exclusive. I didn't watch the video, but for example IIRC it is well known that T-34 could not go more than couple hundred KM before 'breakdown' / repairs needed. Also, what is 'the' T-34. There have been quite some variants with improvements. Whatever the video said, It still was a good enough tank for what it needed to do. And given that there are plenty around I'm quite sure that almost all that is to be known about m was already known. It's not an uber tank and has its flaws. Still Germany thought it was good enough to develop the Panther on the same concept. The Panther is widely regarded as one of the best / best medium tank designs from WW2. This video seems a bit like warming up old soup, throwing in some fresh spice and selling the funky taste as 'something you never tasted before'.

Great you were able to fix it!

Interesting. With regard to effectiveness of ATGMs in CMSF2 my anecdotal experience is that Metis-M and Kornet have a failure rate of about 30% in CMSF2 (nosediving). While the TOW-2A never nosedives. If this report is to believed the failure rate of Metis-M, Kornet (and probably AT-4/5/6) should be similar to the TOW-2A.

They first fire a Milan which misses, followed by a Javelin.

I'd expect soldiers to use their own brain as well and if they know/ feel using semi auto is more effective they'll use that even if the book says differently.

Good points! I also doubt that the majority of USSR unit commanders would mindlessly throw in their units in a mindless drive to the front. Even if that would have been the doctrine to the letter (which is not the case imo). Although that's a different question from the issue of whether the knowledge that there would be limited command & control on the field during actual war, helped those that developed the doctrine to err on the side of simpler vs complexer teachings. Anyway thanks for the links of Balck's report for Nato doctrine. I can also recommend Balck's memoirs (order in chaos), although he goes into limited depth about details about battles. It's a good glimpse into history from the eyes of a Prussian professional militair.

As usual you seem to be missing the point that Ryujun was making: High Command might desire KISS doctrine / formal tactics, because they think/know anything more complex will not be executed in the correct fashion or at the wrong moment/place, especially when the **** hits the fan. Of course a platoon leader can order one of his men to move inside a forest. But in CM, because we are all commanders in one we always have full knowledge and memory of all intents of all commanders. So how/what/where is always clear and otherwise can be answered by a lightspeed helpdesk. While on the field with the Company HQ vehicle burning after a TOW hit and no CO HQ available to give orders, Platoon HQ suddenly doesn't have any helpdesk available so he has simple order: Move, shoot and hurrah (all to be performed in direction of enemy)!

Nobody was talking shooting while moving with an AK47, DMS was talking about 'burst' fire instead of single shots.