fireship4

Yes, and then their field of view seems to be passed on to subordinate units when it comes to artillery.

Was trying to find a good writeup on the Soviet conclusion that Direct Fire was 10 x as effective as Indirect Fire (called by them "Fire from covered positions"). As I result I found this, the translated notes. of the Voroshilov Academy introductory course on Soviet Artillery. It is replete with detailed info, explanations of Soviet artillery related acronyms, types of fire and more, including a bunch of norms in the form of tables. When it comes to counterfire from US and NATO, can tell you the planning figure from, I believe, Sidorenko's The Offensive they were using in assessing time before counterfire landed was 4 minutes, and that was from the generation of counter mortar and counter battery radars before the far more capable TPQ-36 and TPQ-37 Firefinder radars. Thus, the figures in here are conservative to say the least and presumably reflect much older data.

http://www.xenophon-mil.org/archivevoro2/lesson1.htm

Regards,

John Kettler 

As an aside, I found that you can assign UAVs to the highest HQ and subordinate units (including FOs) should be able to call artillery within observed areas while HQ gets up to the minute recon.

A wild over-reaction to a reasonable post.  He has played other games in the series, gun runs are often repeated if there is ammo, perhaps he checked to make sure on youtube, perhaps not, but is he wrong?  Are you saying it already makes one pass only?  Or do you perhaps disagree with the reasoning?  Your post does not add anything but emotion.
Furthermore, he didn't 'trash' the game at all, he made a simple post about finding out that a certain gun caused the firing aircraft problems and should perhaps be limited due to that, with the assumption it has not been already.  Where is the problem?  Your post and the completely unnecessary:
Evoke schoolyard crap (in this instance a sidekick is peering over your shoulder) I see all too often around John's posts.  Some of you are sensitive to him/how he posts - fine.  I don't see it, I find his stuff largely informative and interesting, occasionally off the mark or over-stated, but I put that down to him being a human being, and it's something that can be critiqued without lowering yourselves to such off-putting bull****, it stinks up the place.

A wild over-reaction to a reasonable post.  He has played other games in the series, gun runs are often repeated if there is ammo, perhaps he checked to make sure on youtube, perhaps not, but is he wrong?  Are you saying it already makes one pass only?  Or do you perhaps disagree with the reasoning?  Your post does not add anything but emotion.
Furthermore, he didn't 'trash' the game at all, he made a simple post about finding out that a certain gun caused the firing aircraft problems and should perhaps be limited due to that, with the assumption it has not been already.  Where is the problem?  Your post and the completely unnecessary:
Evoke schoolyard crap (in this instance a sidekick is peering over your shoulder) I see all too often around John's posts.  Some of you are sensitive to him/how he posts - fine.  I don't see it, I find his stuff largely informative and interesting, occasionally off the mark or over-stated, but I put that down to him being a human being, and it's something that can be critiqued without lowering yourselves to such off-putting bull****, it stinks up the place.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here!

A wild over-reaction to a reasonable post.  He has played other games in the series, gun runs are often repeated if there is ammo, perhaps he checked to make sure on youtube, perhaps not, but is he wrong?  Are you saying it already makes one pass only?  Or do you perhaps disagree with the reasoning?  Your post does not add anything but emotion.
Furthermore, he didn't 'trash' the game at all, he made a simple post about finding out that a certain gun caused the firing aircraft problems and should perhaps be limited due to that, with the assumption it has not been already.  Where is the problem?  Your post and the completely unnecessary:
Evoke schoolyard crap (in this instance a sidekick is peering over your shoulder) I see all too often around John's posts.  Some of you are sensitive to him/how he posts - fine.  I don't see it, I find his stuff largely informative and interesting, occasionally off the mark or over-stated, but I put that down to him being a human being, and it's something that can be critiqued without lowering yourselves to such off-putting bull****, it stinks up the place.

Yes but of course the price will affect the number of sales, and this is why economics is hard.  And maximising profit is a choice, no-one is doing a hostile takeover of battlefront, or taking its market share, until every other niche is filled or someone with the requisite passion and business nouse comes along.  Then again more competition will either reduce your market share or the increase its total size - people might discover Graviteam and eventually find themselves here...  All of this is more complicated than any simple answer from either side. 
I will note that sometimes the last people you want to listen to are the people who've made it big.  It's rare to know what if any of the choices you've made led you to where you are, and whether they would be appropriate to anyone else.  The sample size is too small.  I think experience is hard to parse with this type of thing, it's complicated.  CM is successful (as far as I can tell) because it's been well researched and made with passion and dedication.
Again though, the choices made in development have been choices - a normal business would have scaled up from er, one programmer (?), but if that is what they want to do, it's their baby (let a hundred flowers bloom and such).  I simply advocate acting on the best possible information, and considerations toward the greater good made where possible (this is a large chunk of the pc warsim experience after all, and matters a lot to fans of the genre).
You are a little off there MikeyD, it's £46.49 ($61.38) for people in the UK on steam at the moment, and the current sale brings the price on battlefront.com down from £52.91 ($69.87) to £37.04 ($48.91) at current exchange rates.

Yes but of course the price will affect the number of sales, and this is why economics is hard.  And maximising profit is a choice, no-one is doing a hostile takeover of battlefront, or taking its market share, until every other niche is filled or someone with the requisite passion and business nouse comes along.  Then again more competition will either reduce your market share or the increase its total size - people might discover Graviteam and eventually find themselves here...  All of this is more complicated than any simple answer from either side. 
I will note that sometimes the last people you want to listen to are the people who've made it big.  It's rare to know what if any of the choices you've made led you to where you are, and whether they would be appropriate to anyone else.  The sample size is too small.  I think experience is hard to parse with this type of thing, it's complicated.  CM is successful (as far as I can tell) because it's been well researched and made with passion and dedication.
Again though, the choices made in development have been choices - a normal business would have scaled up from er, one programmer (?), but if that is what they want to do, it's their baby (let a hundred flowers bloom and such).  I simply advocate acting on the best possible information, and considerations toward the greater good made where possible (this is a large chunk of the pc warsim experience after all, and matters a lot to fans of the genre).
You are a little off there MikeyD, it's £46.49 ($61.38) for people in the UK on steam at the moment, and the current sale brings the price on battlefront.com down from £52.91 ($69.87) to £37.04 ($48.91) at current exchange rates.

"ADLERTAG, mein Herren. The destruction of the English air force on the ground."
Now, as then, much easier said than done.  Actual suppression of actual defenses on a nationwide scale takes weeks; it simply doesn't happen in a single 'decapitating strike (Grosser Schlag).  And while the PLAAF has come a ways since the early 2000s when MiG-19s were still its mainstay, its ability to mount weeks of high intensity combat operations across the Straits where the primary threat is (well dispersed) SAMs, not enemy warplanes is.... untested.
Remember, the entire point of this is not to clear the skies, it's to pave the way for invasion. Taiwan is rugged and full of caves. Taiwan is also rather good at making sophisticated AA/antiship/AT missiles and firing systems in bulk, and their average reservist is more than competent to operate same.
Effectively, Xi would be betting his own life, and very likely the future of CPC rule in China, upon the abilities of a recently 'rejuvenated' force that hasn't fought a serious war since 1979. And, let's face it, does not attract modern China's best and brightest to its officer corps (although there are undoubtedly exceptions).
...so that this same untested force could then launch an even more complex and risky amphibious/airborne assault across the Strait in multidivision strength. Only once PLA mech forces are ashore in force does Taiwanese resistance crumble as the result becomes obvious; you can expect the ROC armed forces to fight ably until then.
And that all presupposes the nonintervention of the US and its allies (whose staffs have been studying this air/sea/land battlespace nonstop since 1949). Because in the time it takes to secure (more or less) air superiority and (try to) knock out the antiship defenses, you've given Team USA time to think and react. 
My own opinions, of course. Nobody really knows for sure. But to me, victory through air power remains an illusion.
****
Now, grab Penghu in a lightning operation and suddenly  Taiwan itself becomes a lot less defensible; it's now PLN shore based missiles that control that part of the Strait from the natural harbour at Magong (the Japanese used it as a fleet base).
.... And you've now presented the US with a fait accompli (a) start WW3 over an island nobody's heard of (b) garrison Taiwan with Allied 'imperialist' forces and watch the global economy go to hell, or (c) accept the proposed cease fire and eventual reunion of Taiwan with the Motherland later, one way or another.  And Xi has a victory under his belt, not a debacle.

Yuck.  Our one is OK though:
 

I am moving my backups of some Black Sea mods to a new location.  If any of the included authors with me to desist, please PM me and I shall do so.
I took the liberty of renaming some seemingly mis-named normal map files in one of Kieme's files, and note there seem to be some missing in at least two others (though this in particular may be intentional if the changes are small).
 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fdgcyjxwy99csp5/AAB2HVemThOm9vyqdj2lj_I8a?dl=0
 

Here is a first rate, unflinching, and intimate look at the 93rd Brigade alerted and called into action, for it was the most combat ready formation available. Doc has excellent extensive footage and extensive informative interviews with the Ukrainians in the fight.  There are many actions in here that would easily fit CMBS, too--if you ignore later actions at the Donetsk Airport deep into the fight there where five divisions' worth of Russian mortar, artillery and rocket fire rained down daily (15,000 rounds/day). By contrast, when the North Vietnamese Army did long range bombardment of An Loc, South Vietnam, the world was shocked by 1200 rounds/day. The interviewees are easily understood, and there is full English VO, too. Titles keep the viewer oriented as to the date and battalion being discussed. Supporting graphic is a large computerized map put up to show who was where, course of action, etc.

Part 1
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. 

Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

All I'd ever seen before were stunning clips and VO in Czech. Thanks to English subtitles and the full film, here's your chance to follow a Czech Tank Brigade in action. There is a wealth of German hardware in this film, some of which will leave you stunned.  The Czech's gear is that of the Red Army from Operation Bagration on, and here's an opportunity to see for real what we've talked about for years. 
 
Regards,

John Kettler

By a fluke, came across this video with the stunning story of an epic active defense by Israeli tank commander LT Zvika Greengold during the Yom Kippur War. What he did was so damaging to the Syrians that he may well have saved Israel from defeat. Am posting this because it shows the true killing potential of a good tank (Centurion) handled by real tank pros and what an aggressive, motivated TC can do, using terrain and calculated daring extremely well, against even a huge combined arms force of vastly greater power and far worse training and experience. What he did is the essence of what the US planned to do to the Soviets in Europe when fighting while greatly outnumbered. Through much of some 24 hours of almost continuous combat, and never having more than a handful of tanks at most, often fighting solo, he time and time again savaged the attacking Syrians in their T-55s and mercifully fewer T-62s, with much of the action taking place at night, with the foe having active IR and the Israelis no such help. During this action, he swapped tanks three times after they were hit. He fought on, even burned, until he could do no more. By then, reinforcements had arrived.

While the situation described is obviously not a typical CMx2 battle, I believe that it would be a fascinating scenario through which to explore the core situation, but while having no idea myself as to how VPs would be handled. If nothing else, it would be a real performance test in seeing how well players might fare as the defender in a similar situation. During this action, LT Greengold became a multiple tank ace and was awarded the Medal of Valor (Israel's highest military honor) for his timely incredible successful defense against overwhelming odds.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

I found this document to be pretty interesting and informative on this topic:
https://info.publicintelligence.net/AWG-RussianNewWarfareHandbook.pdf
Apologies in advance if this was already posted here or elsewhere, I think it addresses the specific ask for this topic thread. 
Now if only there were more missions and campaigns to play...

I have used PhotoShop for this kind of thing but I don't like editing icons with transparency in PhotoShop at least I have not figured out an efficent way to do it. My light weight graphic editor Paint.Net does not handle 32bit bmp files well at all. But then I found Greenfish Icon Editor. It handles transparency seamlessly (no editing an image layer and then separately an transparency layer) and it is nice and light weight too. I did my icon mod with it. Very happy with it.

I am moving my backups of some Black Sea mods to a new location.  If any of the included authors with me to desist, please PM me and I shall do so.
I took the liberty of renaming some seemingly mis-named normal map files in one of Kieme's files, and note there seem to be some missing in at least two others (though this in particular may be intentional if the changes are small).
 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fdgcyjxwy99csp5/AAB2HVemThOm9vyqdj2lj_I8a?dl=0
 

I am moving my backups of some Black Sea mods to a new location.  If any of the included authors with me to desist, please PM me and I shall do so.
I took the liberty of renaming some seemingly mis-named normal map files in one of Kieme's files, and note there seem to be some missing in at least two others (though this in particular may be intentional if the changes are small).
 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fdgcyjxwy99csp5/AAB2HVemThOm9vyqdj2lj_I8a?dl=0
 

Yeah, like those morons who kept asking for the game to be released on Steam...

Here is a guy worth watching. 
 

With difficulty.

The US Mech inf company is:



1x Tank platoon
2x M113 platoons
1x M150/M901 TOW platoon
1x 60mm mortar platoon

Since the US in this period (especially 1979) are behind both in quality and quantity, you're forced into using tactics which are most similar to the Syrians in CMSF- getting the most of of this combined arms unit is the goal, and relying on a defence in depth, supported by artillery fire and close air support.

With the highly mechanised environment, the anti-tank weapons are the most obvious component of this firepower.

These come in three distinct bands. Your long ranged firepower consist of the TOWs and the M60s, which have an effective range of approximately 2km. Your medium range firepower are the Dragons, which have a 1km range, and finally the LAWs, which are sub-300m. There are (typically) enough Dragons for one per squad, and enough LAWs for one per man.

Your tank platoon is the most powerful and mobile of the company, and is really the core of your firepower - the infantry are there to define space and protect the armour, but the deployment of your tanks, supported by your TOWs are the central problem.

Shock Force teaches bad habits. In that game, an Abrams platoon can sit on a ridgeline and dominate - you really have to do something wrong to take serious Abrams losses. This isn't the case for any version of the M60, especially the earlier ones.

Cold War in particular is often about relative mass - you're talking about US tanks that don't even have laser rangefinders - you're fully on WW2 gunnery here - so getting maximum guns on target at one time is the key, but you also need to make sure that you're engaging the smallest proportion of the enemy that you can. This usually means using terrain effectively to control the enemy's position - having them advance into prepared killzones, etc.

On a broader level, Active Defence was the doctrine. This was an elastic defence, a fighting withdrawal. Typically each company team would act as an independent unit, and would withdraw to a secondary prepared position as the enemy got into medium AT range. A second company would then take up the long-range fight as the first is repositioning, and then this would repeat.

In terms of supporting fires - the company has an FO for a reason. The 60mm mortars don't have many good targets for themselves. They're good at keeping BMPs and BTRs with exposed gunners buttoned, and smoke missions can be useful to shape the terrain. When the Soviets are forced to dismount they can be useful, but they're a bit difficult to justify in general. Air-launched cluster rounds are stronger than artillery, since the shells are larger. 155mm clusters are best used as point targets with maximum duration, and with the FO adjusting their fire over the period of the mission. The best targets are forming-up points - areas where the BMPs are going to concertina before building up for an actual attack.

 

Well two companies forward (the third saved for a second echelon), moving slowly with AFV support, sometimes with tanks upfront.  Mostly as the Russians & Ukrainians at the moment.  I didn't say I did it well...
I do it more out of interest in how the attacks are supposed to work.  I normally ragequit once artillery falls on my head.

As far as I've seen, the highest setting for 3D model (?) gives the highest draw distance for things like trees.  You can test this by changing it during a mission (check your hotkeys).