Combatintman

@The_Capt - a British one would be more appropriate:

Ok so this was the Falklands but the right era at least ... the bootneck with the moustache front left of the photo was a mate of my father's and was in the original NP 8901 and was one of the three who evaded capture for a few days after the original Argentine landings.  He, like the rest of NP 8901 returned with the Task Force.  Liked to drop his trousers in the pub to urinate off WW2 veterans who claimed that post WW2 conflicts "weren't real wars."  He got shot in Borneo in 1966 during Confrontation and had the hole in his leg to prove it.

Nope it is a Small Metal Gun ... as it was nicknamed popularly at the time - or as you say a Sterling SMG and in Army parlance, an L2A3.  It's just the camera angle that is confusing you but you can clearly see the magazine is curved and knowing the weight difference between the Thompson and SMG, he wouldn't be carrying it as easily as he's carrying the SMG in the clip.

@The_Capt - a British one would be more appropriate:

Ok so this was the Falklands but the right era at least ... the bootneck with the moustache front left of the photo was a mate of my father's and was in the original NP 8901 and was one of the three who evaded capture for a few days after the original Argentine landings.  He, like the rest of NP 8901 returned with the Task Force.  Liked to drop his trousers in the pub to urinate off WW2 veterans who claimed that post WW2 conflicts "weren't real wars."  He got shot in Borneo in 1966 during Confrontation and had the hole in his leg to prove it.

@The_Capt - a British one would be more appropriate:

Ok so this was the Falklands but the right era at least ... the bootneck with the moustache front left of the photo was a mate of my father's and was in the original NP 8901 and was one of the three who evaded capture for a few days after the original Argentine landings.  He, like the rest of NP 8901 returned with the Task Force.  Liked to drop his trousers in the pub to urinate off WW2 veterans who claimed that post WW2 conflicts "weren't real wars."  He got shot in Borneo in 1966 during Confrontation and had the hole in his leg to prove it.

@The_Capt - a British one would be more appropriate:

Ok so this was the Falklands but the right era at least ... the bootneck with the moustache front left of the photo was a mate of my father's and was in the original NP 8901 and was one of the three who evaded capture for a few days after the original Argentine landings.  He, like the rest of NP 8901 returned with the Task Force.  Liked to drop his trousers in the pub to urinate off WW2 veterans who claimed that post WW2 conflicts "weren't real wars."  He got shot in Borneo in 1966 during Confrontation and had the hole in his leg to prove it.

That's me in trouble then ...

Chieftains, moustaches, squaddies with SLRs… it’s all there: 
 
 

My morale always drops when I get a Teams call invite if that helps ... 😉

I’ve got that tee shirt, made the gpmg seem no weight at all. Have to say though that live firing the 84 both sub and full calibre was a lot of fun.

Well, he's wrong then.  The British Army's Staff Officer's Handbook for 1978 has the same allocation of Charlie G in both Mech and  Type A and B light role battalions - 36 in the battalion, 9 in the company, and 3 in the platoon.   Moving forward in time, I was a reservist in a light role infantry battalion in 1984 and every rifle section had a Charlie G which I may or may not have had to cart around 😉.

My morale always drops when I get a Teams call invite if that helps ... 😉

Use the Target Light command but the Tac AI will override that if the tank spots something that is perceived to be a threat requiring use of the main armament - an irritating example of this being dismounted tank crews getting lots of HE love.

16th/5th Queen's Royal Lancers were there during the time frame of the draft British campaign which is set in the era of the very brief experiment to get rid of brigades and substitute them for four armoured divisions with two task forces under command plus a couple of Germany and UK-based field forces vice the three divisions that were previously fielded.  It also explains why, as@The_Capthas explained, that we have a whole bunch of British TO&Es for potential inclusion as this was an era of chopping and changing - or to put it another way ... something that worked was changed for something that didn't and was (mostly) changed back to the thing that worked in the first place.  To say it was challenging to research is an understatement as almost nothing of substance on 1 (BR) Corps task forces in the late 70s is readily available on the internet.  Most Cold War stuff that is readily available covers the period from 1985 until the end of the Cold War.

My morale always drops when I get a Teams call invite if that helps ... 😉

My morale always drops when I get a Teams call invite if that helps ... 😉

My morale always drops when I get a Teams call invite if that helps ... 😉

There seem to be a few tutorials doing the rounds of late … so you’re going to get another one – on planning. So if you’re somebody who wondered how it is done, or are somebody who casts a rudimentary eye over the ground, skims through the orders and then just launches across the line of departure with the view to developing a plan on the hoof and wants to change this – then this is the thread for you.
 
The vehicle for the tutorial is SeinfeldRules Assault Position Mission.  The associated thread is here:
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119212-seinfeldrules-scenario-thread/page-1
 
The mission can be downloaded from here:
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d85cs6w3xeeg0oi/AD%20Assault%20Position.zip?dl=0
 
What do you get from this thread – simply put it will delve into the planning process and then roll into an AAR. I am playing this as designed so Axis attacker versus the AI. So without further ado, let’s crack on with it. Also I’d be grateful if people could refrain from posting spoilers on this mission if you’ve played it – I haven’t yet – which is kind of the point of stepping through the planning process first!!!!
 
I will warn you that I am no means an expert on military planning but have been around it enough to know how it works. I will cut corners with it here and there but this isn’t necessarily about military doctrine, it is about giving you guys an understanding of some techniques to help you plan your battles should you have a mind to do so.
 
Clearly questions (that do not contain spoilers) are welcome but many of my answers might be ‘I’ll come to that later’.

You can give AI units a facing by using ALT left click after you place the waypoint/location order.

Actually my research in regimental journals turned up photos of the wedding of one of my former bosses, you don't get that stuff from the National Archives at Kew.  I also found a whole load of stuff about @Pete Wenman's former regiment in the same time period.   Now I get that wedding photos are not what we're after for research but there was a whole lot of good stuff that filled in the gaps from the more general sources. If I had the time then for sure I would dig deeper and have done so when researching battlefield tours but I found enough to make the campaign for which the basic map schematic that @The_Capt posted earlier in this thread.

BOAR
Wild boar - Wikipedia
BAOR
British Army of the Rhine - Wikipedia
Not sure whether people are asking for a flavour object that is not a dead cow or horse or the Brits for the Cold War module.

16th/5th Queen's Royal Lancers were there during the time frame of the draft British campaign which is set in the era of the very brief experiment to get rid of brigades and substitute them for four armoured divisions with two task forces under command plus a couple of Germany and UK-based field forces vice the three divisions that were previously fielded.  It also explains why, as@The_Capthas explained, that we have a whole bunch of British TO&Es for potential inclusion as this was an era of chopping and changing - or to put it another way ... something that worked was changed for something that didn't and was (mostly) changed back to the thing that worked in the first place.  To say it was challenging to research is an understatement as almost nothing of substance on 1 (BR) Corps task forces in the late 70s is readily available on the internet.  Most Cold War stuff that is readily available covers the period from 1985 until the end of the Cold War.

16th/5th Queen's Royal Lancers were there during the time frame of the draft British campaign which is set in the era of the very brief experiment to get rid of brigades and substitute them for four armoured divisions with two task forces under command plus a couple of Germany and UK-based field forces vice the three divisions that were previously fielded.  It also explains why, as@The_Capthas explained, that we have a whole bunch of British TO&Es for potential inclusion as this was an era of chopping and changing - or to put it another way ... something that worked was changed for something that didn't and was (mostly) changed back to the thing that worked in the first place.  To say it was challenging to research is an understatement as almost nothing of substance on 1 (BR) Corps task forces in the late 70s is readily available on the internet.  Most Cold War stuff that is readily available covers the period from 1985 until the end of the Cold War.

Yeah ... being handed a can of the Australian beer that only about a dozen Australians drink would have been like the confusion in the Crocodile Dundee film when Hoges lands in the US.

As someone still on the Australian Army's books ... I am glad that Steve never mentioned such a game in this year's outlook.

QBs only recognise occupy objectives ... the manual explains this ...

 
So the exit objectives could be the problem here given firstly the occupy thing plus the casualty calculation thing.  Although not stated in the manual, I am pretty sure that you cannot have asymmetric objectives in QBs; however, over the years in picking at the problem I have tried and failed to understand how to put a decent QB together.  @benparkknows a thing or two about these so he might be able to offer some grown-up advice.