Inkompetent

That's actually something making the Afghans interesting, since they dusted off their Lee Enfields when they realized they had to engage at quite a distance to stand a chance, the flashy full-auto AKs not doing much good when it comes to actually hitting anything. I'd assume that the ones intentionally using Enfields would be quite some shooters to start with, putting them a couple of notches above the usual soldier in skill.

Snipers generally need time, and need to get to do what they want. Let them crawl into a nice position, then just let them lie there and shoot on their own. Wide fire archs or just a facing order, and have tme pop away. Also, be very mindful of grass and stuff blocking their line of sight. Machine guns are more tricky since they get a lot of attention once they start firing, but to me the trick generally is to put them where they can't be seen from one angle, but provide good cover at another. A single medium machine gun like a M240 can deny the enemy access to a large area it has good line of sight to. Pretty much move them in after your riflemen, and have them 'take over' their sectors to cover, or to take over the suppression of an engaged enemy, so that your squads can start moving to flank/assault. Due to the setup time of machine gun teams they should never be the first in, since if they get engaged they can't respond with any kind of decent fire volume. Just a neat way to let 3 men take over a sector previously covered by 13.

Pity I'm leaving for over a month soon. Working on some tiny USMC-scenarios that could be turned US Army (my first missions ever though, but it's fun to make areas out of places at Google Maps, so I had to! )

Well, suicide bombers wouldn't really be 'running around'. As stated by Ryujin they can be highly effective ambush troops (thus mostly useful in defend-missions). Never fun risking to lose an entire fire team when moving into a seemingly empty building.

FOs do have binoculars, but might be that snipers inherently are more skilled at detecting targets or count as having better magnification. As far as I know no spotter-unit (in-game) has anything more advanced than binoculars for optics, and always have to rely on vehicles for thermals. Their only other bonus is to possibly carry a SOFLAM for increased accuracy (only forward air controllers have those, or artillery observers as well?) as far as ranging and laser-designation goes. If the unit carries a SOFLAM it will be visible in their equipment list though. Try to check the FAC next time you play (might be that they only carry them with good enough equipment level. Seems reasonable to me).

I'd even say snipers are better at spotting than spotters are, unless the spotters have access to a proper recon-vehicle with its thermal high-magnification optics. They always seem to find targets that my recon unit have severe trouble seeing from the very same position.

Real-time allows for perfect (even better) control than WEGO (aside from the lack of replays), but only in singleplayer or very limited size multiplayer, since one can pause at one's own leasure to get updated or assign orders. If you intend to play multiplayer however I strictly suggest WEGO to really learn the tricks of how to get that to work smoothly, especially the timing needed for fire and maneuver, exactly how long time certain kinds of movements takes and so on, so that move, pause and fire orders can be assigned with as good syncronization as possible. Personally I prefer to play it real-time, but I exclusively play it in singleplayer.

In addition to what the others have said already they make excellent forward observers if you lack proper one's in a needed position at a particular moment. I tend to see quite accurate fires as result from my sniper teams calling in artillery. This means my infantry squads can focus less on directing fire support (a task they get once in a while if my FO and HQ already are busy calling in support themselves, or are on the move) since they aren't good at it anyway, and go do some real fighting.

Modern western tanks, and some modern eastern tanks (also some modern domestic variants of some Russian tanks however, like Ukraine's T-84) have blow-out magazines at the rear of the turret (this is why the turret extends so far backwards). This includes the Abrams and Challenger 2 (to mention what we get to use in CMSF). However the ammunition in the ready-racks is more exposed since it's within easy reach for the loader, so ammunition explosions inside the compartment can occur, even if the risk is very low due to design. Standard Russian designs however, even the T-90, still use the auto-loader and ammunition-carousel located straight below the turret, ammunition explosions pretty much demolishing the entire tank

Quite probable against a fast-moving tank as well, so if they detect the launch or just maneuvering fast it could be pretty likely. Other than that it'd try to hit center mass. Still, the probability for BOTH the tank and the crew to survive is ridicilously small.

Well, yes. It CAN happen. Either it was a lucky hit on the turret ring, or you got top-down angle on it. My saying of that AT4s can't KILL tanks is more to make sure that's never ever the plan by anyone. You can distract it with AT4s from the front, you can even destroy its sights and make it blind, but the odds for a kill are so low it's not worth having that as intention @Damian90 Yes, both Shtora, Arena and other passive and active systems can defeat a Javelin and are becoming more common on today's battlefield. But let me rephrase myself: Nothing in the world can survive a top-down HIT from a Javelin. It's all about preventing it from doing so. Speaking of that, are there any nice articles or stuff for links for Shtora vs Javelins, if any such public information exists?

Very nice AAR! Thank you!

Nothing; literally NOTHING that is man-portable can compare with a Javelin in power. You'll have to step it up to helicopter-carried Hellfires to start beating it in destructive capability. The AT4 is a direct attack single-stage HEAT warhead capable of penetrating about 350mm RHA. The Javelin is a fire-and-forget top-attack missile with a tandem HEAT warhead capable of penetrating 600mm RHA at the vehicle's least armoured part rather than side or front armour: the top. Simply put: Unless scoring lucky side hits, or getting to attack from the rear, you can't destroy a MBT with AT4s. You can damage it, maybe get a mobilization kill or destroy its optics and damage some weaponry, but you won't ever achieve total destruction of the tank. The Javelin on the other hand one-shots every single MBT in the world unless they have active protection like SHTORA or something else that literally shoots it out of the sky before it hits. As for the 105mm on the Strykers, assuming they used APFSDS rounds, even if they penetrate you might not notice the effect. The tank doesn't have to start smoking or exploding, but you might have killed the crew with spalling without noticing it. Non the less, the 105mm is not guaranteed to penetrate a T-72 or T-64 who have sufficient armour.

Just about nasty effects of stuff going further than effective ranges... We had an accident a some years ago in Sweden where a civilian was killed by a stray bullet during military rifle practice. I can't recall the specifics, but he was sitting in his car with the side window down, I believe about 2.5km from the rifle range. The soldiers emptied their magazines on full auto, and I guess one got quite some muzzle climb (due to the distance I believe they were using AK4 rifles with 7.62mm NATO and not the AK5s with 5.56mm NATO) since the guy in the car got hit in his head and died instantly. Forensics claimed that he would have lived would the window have been up, since the bullet was going so slow the car window would have stopped it completely. Talk about being unlucky, but it shows that even at extreme ranges the stuff can still injure and kill. I'm quite certain I've got guys hit by 155mm airburst fragments at surely 600m in CMSF, simply because they were moving in the open instead of staying in cover during the barrage. Might have been something else hitting them, but since it's happened at the same time as artillery round detonations...

Well, seems like a general issue with warfare. TUSK and HUSK are Urban survival kits, not in any way with their name trying to say that they are universally good to have. They make vehicles bulkier, slower, less mechanically reliable due to overweight, and less maneuverable because of the same. I assume that the benefits outweights the drawbacks in urban warfare, unless so much politics are involved that the military has zero say in what they actually kit their vehicles with (which I assume is not the case) since they outfit so much with it, but that's not to say it's good for rural or wild nature warfare. Hard line to draw really, what one want to achieve. Is it soldier survivability or is it to kill the enemy? Is it mobility or safety? Is a surviving crew or a surviving tank worth more? Are few but well equipped better than more but not just as well equipped? Lots of factors to consider, and a lot doesn't go hand in hand. For capital city peacekeeping duty I bet that the survival kits are nice to have, since it's IEDs and snipers (and apparantly low power cables) that are the big threats, and due to the low chance of getting to shoot first, but rather having to take a shot and then shoot back, then obviously survivability and safety comes high on the list. But what about the countryside soldiers in Afghanistan? How will they every catch up with the unconventional warfighters stretched over incredibly large areas of terrain with terrible accessibility? IED safety is of course nice to have, but IED safety doesn't kill any enemies. They take a few sniper shots with their SMLEs, PKs, or a few random shots with mortars, and then they are gone. Slow-as-a-slug MRAPs or overarmoured IFVs won't catch anything. Sacrificing mobility is definitely to sacrifice the ability to kill. You might outlive getting shot or getting hit by fragmentation without any severe injuries, but you can't possibly catch up with a disengaging enemy. Edit: I guess that in the end public opinion gets too much say in things. No single war is won by NOT killing the enemy. But to keep the domestic war morale high and good then one has to stop soldiers from dying, even if it also mean one stops killing. Then again it's hardly news that war effectiveness and being nice doesn't work well together.