Dr.Fusselpulli

The SdKfz 251/3 Engineer half track comes to mind. Just a cost-ineffective way to transport a lot less men than in the 251/1 variant, but it’s in the game nonetheless because it fits real life TO&E. I buy them because I want to have a realistic feel to my formations. 

Make tea!  And here I thought they were completely useless!

Are you sure they are all part of the same parent organisation?
 
If not you’d have to place a command unit from each parent organisation  next to each other to enable the two different C2 networks to share info. 
 
If so then check they have active C2 links ie no-one on the chain has a goosed radio for example. 
 
Other possibility is the mission has some sort of active comms disruption eg electronic warfare which will muck up comms and info sharing. 

An easy solution to that, which also looks good visually, is to paint that berm with terrain impassible to vehicles (heavy rocks, heavy forest, deep marsh*)
*well, i guess a deep marsh berm doesn't actually look good 😁

I mean, I'm not going to be that jerk to throw a "RTFM" at anyone ... but that has been a feature for some time (since Engine 2 or 3?) - see CM Engine Manual v4.00 (page 91) or A Scen Design AAR PDF Book (page 32). 😁
The manuals are really worth the read for anyone making scenarios - some kind soul put a good effort into those works. 👍
Here's what a "Ditch locked" tank position looks like on flat ground:

Almost like it was designed that way 😉.  We avoided 1983 not due to any real equipment issues (as noted there was some ammo introductions) but more to avoid the organizational changes that happen in the US military.  The J series Inf Bns (and a couple ‘interim’ structures) TO&E begins to emerge in the 83-84 timeframe and we frankly had enough on our hands trying to untie all that.  So 79-82 gave the best window but players can easily tinker a year or so on either side and still be completely accurate.

Doctor, I won't argue with your rationale, but the backstory just isn't very important in the 3 hypothetical families. I for one would rather see other armies and 1979 and 1982 TO&Es rather than extend the timeframe on the existing units by one year. Just my opinion.

As you noticed, in 1983 there should be no new piece of kit around that did not already enter service by 1982. On the other hand, new improved ammunition models were introduced in 1983: TOW-2, M833, 3BM26 etc... these could make a difference, although "introduced" doesn't necessarily mean "in widespread use".

I would also love an expansion of the game into the full year of 1983. Not so much because of the equipment, but because of the rising political tensions between east and west in that year. Late October, early November 1983 might be the most believable point for a "what if" scenario.

The time before was already a time of rising tension.
There was a shift in equipment and doctrine for important Nato countries in the late 70s to early 80s, Leopard2, Abrams, Bradley, Marder with AT-ability. The F14 Tomcat and the F15 Strike Eagle were relatively new planes, getting in service in the mid 70s.
Tension was especially rising, with the NATO Double-Track Decision from December 1979.
In May 1981 the Soviets started Operation RYAN the biggest intelligence operation of the cold war, to find out, when the nuclear attack of the Nato against the Soviets would happen, to be prepared and to act first!
From 1981 to 1983 the US had a series of naval operations to demonstrate their ablity to come close to important Soviet naval bases.
In March 1983 President Ronald Regan had his "Evil Empire Speech" attacking the Soviet Union.
In May 1983 there was FleetEx '83-1, the biggest navel exersice since WWII executed in the north Pacific within fighting range to the Soviet Union.
On 1st of September 1983, the concerned Soviet Air Force interecepted and shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, as they were convinced it was a spy plane. Leading to further tensions between the US and the Soviet Union.
later in September 1983 was the annual Reforger Exersise in Germany (Confident Enterprise). While this was an annual event, it still is concerning one for the Soviets, as it could be used as a disguise to mobilise troops secretely for war preperations.
During this Exersise in September 1983 was the Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, in which the early-warning system of the Soviet union got a false first strike alarm of US nuclear ballistic missiles. Only because Stanislav Petrov, the officer on duty decided it was probably a false alarm, the Soviet Union did not respond with a scheduled nuclear counter attack.
This already could have lead easily to war, most likely to nuclear war.
In October 1983 Operation Urgent Fury happend, the US invasion of Grenada. In preperation of this Operation, Nato communication multiplied, while for Operation Able Archer in early November 1983, Nato switched to new encription methods, never seen before by the Soviet Union to simulate nuclear war on HQ-level.
This lead to mobilisation and immediate war preperations in the Soviet Union.
During Able Archer 83 it was the first time, that a move through the DEFCON stages was simulated.
This now could have lead to the believe in the Soviet Union that a Nato attack is imminent. In Soviet doctrine, the war was not to be fought as a defensive war on Soviet territory, but active, to turn the fight into the land of the enemy as soon and fast as possible.
For this reason, I think a late October, early November 1983 campaign would be the most believable. As all the political background already happened, and just the final order to attack in defense by the Soviet Union was not given.

The m72 and the rpgs were fixed? 
You guys have been busy.
NICE. 

From what I understand, they did some thinking-outside-the-box and labeled the extended tube a 'bipod' so so when the weapon is deployed the 'bipod' (e.g. extended tube) appears. One of those things that's obvious only after someone first thinks of it.

A quick and dirty summary of the tanks present in the various divisions of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, I compiled this from the data available on the excellent Cold War Soviet Army OoB site by Michael Holm. These are only ballpark figures (and some smaller units are missing, namely a few independent tank regiments) but this should be useful to get the overall picture.

86 And also the trees 
 

Mord.

Thanks so stay tuned !
 
85 Asylum Party 
 
 
 

@Double Deuce, ah okay. Understand that now. So the player would still play that other assets issued by the battalion, but it is only added to the core force to keep track of the losses.

About the thread: is it possible to get a AT-4B Spigot Team as a single unit in the "specialist teams" category? For now only the AT-7 Saxorn is available there, while AT-4B Spigot is only available as a Battalion asset in some formations.

What I would wish for would be the option to have an AI plan for friendly units on the map. Make some of the friendly units not playable, to stay true to the scope of this kind of warfare, and adding another leven of immersion to the battlefield, because you are now not the god controlling everything, but just one gear in the machine of war.
Of course, this would come with other problems, to keep these forces performing in reasonable behaviour for the mission designer, which would be the job of the scenario creator, but overall, I think it would be a great addition.
It would give you as a player a smaller force to take care for, so you can focus on your units.

I am still creating an experimental scenario, in which you will play as a Soviet BMP company, within a bigger soviet attack, just to check for the possibility of this kind of gameplay.

What I would wish for would be the option to have an AI plan for friendly units on the map. Make some of the friendly units not playable, to stay true to the scope of this kind of warfare, and adding another leven of immersion to the battlefield, because you are now not the god controlling everything, but just one gear in the machine of war.
Of course, this would come with other problems, to keep these forces performing in reasonable behaviour for the mission designer, which would be the job of the scenario creator, but overall, I think it would be a great addition.
It would give you as a player a smaller force to take care for, so you can focus on your units.

I am still creating an experimental scenario, in which you will play as a Soviet BMP company, within a bigger soviet attack, just to check for the possibility of this kind of gameplay.

What I would wish for would be the option to have an AI plan for friendly units on the map. Make some of the friendly units not playable, to stay true to the scope of this kind of warfare, and adding another leven of immersion to the battlefield, because you are now not the god controlling everything, but just one gear in the machine of war.
Of course, this would come with other problems, to keep these forces performing in reasonable behaviour for the mission designer, which would be the job of the scenario creator, but overall, I think it would be a great addition.
It would give you as a player a smaller force to take care for, so you can focus on your units.

I am still creating an experimental scenario, in which you will play as a Soviet BMP company, within a bigger soviet attack, just to check for the possibility of this kind of gameplay.

Corrections and adjustments are monitored by tracking current missile position using an IR emitter or beacon on the back of the flying missile, then corrections are transmitted through the site, as I understand it.
So, the emitter has to be seen, which doesn't happen through smoke.

It hits the tree and the T-64 fires back accurately destroying the launcher? 😎

Unfortunately not. I just saw it two times on a Livestream by @Aquila-SmartWargames

Love XMal Deutschland, they have quite a rough and haunting sound. "Orient" is one of my favorite tracks. Anja Huwe now is a painter in Hamburg.

Ok I think Xmal is burning in our mind, and is nice to dig some old tracks...

I don't mind
This one is also great:
"Um Mitternacht - Wenn alle Katzen jagen - In der Stadt"