DMS

When a US halftrack is unbuttoned (manning the gun), it will stay unbuttoned even if the crew and passengers are in the "panic" state. And the player is unable to order the halftrack to button. So the vehicle will keep driving around randomly, and the passengers will keep getting shot one by one as they pop up to man the gun. This is not the behaviour of panicked people, but of very brave or fanatic troops.
Panicked guys should stop manning the gun, and try to hide at the bottom of the halftrack. If rounds start to penetrate, they should bail out and run away.
I know there have been cases of very brave troops who kept manning the guns even though they were under heavy fire. However, I'd argue they were not panicking, but merely rattled or shaken in CM terms.
Thanks for your attention. You're now welcome to tell me I'm all wrong

@ASL Veteran think of it in the context of the Napoleonic Wars: sure the Old Guard and Horse Grenadiers draw all the attention, but they were a very small part of Napoleon's Army, and while present at Waterloo, the actions of the regular regiments were more significant.
Similarly, the handful of elite Germany units (LSSAH, HG, Panzer Lehr) is a very small part of a military that by and large marched on foot and was supplied by horse drawn baggage trains.
It would be nice to have more scenarios or campaigns that depict the actions of a typical battalion or company trying to accomplish a typical mission, in typical terrain with typical equipment.

What's about "Hammer's flank", in real life 1-st guards division was in 2-nd echelone. It's battalion made reconnaissance in force before assault, probably that's why German sources say about this division. And campaing author was using German sources, I guess. Inaccurate, but it doesn't change a much. What is more important, there is no solid trench line... If Germans would set such defense with seperated platoon sized positions, Soviet recon units would infiltrate through gaps at night. 

What's about "Hammer's flank", in real life 1-st guards division was in 2-nd echelone. It's battalion made reconnaissance in force before assault, probably that's why German sources say about this division. And campaing author was using German sources, I guess. Inaccurate, but it doesn't change a much. What is more important, there is no solid trench line... If Germans would set such defense with seperated platoon sized positions, Soviet recon units would infiltrate through gaps at night. 

In open area mortars were used centralised, under control of battalion commander. In forested or urban areas mortar platoons could be attached to companies. In some cases single 82 mortars were given to forward platoons.
If mortars were used "centralised", company commander would direct fire with the help of command detachment. He communicated with fire positions by telephone, messengers, signs, signals and "by chain" ("цепочкой"). I don't know exactly what "by chain" means, I guess that "chain" of soldiers would stretch from OP to mortars and they would shout to each other: "Add 200m! 0-05 to the right! One more spotting round!" So if you roleplay, just make a chain of units and call mortar strike.
In regulations (БУП-42) typically is said: "machiengun and mortar fire". Fire sector was assigned. Also fire tasks at frontline and in the depth of enemy defense were assigned. So direct and undirect fire was used.
There is regulation about mortar company: http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/russr/1942_bup/09.html
You can use google translate. Ask me if something is unclear.
 

Soviet rifle battalion had only 2 guns. And, may be, if it was very lucky, fire platoon or a battery from AT regiment (battalion) of rifle division. I usually choose only 2 battalion guns not to break historical accuracy. If you play with 1 company, you should take only 1 45 mm gun. Though, if you play against mech unit, it is realistic to assume that division command would move divisional AT guns at dangerous direction and set them in depth, behind rifles.

In open area mortars were used centralised, under control of battalion commander. In forested or urban areas mortar platoons could be attached to companies. In some cases single 82 mortars were given to forward platoons.
If mortars were used "centralised", company commander would direct fire with the help of command detachment. He communicated with fire positions by telephone, messengers, signs, signals and "by chain" ("цепочкой"). I don't know exactly what "by chain" means, I guess that "chain" of soldiers would stretch from OP to mortars and they would shout to each other: "Add 200m! 0-05 to the right! One more spotting round!" So if you roleplay, just make a chain of units and call mortar strike.
In regulations (БУП-42) typically is said: "machiengun and mortar fire". Fire sector was assigned. Also fire tasks at frontline and in the depth of enemy defense were assigned. So direct and undirect fire was used.
There is regulation about mortar company: http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/russr/1942_bup/09.html
You can use google translate. Ask me if something is unclear.
 

Guns not just moved behind, but usually supported infantry attack by direct lay fire. First scheme that I found in pamyat-naroda.ru:

"Scheme of battle positions for direct lay fire".  23.10.1942. 268 rifle regiment. Side of the square is 1 km. As you see, distance to German positions is 400-700m. It wouldn't be possible, if German mgs would be effective against guns at 500m, right?
Right! It seems that flak gunner is coded to ignore supression when he is seeing target. Shield is 9mm, sloped at 30 degrees to vertical. Thicker, than M-42's, but not too much...

Probably they were. I was very lucky and found regimental journal for this days! (Regimental documents are rare, unlike divisional)

"Batteries of ИПП (AT regiment) and ПА (regimental artillery) fired by direct lay at targets №35, 37, 32, 39, 40 and 101. Results: target 37 is destroyed, targets 35, 38, 39 49 and 101 are damaged. Ammo used - 120, mortar ammo - 134. Snipers destroyed 16 Germans."

"Regiment made engineer work entrenching forward line. Enemy shelled forward line of defense. Ammo used - 80. Losses: wounded - 1."
It was usual positional war, not assault... Snipers overclaimed results, of course.
Correct! But how much close is too close?

In open area mortars were used centralised, under control of battalion commander. In forested or urban areas mortar platoons could be attached to companies. In some cases single 82 mortars were given to forward platoons.
If mortars were used "centralised", company commander would direct fire with the help of command detachment. He communicated with fire positions by telephone, messengers, signs, signals and "by chain" ("цепочкой"). I don't know exactly what "by chain" means, I guess that "chain" of soldiers would stretch from OP to mortars and they would shout to each other: "Add 200m! 0-05 to the right! One more spotting round!" So if you roleplay, just make a chain of units and call mortar strike.
In regulations (БУП-42) typically is said: "machiengun and mortar fire". Fire sector was assigned. Also fire tasks at frontline and in the depth of enemy defense were assigned. So direct and undirect fire was used.
There is regulation about mortar company: http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/russr/1942_bup/09.html
You can use google translate. Ask me if something is unclear.
 

Bill, you were setup to fail in this Scenario -
The Map was poorly designed, as Blue had setup zones that were very close to the Red setup zone.   Your opponent had a sniper team with line of sight observation into your setup zone on one side, and armor in close proximity on the other side of your setup zone.  Additionally, your Red side was not allocated enough points in which to adequately purchase Red equipment in order to use realistic Red doctrine.
Thanks for putting in the great effort in both of your CMSF2 AAR's....although both ended badly due to different reasons, neither one was your fault.

+1
Have long argued that CM is now very good as a game.  What development should now focus on is a streamlined UI so that less time is wasted trying to accomplish exactly what Bulletpoint outlined.  Just a few other examples that would speed up gameplay and enable player to focus on the fun parts of playing rather than UI:  
"Shoot and scoot" for AT teams so they can fire and run, not sit around waiting to die after firing.  Engineers who blast a wall but do NOT run thru it.  (Currently we have to time it out so they blast right at the end of a turn.)  One click 180 degree covered arcs (like we had in CM1!) so one doesn't have to waste so much time performing dozens of clicks just to get a company of turreted armor moving from waypoint to waypoint with guns pointed in different directions.  A new ACQUIRE system that allows adjacent units to exchange (reasonable amounts of) ammo (with time penalties).   Right now in order to resupply a platoon or larger efficiently one has to: 1) split teams; 2) order teams to board vehicle; 3) ACQUIRE; 4) Disembark; 5) move to their respective squads for recombination. There are many other examples that would benefit from a streamlined UI.

"Those tactics were also a consequence of changes in German enlistment. After several years of war and heavy losses on the Eastern Front, the German army was forced to rely more heavily on enlisting teenage soldiers. Due to lack of training in more complex group tactics, and thanks to rifle training provided by the Hitlerjugend, those soldiers were often used as autonomous left-behind snipers. While an experienced sniper would take a few lethal shots and retreat to a safer position, those young boys, due both to a disregard for their own safety and to lack of tactical experience would frequently remain in a concealed position and fight until they ran out of ammunition or were killed or wounded. While this tactic generally ended in the demise of the sniper, giving rise to the nickname "Suicide Boys" that was given to those soldiers, this irrational behavior proved quite disruptive to the Allied forces' progress."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper
 

Give me a year or so to recover from this one Ian and then we will cross swords again.   
A word on this battle... I never felt comfortable, and I think I realized quite quickly that I brought the wrong force to this fight... I have already said but I should have been armor heavy, I mean all armor with maybe a platoon of infantry as scouts.  This map is so open and the enemy start up zone was so close to my end of the map (something that I failed to notice when we were trying to decide on which map to play on) that I never really had a chance... and no, I never spotted your infantry that had a clear view on my assembly area... I never even considered clearing the ridge, I didn't have enough combat power to devote to that anyway and it was a substantial amount of ground as well.
When fighting a superior force (superior in this case means my units were outclassed in quality and we were about equal in force size, bad combination), led by a talented commander, in terrain that suits them, there is no shame in admitting that there would be nothing to gain by continuing to push... so cut and run, then come back perhaps a little wiser for the next one.
Great job Ian, there were no flaws in your planning or in your game-play.  Next time, when that time comes, perhaps we will do a Blue v Blue or Red v Red scenario.  Those are always interesting.
Bil

I think calling a cease-fire and withdrawing is exactly the right move here. Enemy positions and strength were established enough to inform a larger, better equipped force to come in and conduct a proper attack. The losses suffered were unfortunate, but pretty unavoidable. On the whole it appears you were able to keep the majority of your force alive.
Speaking of a better equipped force conducting an attack, is there any interest for a follow-up AAR? Could be interesting to see a properly equipped OpFor attack. Maybe even juice the OpFor a bit by giving them good training and morale in the editor to make things more interesting. At the very least it would let all of us see more toys in SF2, and it would likely be very explosive!

Based on this AAR I'm now kind of concerned that the Blue/Red 'spotting gap' is getting wider. 

I'd just like the fortifications to not be scattered all over the map when I start the deploy phase of a QB. It would be so much easier to have them neatly organized like units were, and how they were in the CM1 titles.

Well I am a trained combat engineer and a reserve officer. When it comes to breaching minefield to keep the assault going I do have a plenty of training. But it all really comes down to the specifics of the task. One can't simply state that demining is out of scope of CM. What do you guys really mean by that? Demining, mine removal, minefield breaching.. what ever you want to call it takes time proportional to the size of the task. Just like anything else. You need to clear a path through simple hastily laid AT-minefield with no AP-mines, minefield is 50 meters deep, has probably mines in about 5 rows, each mine about 5-10m apart (if using something likeTM62 or TM 65-77). If you can locate the mines which I asume the mark mines command in CM is about, then the hard part is already done. Getting rid of the found mines is easy. Now with AP-mines in the mix the whole thing gets much much harder but that is the thing.. that is entirely different task. 
In general the whole idea of combat engineers versus regular engineers is that these are the people who are there, right at the tip of the offensive and It is their only job to keep the offensive going forward at all cost. I don't claim it's easy or safe, but I am claiming that with proper training and equipment, you can breach small minefields, especially ones with only AT-mines in span of minutes. Well within the scope of combat mission. 

Yes, that being said, I personally feel there is a certain disconnect between the level of detail when it comes to vehicles variants (Panzer IV Ausf. H (early)) and Infantry equipment. I wish there was some bigger variety there just for historical flavor, even if maybe the actual gameplay effect would be small. I'd have to imagine that modifying a TOE or making a new type of rifle is ultimately less work than making some obscure tank. I made a thread about this before, but some examples of infantry weapons that in my eyes should be added to the WW2 series:
For German infantry set to "ill-equipped":
MG26(t) (to replace random amounts of MG34/42)
MP Beretta (especially for the Bulge game)
MP 28
Luftwaffe Field Division stuff:
MG15 / MG81
And the G41(w) as replacement for the G43 on 1943 and early 1944 maps
In terms of TOE for the Eastern Front game:
A variant of the Grenadier Kompanie with 1 Sturmzug for those Divisions that had the MP43 introduced. Call it Grenadier-Kompanie (Stg) or whatever, just copy the already existing one and change it a bit.
If the Italy Game includes old style (1941) Infanterie ToE, port it over to the Normandy game as well.
For Russians:
Fewer SVT40s for Russian infantry in 1944 / 45. (In fact, I know of no photo of a Tokarev rifle on the front post 1943, although I am willing to be proven wrong on this)
A variant of the Rifle Company with an smg platoon.
PRTS semi automatic for units set to "Better than average" equipment.
For Americans:
M9A1 Bazooka and M1919A6 set to proper start date (post Normandy)
Springfield grenade launcher in Normandy and Bulge if equipment set to bad. Again, can be ported over from Italy.

I don't think "balance" should be an issue at all. The K98 is hardly balanced against the Garand, but I wouldn't want full German squads of G43s.

Sadly the game can't be modded in a serious and easy way, but if they would allow us to modify the ToE, all this issues would be resolved. Except the units using weapons not featured in the game, of course.

I know how good is my English.
Unusual parallels...
Of course they was. But... That myth about machineguns shooting at running soldiers is too primitive, stupid, hugely hyperbolised. That didn't happen in such way. Block units officers executed single men, if they refused to fight and agitated others to flee. They were not just behind the rifle units, but in the rear: at road intersections, towns. The scale of war was huge, millions men were involved, may be someone somewhere shot at the crowd, who knows. But showing it like a common event is false. Another myth in this movie, 1 mosins for 2 men... Yes, in 1941 RKKA had problems with small arms. But this means that platoons had only 2 mgs instead of 4. (In 1942 3 mgs, in 1943 - 6) Again, too stupid hypebole. May be somewhere conscripts were caught without arms by quickly advancing Germans, that happened in 1941. But that they were intentionally sent to combat without weapons... I hate such "creative" writers and movie makers.

I know how good is my English.
Unusual parallels...
Of course they was. But... That myth about machineguns shooting at running soldiers is too primitive, stupid, hugely hyperbolised. That didn't happen in such way. Block units officers executed single men, if they refused to fight and agitated others to flee. They were not just behind the rifle units, but in the rear: at road intersections, towns. The scale of war was huge, millions men were involved, may be someone somewhere shot at the crowd, who knows. But showing it like a common event is false. Another myth in this movie, 1 mosins for 2 men... Yes, in 1941 RKKA had problems with small arms. But this means that platoons had only 2 mgs instead of 4. (In 1942 3 mgs, in 1943 - 6) Again, too stupid hypebole. May be somewhere conscripts were caught without arms by quickly advancing Germans, that happened in 1941. But that they were intentionally sent to combat without weapons... I hate such "creative" writers and movie makers.

When, where? I know only 1 fact from Loza book, wheh his tank fired over heads, than lower. And someone fell. And that is not exactly "fact", as it is memoirs.
In movie it is shown like a typical, common event. That is obviously not true.

I read it again after your comment and still I found nothing about other nonsence in this film. (And that nonsence is much brighter, than sniper duel! Sniper duels occured, while 1 rifle for 2 soldiers and mgs, shooting in own troops - did not. That's why I said that it is fun) And I don't undestand how my profile is connected to the article.