Ghost of Charlemagne

I hope it's okay to resurrect this thread rather than create a new one on the CV90. 
 
I recently talked to a Danish dude who served on the CV9035DK in Afghanistan, and he told me some interesting things that the game doesn't get right. 
1. The CV9035's Bushmaster III gun has two magazines of 35 rounds each, for a total of 70 ready-to-fire rounds. 
2. The vehicle has an addition 280 rounds (for at total of 350, and not 210 as in the game.) in ammo storage boxes, unfortunately he didn't specify if all of these extra rounds were stored internally or if some of them were stored in the external storage box on the side of the turret. 
3. The extra rounds are linked together in 7-round belts, because of the sheer size and weight of each round - a 25mm round weighs almost a third of a 35mm one. 
4. The magazines can be reloaded from inside the vehicle, and the linked and linkless feed system of the Bushmaster III gun means that 7-rounds belts can be quickly fed into the gun mechanism and linked together with 5 more belt as they were feeding. Unfortunately he didn't specify the amount of time it would take to reload all 5 belts.  
5. Because of the limited number of ready-to-fire rounds, they would strictly use single rounds, or 5-round bursts against high-priority targets like RPG-gunners or suspected VBIEDs. 
6. They had two different automatic firing patterns for 5-round bursts- they could either be fired at the same target or be spread out in a linear pattern.  
7. Even with single rounds they were able to hit targets at distances of several kilometers. He stressed that the CV90s had a profound effect on the Talibans willingness to engage Danish or coalition forces in their vicinity. 

I hope it's okay to resurrect this thread rather than create a new one on the CV90. 
 
I recently talked to a Danish dude who served on the CV9035DK in Afghanistan, and he told me some interesting things that the game doesn't get right. 
1. The CV9035's Bushmaster III gun has two magazines of 35 rounds each, for a total of 70 ready-to-fire rounds. 
2. The vehicle has an addition 280 rounds (for at total of 350, and not 210 as in the game.) in ammo storage boxes, unfortunately he didn't specify if all of these extra rounds were stored internally or if some of them were stored in the external storage box on the side of the turret. 
3. The extra rounds are linked together in 7-round belts, because of the sheer size and weight of each round - a 25mm round weighs almost a third of a 35mm one. 
4. The magazines can be reloaded from inside the vehicle, and the linked and linkless feed system of the Bushmaster III gun means that 7-rounds belts can be quickly fed into the gun mechanism and linked together with 5 more belt as they were feeding. Unfortunately he didn't specify the amount of time it would take to reload all 5 belts.  
5. Because of the limited number of ready-to-fire rounds, they would strictly use single rounds, or 5-round bursts against high-priority targets like RPG-gunners or suspected VBIEDs. 
6. They had two different automatic firing patterns for 5-round bursts- they could either be fired at the same target or be spread out in a linear pattern.  
7. Even with single rounds they were able to hit targets at distances of several kilometers. He stressed that the CV90s had a profound effect on the Talibans willingness to engage Danish or coalition forces in their vicinity. 

Is that a "sparkly explosion" experiment I see?

@37mm  I can give you an interim fix (for a human played force only).....Build a tall walled compound, paint all interior squares as an exit zone, then place BTRs within.  Advise player that he should take advantage of the supplies in the BTRs at setup and that the compound should be vacated by non-BTRs prior to game start.  Once he clicks the red button, those BTRs will vanish, nothing that he might attempt will get them out of that compound before they do. 
I've used this technique with some of my more complex small unit stuff, the exit zone can double up as an exfiltration route or whatever (It will remain live, so why not use it?).

Clearly, neither myself or the original posters who brought the issue up, have explained ourselves... I apologize for my part in that.
Syrian Squads have 100 rounds of MG ammo at the start of a battle... no matter the situation, context, battle type, supply situation or anything else. I agree that 100 rounds of PKM ammo is a reasonable loadout for a man... the issue is that the PKM is a Squad GPMG in CMSF2. Squad level GPMG's are quite rare in modern games (I can't recall them in CMA anyhow) however the Dutch do have them &, for them, 750 rounds per squad is a typical loadout. Additionally, all of the WW2 games features higher GPMG loadouts than 100 rounds per squad. Finally, this 'situation' is difficult to work around... we have no ammo dumps & Syrian trucks don't carry MG ammo (that might explain why the front line units don't have much of it!).

Oh FFS.....Do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous that sounds. 
I'm not going to dignify such petty childishness with a response, frankly mate I expected better. 
 

Are you aware of the ownership structure of the western 'free press'.....Western mainstream media is little more than the mouthpiece of a select billionaire's club.
Next.

To me, a line of BS is a line of BS, regardless of the motivations of the person attempting to feed it to me.
PS - Have to agree though, the Reporters Without Borders report is pretty damning (but having said that, many of the same practices are being undertaken in the west by corporate entities such as Google & Facebook, rather than by direct governmental interference).

It seems to be all squads of all formations armed with PKMs. They all start with just 100 rounds.

I think according to fact they dont perpetuate mainstream media biases....therefore they must be biased by definition
I came across South Front about 3 yrs ago. One thing I noticed, their maps of who owned what in Syria seemed to be 1-3months ahead of what I saw in the mainstream press.....
 

Just to make it clear - there was no offense to the Ukrainian border guards. 95+32=127 Let's be realistic 127 people that make up a full compliment cannot somehow clandestinely penetrate a full encirclement of such a small territory of the base. There was an agreement they may leave and go to the Ukrainian-controlled territory. Can you substantiate SBU/ZSU theory with the proofs dated to those times? There's no ZSU on the video and I have Alexander Geraschenko - an advisor to the Ukrainian Minister of Defense saying on camera the bombing related to the border guards base. Just as you said initially. https://rutube.ru/video/196b6fc4a2ee62f8c49e2187d3be4b75/  (01:17)
PS Or may be we just close this line of discussion? You stated your position, I stated mine - it's all too pointless to further this on.

Western vs. Eastern Ukraine - they hated the guts of each other long before the open conflict. Western Ukraine is under-developed, agrarian, low income, low education level, the populace is either tending the crops or working on menial jobs in other countries. Eastern Ukraine - lots of industry, higher education necessary for industry jobs, and income was times higher than in Western Ukraine. Similar to Northern and Southern Italy - there's no love lost between those two also - just way more open. And don't take me wrong it's not just Westerners hated Easterners, an average Eastern Ukrainian Joe from the street did consider himself superior to Westerners just as well.

Correct, the official version voiced by Ukrainian side was that the bombing was in connection with the border guards base that was surrounded and in lock down. The base was in the suburbs of Luhansk. Flying so low one can hardly mistake it for the very center of civilian city. Here's the video showing how the base looked like - one can judge for oneself if it looks like the center of the city from the first video. So Western Ukrainian side bombed the center of Luhansk. What Luhansk side did after they overrun the border guards base? They just let those guardsmen who didn't want to serve in local militia to pass to Ukraine unharmed.  

From the DPR, lousy music, cool home-brew MRL:
 

There was an anniversary of Luhansk bombing not so long ago. It might be enlightening on how deep the conflict between East and West of Ukraine goes. Western Ukrainian Su-25 bombs the very civilian center of Eastern city of Luhansk right in the middle of the day. 02.06.2014, there's no L/DNR yet Ukrainian Army was doing Shock and Awe against civilian population just in case.
Surveillance camera (bombing starts at 01:36)
View from the ground
Then-advisor to the Minister of Defense of Ukraine comments on the bombing. He confirms the bombing was done by Ukrainian plane and offers no excuse, just says it: "It was one slight movement of pilot's hand that led to negative consequences..." Says there's no reason to blame the pilot.
https://rutube.ru/video/196b6fc4a2ee62f8c49e2187d3be4b75/ (01:17)

Guidance helicopters VKS RF to strike at ISIS.
 

I was serving at that time, in Afghanistan. We didn't carry Carl Gs when/where I was but a tonne of LAWs to bust grape huts. I'll ask around.
Also 8 man section is absolute. Sometimes we were shorthanded, but most often not. Is the LAV commander considered a dismount?

I guess the answer is "probably because that's how the CF typically apportion their ammo". Very likely a question for the Canadian forces or someone who served in 2008.
The ammo load outs for various formations are usually taken from some documentation or first hand reports. Occasionally they have to make educated guesses. Anyone that has sources for different ammo load outs can report them.

The fact that the IS-2 was able to knock out tanks with HE-rounds during WW2 should serve as evidence of the power of large caliber high explosive shells, and especially coming from above and hitting the weaker top armor.   
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that a 47 kilogram (103 lb) M795 155mm projectile would just plink off a tank, even the mighty Abrams. Even if such a projectile wouldn't penetrate the armour, the sheer shock force should cause serious damage to subsystems and potentially cause internal pieces of equipment to become secondary projectiles, injuring or killing the crew.  

Oh  my mistake... looked a bit more carefully with unit quality and no use of the M1 w/grenade launcher.  I will bring this to TOE/BFC experts for an opinion.  Thanks for posting!

That's on a Springfield though. I think @AtheistDane is asking about grenade launchers on Garands. I have no idea what's intended and/or historically accurate, but I just ran through two US infantry Battalions for a May 1944 QB and I also didn't see a single Garand with a grenade launcher.

I found an interesting "scan" of a report from the 1960s about the protection steel plates provide against artillery shells. It can be found here:
http://tanks.mod16.org/2014/03/10/report-on-protection-from-fragments-from-he-ammunition/
Offers more... er.... ammunition on the debate on artillery's effectiveness against armored vehicles.
Also I believe @TheForwardObserver has posted the following article here before: ("Who Says Dumb Artillery Shells Can't Kill Armor?"
http://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo
Perhaps also of interest is the STANAG 4569 standards for armor protection - though it's not clear immediately what "protection" means in their definition - does it mean unlikely to penetrate or impossible?  Usually these kinds of standards documents have definitions to deal with this kind of clarity problem, but I didn't see anything.
https://www.unops.org/ApplyBO/File.aspx/4569eed02.pdf?AttachmentID=52d5a7b6-37ad-49bc-b18c-c468ea81787a
----
I wanted to start this thread to build a fact-based argument on how artillery performs in Combat Mission so we can continue to strive for accuracy in simulation (or something like that!).  I haven't had time to read the first report in detail, but I realize it may be limited in utility for the discussion on armored vehicles since it talks about steel armor only.
The big thing I've gathered here is the importance of fragments - and especially the variability.  This seems to be one of the things that's missing from CM.  Using the fragmentation density, we could construct a probability function of a fragment hitting a given area at any radius, and using data from tests like above we can also generate a distribution of penetrations.  In my mind, this (as far as I know) relatively simple method may be a good way of "simulating" fragmentation in-game, especially compared to the brute-force approach of just shooting fragments everywhere!
I'm a little too busy/tired during the week to really pursue this further, but I'd love to see what else we can dig up.  Hopefully this weekend I can put together some plots to show what I'm talking about.

I'm on 5th mission of russian campaign (Crossing the Dniepr), and the US tank from screenshot below basically halted my entire force. It was well hidden between two houses with a perfect view down the road I had to advance. I suspected that crossroad was well guarded, so I first shelled that area with 155mm heavily. I don't know if I hit it then, but that whole area took a lot of damage. After that, I sent a t-90 down the road and it got hit immediately and burst into flames. After that, I used infantry squads to spot it from the flank because I knew the approximate location. 
After pinpointing the exact location, I was able to call in artillery (point target) with my forward observers in church tower (they couldn't see the tank, but i was able to place a target on it). The US tank took several direct 155mm and 203mm hits (visible on screenshots) and all buildings around it were destroyed. I also used all my heavy helicopter ordnance on this guy (none of the guided missles were able to hit it, they all hit the ground or trees 30m away from the tank?!). He still managed to survive somehow.
At this point, I was basically out of heavy air and artillery rounds, so I sent two t-90s in hope they would spot him first, but it turned to catastrophe with both my tanks destroyed without even firing. 
How can this thing survive multiple 203mm rounds? Also, why did all my helicopter guided missles miss (even after artillery destroyed surrounding vegetation and buildings)? Also, briefing mentions precision artillery strikes, but all I have is point/area/linear with general/personell options. Are there guided artillery rounds in this game? Any tips on this situation?

There's been a lot of discussion about the poor effects of Russian PGMs in particular and artillery in general on AFVs, notably Abrams & Bradley.....A significant number of us agree entirely with the points you raise. 
That tank should be as dead as a dodo. 
Not after he's been pounded with heavy artillery he doesn't:
Trophy's protective shields wouldn't stop those fragments, the radar would be junk, the APS would OOS. 
Not to mention the concussion effects on the crew, assuming the tank weren't actually blown to bits.....Which it would be.
Yes, but don't waste your time.....Typically you'll immobilise it at best and strangely although all the sensors are often displayed as being trashed they never seem to be blinded or even significantly degraded in real terms. 
I've used nine 122mm precision munitions on a Bradley and it survived, still mobile and apparently fully functional, or sufficiently so for it to then defeat a T-90A (that knew exactly where it was) in a head on engagement immediately thereafter.
Utterly ridiculous.
 

Happy Armed Forces Day Everyone!