Heirloom_Tomato

Hers a link to uncut version with analysis. 
 

Well, I’m 72, and if I have an M-14 or Civilian M1A, basically the same 7.62 or .308 rifle, if I can see a man, I can hit him. We qualified with it at 200, 300, and 500 yards. The only gating factor is if I can see him.

Well the first thing to remember when looking at UKR forces is that there are layers here.  Unlike the Russian forces who, for the most part, try to control where they are with LOCs back to Belarus or Russia, these are horizontal forces and relationships.
The Ukrainians have vertical forces and relationships in addition to horizontal ones.  So take any map of the conflict:

This one from wikipedia - So the interplay of red and yellow with tac signs is horizontal.  And from this it does look like the Russians are trying to do some operational pinching which would normally point to some trouble for the UA.  The reality is though that the map is really three dimensional.  Vertically there is a foundation of local and regional support and combat power in the form of an ever growing resistance (I hear a lot of western experts say "insurgency", I think I even used the term early once and this is inaccurate, a resistance is really something else from a lot of directions).  Further, for every day that the Russians bog down, that vertical resistance gets better armed, better organized and better prepared. 
So what?  Well from a Russian viewpoint that vertical layer underneath means two very bad things: support and friction.  Ukrainian force will be able to draw support from that layer in the form of manpower and logistics.  This means the Russians are now force to make those "pinches" air tight, which is extremely labour intensive.  For example, locals can push fuel and ammo into a pocket, through all the backroads and farmers fields, which they know very well, and continue to supply fighting power to seemingly cut off troops.  The level of control required for that is extreme, as the US learned in Vietnam.
Second is friction.  Having even low tech resistance everywhere is exhausting in terms of constant attrition and morale.  Every move you make is watched and reported on, every road move is like the freakin Memphis Bell mission over Germany - someone is going to get killed and we are all hoping it isn't us.  Logistical lines need to be iron-cladded.  And this will inevitably lead to over use of force on civilians which does nothing for the information war.   
So in this sense it is really hard to judge where the Ukrainians stand by using the pins on the mapboard.  They have already gone hybrid.  For example, how many major tank battles have we heard about?  There have no doubt been clashes but the Ukrainians are already fighting like Comanches with drones right now offensively and it is working for them.  Defensively, again layers, they can dig in and be very difficult to dig out, and even if you do, you still have a deeper resistance to deal with in the civilian population.
My assessment matches what we have been seeing all over mainstream.  The Russians have stalled...bad.  This was not a consolidation or re-org or clever trap, it was a significant stalling an a systemic level going all the way back through those LOCs.  The Ukrainians have created so much friction on the Russian advance that the war machine looks like it broke.  They are now staging local c-attacks and very visible attrition actions from what I can see. 
The question the remains is "can the Russians re-org/re-boot and somehow regain the operational offensive?" This, particularly around Kyiv.  Or are we going to see what I call "zombie muscle twitches" as formation commanders try and look busy to get the heat off them that is coming from Moscow?  These can even seem dramatic but they do not translate into any real operational gains.  Don't know, a lot of opinions out there for either side.
Few things I do notice:
- Russians are not even talking about Western Ukraine anymore.  If the aim was to take the whole perogy, Kyiv is more symbolic.  In order to do that "entire Ukraine" thing, one has to cut off support from the West.   Which really means that all this prom-night groping in the East - so sweaty but not really going nowhere - is missing the point entirely once we accept that Ukrainians will very likely keep on fighting both conventionally and unconventionally even after Kyiv falls.    Why there was not a very sharp attack from Western Belarus at what it the real strategic Center of Gravity in all this, Lviv, to seal up the western end of Ukraine, including the Carpathians, was the first sign that the Russians did not think this through.
- Operationally, the Russians have still not established pre-conditions and we are over two weeks in.  Air, info, electronic, cognitive/decision and logistical superiority have all been a hard fail.  For example, Russian Air Forces should be hitting logistical resupply from the west 24/7 - an air campaign for the history books- and they are largely tepid and absent.  They need to work on that or this grind is going to be much longer, to the point they very may well not be able to sustain.
- Operationally, the Ukrainians are not showing signs of buckling in all those pre-conditions areas. There is no doubt erosion but they still can find, fix and finish Russians and even do local offensive actions. All the while they coordinate and communicate effectively and are still able to push support in from the West as they get better and better prepared. 
So in summary, keep an eye on that vertical Ukrainian dimension because it is decisive and something needs to demonstrate the Russians are even able to set what should have been initial conditions and I may start to buy in on the "Russian Grind" strategy.  Until then we are at Balkan-No-Step, everyone digs in and tries to influence the negotiation table, or Death March to Moscow as the Russian military simply quits.  I mean the Russians do have the numbers for the Russian Grind but that is on paper and looking at the horizontal dimension only.  This is unfolding like a European version of that anecdote from Afghanistan, "Russians have all the fancy watches but the Ukrainians have all the time".      

So it is about 11 pm in Kyiv so let's summarize day 3 of this nasty bit of business.  If I miss anything feel free to jump in. [aside: people will recall when Iran shot down that Ukrainian airliner (just weird) how a bunch of internet nerds figured out where the shooter were before western intel did, well this little thread is doing one bang up job of intel analysis so I wanna try and capture that].
Caveat - this assessment is based on unclassified open source intelligence, much of it unverified or unverifiable at this time.
Strategic Level:  While the strategic causes of this military action by Russia remain vague and unconfirmed (i.e. I still have not seen a reason "why now" beyond "why not"), the overall most likely strategic objective is the total defeat of Ukraine as a nation, followed by installation of a puppet regime as a demonstration to NATO and western powers of Russian power in the region. 
The overall Russian strategy in this action was to overwhelm the Ukrainian forces quickly with a knockout blow aimed at Kyiv designed to break the will of Ukrainian resistance.  It appears that this objective was in a 48-72 hour window, other strategic objectives are largely unknow at this time (?).  One of the biggest strategic unknowns at this time is the overall will of the Russian people to continue to prosecute this war, current Russian leadership likely remain fully committed and short of a regime change will not likely voluntarily pull out.
Over the last 72 hours Europe and the West appear to have solidified their stance on this war with respect to increasing sanctions and military support to the Ukraine.  China and India remain two global powers who have not engaged in punitive measures against Russia, nor have they provided direct support to Ukraine. Another unknown at this time is whether Turkey will close the Black Sea to additional Russian maritime forces.  
It is clear that outside Russia, at least, Russia has not managed to control the strategic narrative for this war nor have dis/mis information campaigns been effective widening divisions in Western responses.  In fact the opposite appear to be true as this action has created unity in NATO and the European community, at least in the short term.
Operational Level:
- As of 72 hours into the war there is evidence that Russia has not achieved air superiority, information/cyber superiority, decision superiority or effectively eroded the Ukrainian infrastructure (military or civilian) or power centers of gravity at the operational or tactical level.  Russian advances on a multi-pronged assault have made modest gains however it appears that some lines of advance may have stalled. 
- Russian casualties are likely high (again very hard to get specifics) or at least higher than expected.
- There are indications that Russian logistical systems have failed in some locations, whether this is an indicator of isolated issues or a broader issue remains unknown.  Evidence of fuel shortages has been presented suggesting disruption in operational LOCs
- Russian forces are currently of questionable quality along some axis of advance at least based on captured POWs.  Further based on largely anecdotal evidence, it appears that Russia has not employed a form of Mission Command, nor really provided any detailed SA to some Russian tactical units (again based on POW interviews).
- Latest reports are that heavy concentrations of artillery are forming one the outskirts of Kyiv, which could signal a shift in strategy from a "knock out maneuver" toward a more "shock and awe" approach, or the Russians have essentially opted for an attritional approach to Kyiv at least. 
- Ukrainian forces have demonstrated a level of lethality and coordination beyond expectations of open source analysts and likely Russian planners.  How much of this is do to outside support and how much is due to Russian setback remains unclear.  
Tactical:
- Ukrainian forces have broadcast examples of both ambush and deep strike, the role of specific military capability remains vague.   The effectiveness next gen ATGM systems and MANPADs remains unknown but reported high armored vehicle casualties indicate they have been effective.
Overall Summary:  As of the first 72 hours of the war, it appears that the Russian military has overestimated its own capabilities and/or the capabilities of Ukrainian resistance and has not likely met the timelines it had set during pre-war planning.  The assessment is that the next 24-48 hours will be critical in the outcome of this war and if Russian forces are not about to take Kyiv and inflict some serious damage to the Ukrainian people's will, their own strategic center of gravity will become more vulnerable. 
Did I miss anything?  Seriously, jump in.

So this is interesting and in the spirit of the thread I am not going to make this personal.  Instead I think we have a fundamental failure to understand different perspectives.  I have no doubt at all we in the west do not fully understand the Russian/Putin perspective, hence why I think we are having such a reaction to all this, but this appears to cut both ways.
So, why this is very unreasonable:
- First, any western politician who accepts these terms will have a Neville Chamberlain meme tattooed to their forehead right until the next election cycle, so there is that.
- Next, the "rules" say that the only international body that can make dictates to a nation or group of nations is the UN itself via the UNSC...and it just got shot in the head (again) by a veto carrying nation.
- Further, the "rules" then state that the only nations that can or cannot "allow the US" or anyone else for that matter to exercise anywhere are the recognized sovereign nations that control those territories.  A third party nation, like Russia cannot dictate it for them, that is a violation of a state.  Same goes for "allowing" 15 nations to still support Ukraine - except the US and three "others" - again the only nation that can legally determine that is the Ukraine itself.  To even suggest this as a starting point is in effect negotiating how much sovereignty Russia can violate, which is "none" under the current international system.  This is akin to breaking into someone's house and negotiating what you can steal as "reasonable negotiation",
- But but, the US in Iraq.  I know this will come up and it definitely has some baggage; however, Iraq was a known and sanctioned rogue state that even though the global order did not like the US move, could live with it because the angels were not really on Saddam's side.  Russian cannot apply the same calculus here as neither the Ukraine or Baltic states are doing anything except exercising their own sovereignty in a manner that Russia does not agree with.  
- Again on the US. In '03 Canada said "nope, not in big guy" on the whole Iraq thing.  If you want a parallel between Russian and Ukraine, US and Canada is not a bad one (we even had a war way back).  Canada is in a lot of ways a satellite state to the US, so when we said "no", well there were a lot of hurt feelings and nasty rhetoric but we did not see ("or else") threats of military force if we did not support.  So what?  Russian actions before, during and no doubt after this whole thing are nowhere near accepted norms baseline and from that position this was always going to be a non-starter
 

I wish that this was all this was.  The "winning" international order, established after WW2 and outlasted the Soviet version, was a deal that we all agreed to, for the most part.  "The rules" were pretty simple, a community of nations will work to create stability and make money.  Sure we still have rogue states and random a##holes, but they were on the margins.  All the great powers largely agreed, particularly after the end of the Cold War to a "deal" that they would all behave like grown ups.  The problem was that the global pecking order did not sit well with some but we thought we could manage that.  And the rules got bent sometimes, we even tried to live with that.
This breaks the system at a fundamental level.  Russia has opted out, and Russia is not North Korea, or Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Or more bluntly, a global power with enough nuclear weapons to push us into a civilization re-set, just went rogue and dared the rest of us to do something about it.  

You took a one line statement from an entire video that mentioned no FDC and ran with it. That statement is not wrong, however, I explained why it needs some further explanation and context and should not just be taken as an absolute statement. There is no need at all for your snide and snarky comment. In fact, it's pretty damned rude and obnoxious.
There IS firing data to be calculated. It's done by the mortar platoon. They act as their own FDC.
Now you can believe that or not. I really don't care. I think I've made it quite clear in the past that *I* used to do this for a living. And if you wanted to you could even look up the field manual for the US mortar platoon (which covers 60mm, 81mm, 120mm) and you could read it for yourself all about how a mortar platoon is layed, how firing data is calculated, how it is applied to the mortars, instead of taking anyone's word for it, like mine, or the West Point guy who has 6 years active duty as a Combat Engineer officer and is teaching an intro class mentioning fire support. Combat Engineers are fantastic, but I'd submit his actual fire support experience is second hand. 
As for me - 10 years as a Field Artillery officer, including FIST Chief (which would include my mortar experience and contact), Battery Fire Direction Officer, Battalion Fire Support Officer, Field Artillery Battalion Asst. S-3 (Battalion Fire Direction Officer), and Brigade Fire Support Officer.  
I rest my case.
Dave
 

Why is CM great?  Good question to be honest.  But maybe the question should be "why is CM great, for me?"  Clearly there is a gaming population out there that love the franchise or it would have gone out of business years ago.
CM has its quirks and every game is an abstraction so I guess it all comes down to what gaming experience the player is looking for, and enjoys.  Lotta wargames out there that span the old school hex based, turn based "chess with guns", to the RTS click-heavy affairs.  CM, and a few other titles, kind fall right in the middle of the spectrum [aside: been seeing comments on micro-management in CM, yeesh try playing Steel Divisions 2].  It has a mid-level pace (WEGO slowest, RT quickest), low-tactical level scale (Bn and below for the most part). 
The issues that get raised in CM, spotting and unit behaviour tend to get the most ink, when these come up the first question we ask ourselves in the back "is this a feature or a bug".   First off, players need to re-visit "what they think should happen".  Pre-conceived notions drive a lot of the negative feedback which is to be expected and frankly if a player really does not like enough of them then one has to ask if "CM is for you?"  That said, we have a lot of veterans in the back room -the last 20 years has provided plenty of them- so when we analyze combat behaviour we do have people who can carry it over to RL.  So when a player asks:
I get the question but I can also tell that this person has never actually had effective fire pointed at them.  Green inexperienced troops may believe this and they do not live long enough to become "battle hardened".   An MG in a turret is an exposed position and once you start taking fire from multiple directions and incoming is bouncing off around you, battle hardened troops duck...fast.  Why?  Because at this point someone else's fire is all that will save you; veterans are veterans because they know when they are suppressed and know what to do.  There are times when you get off the X and shoot your way out and then there are times to get your head down and call for support, try very hard to avoid situations that lead to that first one.
CM has a lot of what I call "chaos features", at a micro level individual behaviour follows a set of standard rules but embedded in that is a level of chaos.  Units will cower at odd times, miss something right in front of them (trust me this happens in RL all the time) run away or not run away.  This chaos is the essence of tactical warfare. Atypical behaviour is the norm as combat is an atypical environment.  People crack, shock and fear have really strange effects.  It is that chaos that makes the game realistic.  I often say that many players do not want full "realism" because if they find the game frustrating at times now...
Why is CM great for me?  Well, I do enjoy the realistic tactical level but what always hooks me are the micro-dramas that pull one in.  That last Dragon missile, holding off that last T64, a crew, down to pistols, that hold out for just one more minute and that stupid APC that zigged when I told it to zag.  But every devotee to the brand probably has their own reason and hopefully the OP can find his/her own, if not, well then keep wargaming at least and thanks for trying.   

@brisbane I downloaded your file and it worked for me. I assume you have spaces between each word in your file? So the file name is special editor overlay? I also assume you know to go to "map" in the editor and press O to change the level of transparency?

If you have the 4.0 upgrade there is complete game installer in the 4.0 upgrade folder for each game. Download that large file and then use activate new products to enter in your keys. 

I wanted to remind that I'm giving away 3 CM games for Christmas. I will make a Discord offer https://discord.gg/Aggnw37g  for a fair chance to the entire CM community. The gift will be released on December 23rd so you can play on Christmas Eve. I will write a message to the chosen people.
Merry Christmas and God's blessings!

Here's a great video by @Hapless explaining how PBEM works.  Check out his channel for great CM content in general and lots of newbie stuff in particular.
 

Well thanks, but archives are my happy place. 🤓

And I am posting a link to how it is really done.
 

Semmes
Some how your attitude seems to be more about complaining about aspects of the game that you dont think does a very good job as to being realistic. 
And to tell you the truth, I agree that many of the items on your list the game does do poorly, there is other things that I have no clue as to why you are complaining.
But you need to understand, complaining is not going to get people to take your comment seriously.
You need to discuss your reasons  with some logical facts that show how the game if falling short and then also its helpful as to suggestions as to how to make it better.
You did try that with pistols at the start of the discussion, but you only evidence was that of the work of another player that you could not explain as to what he had done to get his numbers.
Once it was looked at, still does not show a issue that seems to need addressing. 
So then you went on to attack every thing you dont like about the game.
Lets talk about a few.
Units not taking cover (which I agree, the animation in the game does not show men going for cover as fast as you would exspect if it was a real person in the same situation. (could it be improved, sure would be nice, up to the programmers to ever improve it)
AI pathing issues, all units are subjected to this, not just trucks.  No question, sometimes when the AI takes over the pathing instead of leaving it in players hands it does a terrible job as to what it decides on. (could it be improved, sure would be nice, up to the programmers to ever improve it) My last view of this was a AA truck I had as a key unit deciding to ignore my commands and I watch it drive onto a foot bridge and get stuck for the rest of the game.
Ai use of Arty, yes this is a weak point in the game programming and has been a known weakness for a very long time. (could it be improved, sure would be nice, up to the programmers to ever improve it)
Suppression has been discussed many times on the forum, again is it perfect, no. I think it is been shown pretty clearly that units recover from it way to fast compared to what it would be like in real life. But then again, everything in the game is happening way faster than it does in real combat. So how do you fix that and what is the correct fix. First, its a game and the blasted thing is already slow and boring as far as I am concerned. I sure dont want to make it more realistic so that it takes me twice as long to play and just that much more boring. but a discussion as to what is appropriate times for suppression should and could still be helpful for improving the game. How long should the effects likely last?
As for the comment that the AI is targeting certain important units (Leaders and MG"S and such) maybe it is and if I was the programmer, I would have designed it to do it also. Becase in real life, it sure is done. So the question should be is it programmed in the game and do we have evidence that the incorrect units are taking and using the programming in its targeting. The only units that should have it programmed into them is when its a person looking down a sight and the enemy is close enough that they can tell who is the high priority target. But presently, I dont see anything that sticks out as being unrealistic, and that is again after just finishing a game where my MG's were consistantly the first or second man to go down in almost every fire fight. But in my view they should be. And guess what, I still kick the enemies butt, because I overwelmed them with fire power and I recrewed those MG's with other men and almost evey MG I had is still in the game and is working. Just as I was trained to do in real life.
 
So just stop with the attitude and stop trying to act like you are the victom, you came to troll, if you want to make some real effort to discuss ways to improve one of these aspects, great.
But we have seen the list of why the game is just a game and how the hell are we accepting the fact it is not perfect to the list makers standards. it gets old. because guess what. because its a game and its not going to be perfect, ever, do you understand. ever.
But good discussions, might, just might get the programming gods to think about improvements if there is enough factors that can show the value of doing it.
 

Here are two examples of the complete data. The numbers give the measured probability (in %) of spotting a Pz IVH as a full contact in a single spotting event. Flat ground, grass, clear weather, midday. The first one is for a typical tank, the other one is for an open top tank destroyer. I would say that in both cases the effect of buttoning up (or lack thereof) is consistent at all ranges. For the SU-76M, there is a noticeable penalty to the sides and rear when buttoned up, but not in the ahead direction.
Left half = opened up, right half = buttoned up
T-34-85:

 
SU-76M:

T-34-76 (M1942 Late) - special for @chuckdyke

 

Cheers, this is actually a good time to get bumped.
I have been working on the spotting problem, but I got a bit too ambitious and it is going to take some time before I have a complete piece of work to show.
I have set up a test scenario with one vehicle in the middle and 49 enemy Panzer IVs placed around it at 12 to 6 o'clock positions, 200 to 1400 meters (in 200m intervals). The game runs for up to 7 seconds for me to see what contacts does the vehicle at the center see on the first spotting event, as a solid contact. Repeat 10,000 times and calculate the probability of seeing each of the enemy Panzer IVs.
I can replace the vehicle in the middle and measure the spotting ability of different vehicles. I keep all the data but only take those at 12 and 1 o'clock positions and convert them to a single number, which is easier to interpret. I call this number "spotting rating" and make it relative to Panzer IVH.
So, a Regular Panzer IVH with hatches open has a spotting rating of 100. And a tank that has spotting rating 105 can see, roughly, 5% better than a Panzer IVH. Note that it depends on distance quite a bit, but that would make things too complicated for a quick comparison.
Results so far (opened up / buttoned up):
Pz IVH (late): 100 / 27 Pz VD (late): 104 / 29 Pz VA (mid): 109 / 39 Sherman, no cupola: 109 / 35 Sherman, with cupola: 110 / 39 Sherman VC Firefly: 105 / 28 M10: 220 / 217 T-70M: 89 / 17 T-34-76 (M1942 early): 97 / 21 T-34-76 (M1942 late): 95 / 25 T-34-85: 106 / 36 IS-1, IS-2: 101 / 26 Valentine: 100 / 24 SU-76M: 212 / 211 SU-85, SU-122: 95 / 16 SU-85M, SU-100: 95 / 18 ISU-122, SU-152, ISU-152: 104 / 29 SU-57: 252 / 248 You can see there are two categories: fully enclosed vehicles and open-topped vehicles. The open-topped ones (M10, SU-57, SU-76M) spot more than 2x better than fully enclosed ones and do not suffer their ~3x spotting penalty when buttoned up.
A quick takeaway - if you are trying to get an spotting advantage by forcing the enemy M10 commander to duck inside, don't. It is not much help. The same will probably apply to Marders, Archers and the like.
Even at 10,000 trials there still are statistics involved, for instance I don't think the T-34 M1942 late should have a lower spotting ability than M1942 early when opened up.
Everything is automated, of course, with minimum time and effort required on my part. I just collect the results and set up a new test. Computer time is my bottleneck.

The translation is way off ...
Him:  'See anything?'
Her:  'No love'
Him:  'Are you sure ... we're being fired at ...'
Her:  'I can't see sh1t'
Him:  'Well something's out there.'
Her:  'What do you f*****g think this is - Steel Beasts?'
 

It was a faction of the Sicilian Mafia whose leader was a Combat Mission fan who put up the cash for Fortress Italy as he wanted to play a game set in his homeland. He was a really good player, proving "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line" !
 
 

Thank goodness for that. I hate subscription software - except for things that are actually services (like file sharing, web hosting, email stuff that actually has running costs).
I have dumped companies when they moved to subscription only. Having said that there would be no where for me to go if you guys decided to do that but I would *HATE* it if you did. ;D

I think this might go beyond "strategy" and deeper into personal philosophy.  Try not coming across as a rude troll, for a start.  This is our house and "no" you cannot comment on anything you like...try it and see how fast this thread gets locked up and you facing a ban.  
I am not a "CM homer" (seriously how that poor name got dragged through the mud us beyond me and a testament to a big problem of our time.  How one of the greatest writers of all time got that name hijacked by a yellow cartoon character makes me cringe)...I am a CM "owner".  Bil, myself and Cpt Miller, with BFC and some outstanding beta-testers built this floor of the house and frankly I find it offensive when someone comes here to promote an outside game while denigrating ours.  I would never think of, and would condemn in the strongest terms, anyone going over to the SB forums (or any other wargame forum) and exhibit this same behavior.
CM is not perfect, no wargame can ever really achieve that, but it is the best in the niche it has (my opinion) and we are going to work very hard at keeping that up.  Go play SB, hell after all this talk I am getting tempted to really go try it out...it looks like a good game and I wish them all the luck the angels of heaven can spare.  Wargaming is a niche market so anyone playing anything is a win for all of us working in it but, for the love of all that is good and righteous, try not to be a rude jerk about it....the internet has enough of those already.

You look at two SU76's at 250 meters and people think that CM is not realistic in spotting. Just turn of the icons and be honest with yourself. I exposed the shadows in post processing. They are actually more visible now. Spotting is at the first instance done with the naked eye. If you look through binoculars without knowing what you're looking for you suffer tunnel vision aka legally blind. Your C2 is important in other words a lone AFV is unlikely to spot anything. 

Still gathering my forces but we're close to kicking off the assault. Some screenshots to whet your appetite!




MMM
 

I'm guessing John has taken down his links.  Do you see what I did there 😄?

The Seventeenth and Eighteenth Minutes
KG LINKS
The dismounts start to cross the field leading to the trees and buildings in the distance. They're using successive bounding overwatch to move across the field with the HTs as a base of support fire on the road.

One HT moves onto the highway to take up an overwatch position.


A view from above. 2nd squad is hugging the fence and advancing through the trees, 1st squad is much more exposed and I'm expecting them to draw some fire first. Once they get about half way up this field though they'll be in defilade from the buildings.

KG ZENTRUM
The probe continues toward NAI3, scouts out front.

KONTACT! As expected he has at least one unit on the hill at NAI3. It's an AT rifle team, which makes me more certain that that's what fired at them on the northern approach a few minutes ago before withdrawing. Looks like Grunt is using them as a piquet line, which makes sense given he'll be expecting my force to be mechanized. I can't get too close to these things with my Hanomags as they can do some damage even at a distance.

The situation from above. The scout team will now stop and see if they can identify any other units on the hill, they don't appear to have been spotted by the AT rifle team. The squads will wheel around to the trees on the right and try and advance a bit to see if they can spot any other units.
The mortar fire continues to fall, but not near my troops. It's definitely an area fire mission.

KG RECHTS
The dead and wounded are still being tended to so the scout team pushes on through the woods to get to the South side and get eyes on the farm to the West.

I'm bringing two HTs up to the edge of the treeline to cover the open ground to the left...

when this appears in the distance. As 2nd squad/A team tend to their dead comrade another AT rile team comes walking out of the trees and they get the spot.

They lose contact briefly and then re-acquire (they were HUNTing this time) and send some lead his way.

The situation from above. The AT riflemen moving forward is interesting. He must know I've got at least one HT and probably a platoon of infantry given how much fire his sniper took so unless he thought he had a covered route to try and get a sneaky shot at one of my HTs I'm not sure why he'd move them through such an open area. Perhaps he just wanted to get eyes on now his sniper is dead. At turns end one of the HTs I was moving up gets the spot too and is aiming. I'll make sure his frontal armour is facing in that direction.

SITMAP

MMM