Thewood1

You are way out of the loop then.  ARMA 3 has been out for 6-7 years I think.  As an MP squad shooter, its good.  But as a combined arms tactical simulator, its very shallow.

The vehicle overviews are the best.

This has to be one of the weirdest debates I've seen on this forum.

Lethaface, thanks for that.  I actually didn't even look.  Last time I looked a couple years ago, it wasn't there.  Its probably why they are more vocal about it on the support forums now.  Myself and a couple others called out maybe five years ago that there no mention of it.  Thats good to see.

This has to be one of the weirdest debates I've seen on this forum.

This has to be one of the weirdest debates I've seen on this forum.

This has to be one of the weirdest debates I've seen on this forum.

This has to be one of the weirdest debates I've seen on this forum.

This has to be one of the weirdest debates I've seen on this forum.

Then BFC should state explicitly that they don't support Intel family GPUs.  Its basically what they are doing now, after the fact.

A huge time saver in Steel Beasts is holding shift down while plotting snaps the path to a road or path.  You can also specify a unit or formation stick to roads or move in covered advances.  All incredibly helpful.  I have always wished CM would have that capability.
 
edit:  Just to dig this hole a little deeper, in SB you can specify that a unit or group of units moves in close column on the road as well.  Again, just makes life simpler.

A huge time saver in Steel Beasts is holding shift down while plotting snaps the path to a road or path.  You can also specify a unit or formation stick to roads or move in covered advances.  All incredibly helpful.  I have always wished CM would have that capability.
 
edit:  Just to dig this hole a little deeper, in SB you can specify that a unit or group of units moves in close column on the road as well.  Again, just makes life simpler.

There is something screwed up in that scale.  The T-72 is smaller in all dimensions than an M1, but not that short in height and length.  Both CM and Steel Beasts shows maybe a foot shorter in length and less than a foot in height.  I'll track down measurements from somewhere else to confirm.
btw, there are some pretty messed up scales in the video.

But that doesn't mean reviewers can't say that the graphics is average and outdated.  That's what reviews are for.  They say the good with the bad.  As much as we all like playing CM, its not perfect.  There are people on this board who are hyper-sensitive to any form of criticism.  It hurts the credibility of this board across the gaming community.  When you have an entire thread dedicated to a discussion about a reviewer saying the graphics are outdated, it reinforces that point about hyper-sensitivity.  Its why people don't tend to believe players who frequent a company's own boards or fan sites.
If BFC doesn't want to focus on evolving the graphics, that's their decision to make.  But the reviews will mention that.  They'll also mention what deep and rewarding experience the game is.

Just for completeness...
https://www.wargamer.com/combat-mission/games
That's a pretty fair review.  Granted its not just CMSF2, but it gets coverage.  Very positive for wargamers, but dinged on the old patching process and average at best graphics.  I think that probably hits close to the truth.
I'm not sure there will be any crow eating from that review.  I would expect the writer to be excited about CMCW, with the same comments about graphics.

But that doesn't mean reviewers can't say that the graphics is average and outdated.  That's what reviews are for.  They say the good with the bad.  As much as we all like playing CM, its not perfect.  There are people on this board who are hyper-sensitive to any form of criticism.  It hurts the credibility of this board across the gaming community.  When you have an entire thread dedicated to a discussion about a reviewer saying the graphics are outdated, it reinforces that point about hyper-sensitivity.  Its why people don't tend to believe players who frequent a company's own boards or fan sites.
If BFC doesn't want to focus on evolving the graphics, that's their decision to make.  But the reviews will mention that.  They'll also mention what deep and rewarding experience the game is.

But that doesn't mean reviewers can't say that the graphics is average and outdated.  That's what reviews are for.  They say the good with the bad.  As much as we all like playing CM, its not perfect.  There are people on this board who are hyper-sensitive to any form of criticism.  It hurts the credibility of this board across the gaming community.  When you have an entire thread dedicated to a discussion about a reviewer saying the graphics are outdated, it reinforces that point about hyper-sensitivity.  Its why people don't tend to believe players who frequent a company's own boards or fan sites.
If BFC doesn't want to focus on evolving the graphics, that's their decision to make.  But the reviews will mention that.  They'll also mention what deep and rewarding experience the game is.

They shouldn't have been.  There were a number of people on the boards warning in the mid-2000s that OpenGL was a dying standard.  You could see it in the quality of the AMD and nVidia drivers and the announcements coming from those companies.  
They were blind-sided by the evolving libraries in OpenGL.  They were trying to cater to older Macs and PCs.  And again, they shouldn't have been.  They made the decision to continue supporting already outdated libraries and most likely had good reason to think the future would be kind to them.  X-plane kept evolving with OpenGL until recently and had some pretty good luck with it from a graphics perspective.  But they held on too long also.  Now they are going through what BFC will have to go through to get any further with a new engine.

I owned both Panzerblitz and Arab-Israeli Wars.  I used have those kinds of battles all the time.  It was tough to compare the various individual units because of platoon sizes.  But it was fun.
 
btw, the M48A5 had an attack value of 25 and defense of 15.  The Panther had 20 and 12.  The M48 came out OK.

Its not a bug as mush as its Win 10 not recognizing CM as a 3D game.  It happens in a lot of games on Steam and not on Steam.  Whenever I have issues with a new game's performance, I immediately check which GPU its using.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data
105mm L7: M728 APDS-T 2500 300 1426 1974 This is the U.S. designation for the UK 105mm L52 round. 105mm L7: M735 APFSDS-T 3000 410 1501 1978   105mm L7: M774 APFSDS-T 3000 440 1509 1980   105mm L7: M833 APFSDS-T 3000 490 1494 1983  
The bolds are penetration of RHAe (mm).  The fourth is intro year.

One thing about a bunch of the pre-90s books on the cold war is how off the knowledge of the true capabilities of Warsaw Pact armed forces some of them were.

All I can think of is if it worked, it would be on every vehicle that mounted a long range weapon.

I am not sold on that.  NATO and especially the Warsaw Pact forces planned for, trained for, and expected to have tactical level battles for breaching.  I know Steel Beasts, which is used for relatively detailed training by numerous armored forces, just released a version with more detailed engineering functions.  There was a debate on the boards from gamers about the necessity of investing in those functions.  The reply from former and existing military people was it is necessary and a critical part of combined arms operational and tactical combat, especially in Europe.  As you can see, they always had some detailed capabilities.  Mine clearing (MICLIC, plows, and engineers) was the basic one that has been in for years, but building scrapes on the fly and ditch crossing is relatively recent.
 
Engineering AFV building scrapes -
 
 
Breaching ditches -
 
 
Mine plows and mine clearing -
 
 
Explosive mine clearing (6 years old) -
 

According to Squadron/Signal's M1 book, In final development of the XM1, 105mm L7, UK 120mm, and German 120mm were tested in a benchmark.  The German gun was preferred and actually selected, but issues using the caseless ammo and some breech design issues had to be worked out.  M1 production was imminent enough that the 105mm was selected, but trunnion design was set to take the German 120mm.
So it wasn't cost that was the result of the 105mm selection, it was the 120mm cannon not being ready for US operations.  It took Rheinmetall anther year to work out the issues for use in the M1.  I'm sure that having a lot of 105mm ammo in war stocks also had an influence.  The short is that the M1 was originally designed to take the 105mm.  shortcomings in the Rheinmetall gun lad to the upgrade path being chosen.