panzersaurkrautwerfer

I've defeated T-90s frontally.
 
With my GI Joe kung fu grip.  
 
True story.  I am not making this up.  I am not at all a kind of biased source.

I've defeated T-90s frontally.
 
With my GI Joe kung fu grip.  
 
True story.  I am not making this up.  I am not at all a kind of biased source.

Russians are too good at history to hand the US a bloody shirt to wave.  The one way to ensure the US keeps doing what it's doing, only LOUDER AND MORE ANNOYING is to tell it to stop.
 
A better solution would be simply "OH NO WE ARE DEFEATED BY THE UKRAINE!"  and drawing down very loudly and openly then waiting two or three weeks for the US to get distracted by Kayne West again before going right back to arming the rebels.  American ADHD is by far more powerful than clumsy threats.  

I've defeated T-90s frontally.
 
With my GI Joe kung fu grip.  
 
True story.  I am not making this up.  I am not at all a kind of biased source.

When I was a Company Commander, I usually stuck my tank with whatever element needed either the support (least experience platoon leader), or was the main effort.  I'd have done the same thing in combat, basically it's a matter of putting yourself where you imagine you will be most needed.  I put the XO either with the trains, or if it was a split operation like one of the platoons was going to be setting an attack by fire from a position a few KMs from where the rest of the company was, I'd spin him off to help keep an eye on those guys.  
 
Basically it helped to have someone on the ground who was making sure the various subordinate units were all dancing to the Company set of music.  
 
In CMBS I tend to follow the same pattern with where I stick the Commander and the XO.  When it's a AFV type unit (tanks or brads) I tend to push the vehicles forward with the platoons (but not the lead vehicle).  Dismounted is usually the same pattern, although I'm not as aggressive pushing those teams as their firepower isn't a major contributor to the fight.  Platoon leadership is always right with the rest of the platoon though.

I was a bit spooked to hop on this forum and to find the amount of people on here I'd have to call "sir" if I ran into them at work.
 
In terms of weapons, a lot of it depended on the unit and what it was doing.  Late war units of all sorts tended to acquire what they found more useful vs what they were assigned.  I know a lot of US units started to take on a sort of gypsy appearance, with some squads having as many as three BARs vs the one assigned, or many soldiers scooping up MP-40s, loose M3s from broken vehicles for "close encounters."  NCOs and officers were no exception, and you wind up with all sorts of personal weapons choices given increasingly they were the veterans who'd survived the last battle.    
 
In terms of why officers wind up with them it's twofold:
 
1. The Sten, and M1 carbine were both handed out to leaders because they often were carrying additional equipment like smaller radios, maps, signals equipment, binoculars etc, and a smaller lighter weapon would be preferred.
 
2. Officers are not "not supposed to fight" but their greater contribution is in commanding and controlling the fight, so basically if they can get away with it, they're on coms, they're moving from position to position to get better situation awareness, basically serving as the higher brain functions for their units.  If they're in a fight though, it's likely because the enemy is now in the 50-100 meter range though and things are bad.  An SMG or carbine is a good tool for making the enemy go back to the 100-200 meter range, or being the winner in a fight against an enemy infantryman with his bolt action that has closed to your position.  
 
My granddad carried a former US Post Office Thompson (the M1928 I think the one with the drum) through Guadalcanal because it was the sort of thing that you could lay into the jungle to get breathing space so he could get back to NCOing.  If I recall right he wound up with a standard M1 Thompson through Tarawa, and then used a carbine for the rest of the war post-"Hey SSG Panzersaurkrautwerfer, we're out of 2LTs.  So uh, congratulations 2LT Panzersaurkrautwerfer!" 

NATO ROE will likely be a lot less restrictive than folks are giving it credit for.  Some things might be on restricted target lists like, national treasures/things important to Ukraine's functionality as a country level industrial locations, but anything else would likely be fair game.   Even then the restricted sort of targets likely would be "do not bomb without confirmation of targets of military nature" vs "do not bomb, even if it's crawling with Russians!" sort of ROE.  In a full spectrum sort of conflict there's a much higher expectation of damage, and a much higher value on destruction of enemy forces.
 
Also worth noting that NATO would be in the Ukraine at the permission of the Ukrainian government, and likely with no small amount of popular support from ethnic Ukrainians (as the separatist movement is top to bottom ethnic Russian outside of the actual Russian passport holders within).  People will be upset the local church did not survive the fight, but they will be happier they're no longer about to become part of the people's republic of Russiastan or whatever it calls itself these days.  This underwrites a much more aggressive military targeting behavior.  

Right now all that's been spotted for sure has been T-72B3s in terms of what's in game.  The Oplots and T-64 derivatives are all present in some form or the other right now, although the more advanced Ukrainian tanks might be around in single digit numbers vs in common use.  
 
 
Yep.  They're still off map support.  Realistically most air insertion forces wouldn't be dropping off so close to hostile forces, and especially with the sort of anti-aircraft assets are in CMBS, an Osprey wouldn't be putting itself so close to the frontline.  

When I was a Company Commander, I usually stuck my tank with whatever element needed either the support (least experience platoon leader), or was the main effort.  I'd have done the same thing in combat, basically it's a matter of putting yourself where you imagine you will be most needed.  I put the XO either with the trains, or if it was a split operation like one of the platoons was going to be setting an attack by fire from a position a few KMs from where the rest of the company was, I'd spin him off to help keep an eye on those guys.  
 
Basically it helped to have someone on the ground who was making sure the various subordinate units were all dancing to the Company set of music.  
 
In CMBS I tend to follow the same pattern with where I stick the Commander and the XO.  When it's a AFV type unit (tanks or brads) I tend to push the vehicles forward with the platoons (but not the lead vehicle).  Dismounted is usually the same pattern, although I'm not as aggressive pushing those teams as their firepower isn't a major contributor to the fight.  Platoon leadership is always right with the rest of the platoon though.

Or the player should have reasonable cues that the enemy will arrive "somewhere" vs "anywhere" 

Or the player should have reasonable cues that the enemy will arrive "somewhere" vs "anywhere" 

NATO ROE will likely be a lot less restrictive than folks are giving it credit for.  Some things might be on restricted target lists like, national treasures/things important to Ukraine's functionality as a country level industrial locations, but anything else would likely be fair game.   Even then the restricted sort of targets likely would be "do not bomb without confirmation of targets of military nature" vs "do not bomb, even if it's crawling with Russians!" sort of ROE.  In a full spectrum sort of conflict there's a much higher expectation of damage, and a much higher value on destruction of enemy forces.
 
Also worth noting that NATO would be in the Ukraine at the permission of the Ukrainian government, and likely with no small amount of popular support from ethnic Ukrainians (as the separatist movement is top to bottom ethnic Russian outside of the actual Russian passport holders within).  People will be upset the local church did not survive the fight, but they will be happier they're no longer about to become part of the people's republic of Russiastan or whatever it calls itself these days.  This underwrites a much more aggressive military targeting behavior.  

They are indeed increasing spending greatly, however it's part of a vast overhaul of the military.  It's not exactly "more" in the sense that now there's even more military capability, as much as it's replacing stuff that's now hopelessly broken and obsolete, or standing up new forces that are better adjusted to operate post 1995 or so.  Russia had some very bad years in defense spending and procurement, and it still has a fair way to go.  To that end again it's doubtful Russia could fight a full spectrum conflict in the Ukraine, take the Baltic states, keep NATO from attacking Kaliningrad in 2017.  A full spectrum fight in the Ukraine, and sort of a deterrence presence elsewhere  is about what it can reasonably carry out (and honestly about what NATO can manage too on short notice).  
 
The CMBS scenario basically assumes no one really wanted a war in the Ukraine, but through a comedy of errors it occurred anyway.  It stands to reason Russia isn't playing to restablish control over Eastern Europe (as a "win" in Estonia or something would unleash the sort of international crapstorm that would at best make Russia a even more of a pariah state, at worst, mean another conventional war some day in the future, and full NATO response).  NATO certainly isn't planning victory parades through Kursk following the restoration of Konigsburg or whatever.  Ukraine just wants its eastern parts back.  
 
I think it's important to separate what's going on now from a continuation of the last cold war, to a new cold war with different players, realities and playing pieces.  Assuming because there's war the long dead Red Army will surge forth astride it's mothballed T-80 fleet, reconquer through Poland and then take Berlin is neglecting the actual Russian actions, goals, intentions and capabilities, and instead simply trying to view the world through 1980's glasses again.

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

GSR isn't a magic eyeray that sees through all things.  It's pretty easy to confuse, and on a battlefield there is a lot of terrain between the emitter and the possible targets.  It is not useless by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not like press button and on the screen the location of all enemy tanks within the claimed effective range appears.  
 
It's the same sort of logic that made the US Army buy up a million LRAS3 type systems, and the same unfortunate reality in terms of the tyranny of lines of sight, target fidelity, and the reality that most military forces avoid the wide open spaces that favor sensor-centric warfare.  
 
So to elaborate on my earlier comment, in a world filled with sensor contacts that are both targets, and not targets, ground based radar is good at telling you where things are vs not.  It's marginal at discriminating between targets, and still totally subject to LOS issues.  It can shoot at the maybe targets, but again its not good at bulldozer vs tank, and it is just as bad as every other optic at seeing behind terrain.  

Outside of some of the more advanced bustle type autoloaders, manual loading remains faster.   
 
 
The game somewhat artificially boosts lethality in that it has two forces collide until unambiguous destruction, or especially when fighting the AI, an enemy with predictable behaviors/individual units require more love to do smart things.  If tank gets smoked from unseen locations, most commanders are not going to feed the rest of their company right into the same engagement area because maybe it won't happen again?
 
On topic
 
ATGMs offer two basic advantages:
 
1. Smaller "footprint" than a gun, allowing for mounting on a wider range of vehicles
2. Superior performance at very long range
 
ATGM only vehicles are most useful when you can best utilize that standoff provided by point two.  Where that gets fuzzy is Russian sensor systems have never been quite comparable to western platforms, so it's a bit of being a sniper with a 2x scope.  The fidelity on ground based radars has never been especially good, they're much better at letting you know there's a thing out there somewhere vs there is a certain kind of thing, and here it is with fidelity.
 
So to that end the Khizantema is a great tool in controlling open, fairly unobstructred terrain with good visibility conditions.  It is something you need to make a special plan to employ properly at closer ranges though, especially given the imbalance between Russian-US spotting capabilities, and in environments with decent cover and concealment something you might almost be better off ditching in favor of gun equipped systems or dismounted AT teams.  

I'm of the mind that US ground forces in Germany and Italy are a waste of time and resources.  Poland is closer to where they might be needed, less restrictive training areas, and a by far more permissive political environment.  Germany is a good place for a lot of the super-rear echelon stuff but the bad guys aren't hanging around Leipzig any more, it's time forces adjust accordingly.  

Here's what came with all of those packages:
 
1. Egypt actually license produces the export model M1s, which rather makes them something easier to maintain
2. Saudi Arabia's fleet is almost 100% supported by western contractors due to lack of qualified local personnel.  It also falls into the whole Arab-standard "if I own this fancy piece of western equipment, then I am as good as the western military that uses it!" mentality than lends itself to purchasing equipment it cannot use, or support in the long run.  They also have a lot of money to throw at the tanks
3. Kuwait is mini-Saudi Arabia in this regard.
4. Iraqis believe in their heart of hearts they'd have killed every American and been able to fight all the way to liberate Jerusalem if only they had better equipment in 1991.  They bought the M1 because they believe it somehow made Iraqi tankers better vs was just something else for them not to maintain.  It also came with a full-on US Army established and for a long time, manned armor crewman school.  They also had money (abliet US aid money) to throw at the tanks.  
5. Australia is conveniently located at that Venn diagram point in which Australian desire for a new tank line up with the US strategic focus shift to Asia.   
 
Absolutely none of those were countries in the middle of a conflict with little to no practical US ground presence, no training mission, no industrial means to produce spaces, or not at all much money to buy its way out of problems.  
 
If there was going to be a western tank dropped into the Ukraine it'd be some manner of Leo 2 model, as there's a fair number of those on the market, and a decent number of sources for spares (and despite German disinterest in the conflict, the number of now mothballed Leo 2s outside the country, or in the hands of folks who don't seriously keep up tank fleets is fairly high).  On the other hand most of the US tanks in storage have the advanced armor arrays that 100% will not be exported until it's rendered obsolete by phased plasma cannons and proton shields or whatever.
 
And that's still going really far out on a limb.  The most likely situation is stimulating internal production as that's much less training mission/non-Ukrainian standard equipment reliant, some sort of former Soviet design from outside the country (again Polish refurbed T-72s seem like a good choice).  The best solution for a tank producing country isn't to drop a tank they don't produce on them, it's to help them make more of their own tanks (and the Oplot is nothing to sneeze at).
 
So yeah.  Can we talk about a more likely sort of aid vs the crazytown stuff?
 
ATGMs seem like a given.  Especially ATGMs of unverifiable origin (Israel is great for stuff like that).  Also a large push to get the Ukrainian Air Force back to strength wouldn't be a bad choice, what's killing it now is lack of functioning airframes.  This is exactly the sort of thing Uncle Sugar could handle with buying up every loose MIG spare part, and writing paychecks for either Ukrainian mechanics, or other former-Warsaw Pact maintainers to go in and overhaul the stuff grounded for serviceability issues.    

Dude.  You're both diming him out for not being precise enough about a system that might or might not do anything at this point, while using the lack of concrete information to speculate on capabilities that might be beyond merely an upgraded Arena system.
 
Either way imagine the sensor portion of intercepting a very steep angle missile might be the bigger trick