wee

I'm reminded of M60A2 'Starship' with the Shillelagh missile system. Minimum range was a staggering 730m and max range was only 2000m. imagine trying to use that vehicle on a CM map! 

Noticed that too,  it's Makarov ammo. Looking like a mistype.

Pardon my possible ignorance, but when looking Ukranian infantry squad unit roster, there's listed 9.25mm ammo, usually 48 rounds in the squad? Being quite familiar with russian origin small arms, I've never heard of such ammunition. 
 
Possible typo, meaning 9x18mm Makarov ammo? 6x8 = 48 -> six 8 round magazines in the squad?

Pardon my possible ignorance, but when looking Ukranian infantry squad unit roster, there's listed 9.25mm ammo, usually 48 rounds in the squad? Being quite familiar with russian origin small arms, I've never heard of such ammunition. 
 
Possible typo, meaning 9x18mm Makarov ammo? 6x8 = 48 -> six 8 round magazines in the squad?

What Holman said.  But I like the way you think.  Maybe Combat Mission Fulda Gap 1985!  or even CMFG set in 1986.  I'm not picky.   

Pro-Moscow militia are the number 1 on my wishlist for CMBS.
 
French and German troops would be interesting additions especially since we didn't have France in shock force.
 
Maybe some more elite units for Russians? They seem to be rather mid-tier troops in comparison to US forces which have all the newest and fanciest equipment available. Maybe GRU Spetsnaz to support the pro-Moscow militia? They would have some really interesting equipment like VSS Vintorez.
 
@dams-fr: deploying mines and dropping specials forces wouldn't make sense in the scale of CM missions. "Silent weapons" are already kind of included in the game if you mean suppressors. Mk. 21 snipers for US have them (but suppressors don't really matter that much in reality).

It is not just the rifle that makes a weapon deadly, it is the guy who holds it! Give a civillian who has never before held a weapon in his hands an AK-47, set it to full auto and let him pull the trigger. Chances are high that he shoots himself in the foot.

No, since the weapons being used in Eastern Ukraine would (85% or more) be right at home during the late Soviet-Afghanistan War period.

Depends on the army. The chances of getting killed during Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Desert Storm was significantly lower for US soldiers than it was for the iraqis: during Iraqi Freedom, from 20 March 2003 – 1 May 2003, the Coalition suffered approximately 170 fatalities while defending iraqi troops suffered approximately 30.000 combat deaths. That is a kill/death ratio of 176, which is incredibly in favor of the coalition forces.
 
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Excellent point.
 
I think the effectiveness of ATGMs is little overrated in this topic and limitations are left little outside the discussion (haven't red all the replies yet though).
 
1. ATGMs. If deadly to targets, also deadly for operators. Especially older wire-guided systems. Operator needs to have good and unobstructed LOS  to the target, and this means that target can also see the ATGM team. Relatively slow missile,  needs to be guided to the target during the flight and this means that countermeasures against the ATGM team will be a serious threat. Lose the team and the missile will most likely miss. Missiles could also be evaded if the range is long and the missile is slow.
 
If I remember right, average calculated/estimated life expectancy of Finnish ATGM team in combat (equipped with older wire guided missiles) will be less than one minute.
 
2. ATGMs and vegetation. Using wire guided ATGMs in area with heavy vegetation is a no-go most likely. You need to have unobstructed clear and good LOS to the target. If the wire will get grabbed to the tree, branch or bush, the wire might snap off and the missile turns into a rocket. Operator will lose the control of the missile. 
 
Fire-and-forget systems and especially top attacking missiles might be more useful, but I doubt that heavily vegetated areas, especially forests with thick vegetation and/or high trees will be problematic even to highly sophisticated top attacking missiles. Not only to protect the target, but also making the launch of the missile and flight in trajectory obstructed.
 
3. LAWs. Effectiveness against tanks increases in heavily vegetated areas and especially forests. More concealment and cover and better ambush possibilities for tank-hunter teams, just like in urban areas. Expect to need up to 4 to 6 hits with lighter LAWs to knock out modern MBT. LAWs are also effective especially if used with antitank mines. Finnish tactics emphasis a strong combined use of mines and LAWs. Immobilize with mines and shoot stationary targets with LAWs to maximize the possibility of hits. Avoid shooting frontal arcs, always look for sides and rear. Actually, nothing new with this tactic since WW2.

Excellent point.
 
I think the effectiveness of ATGMs is little overrated in this topic and limitations are left little outside the discussion (haven't red all the replies yet though).
 
1. ATGMs. If deadly to targets, also deadly for operators. Especially older wire-guided systems. Operator needs to have good and unobstructed LOS  to the target, and this means that target can also see the ATGM team. Relatively slow missile,  needs to be guided to the target during the flight and this means that countermeasures against the ATGM team will be a serious threat. Lose the team and the missile will most likely miss. Missiles could also be evaded if the range is long and the missile is slow.
 
If I remember right, average calculated/estimated life expectancy of Finnish ATGM team in combat (equipped with older wire guided missiles) will be less than one minute.
 
2. ATGMs and vegetation. Using wire guided ATGMs in area with heavy vegetation is a no-go most likely. You need to have unobstructed clear and good LOS to the target. If the wire will get grabbed to the tree, branch or bush, the wire might snap off and the missile turns into a rocket. Operator will lose the control of the missile. 
 
Fire-and-forget systems and especially top attacking missiles might be more useful, but I doubt that heavily vegetated areas, especially forests with thick vegetation and/or high trees will be problematic even to highly sophisticated top attacking missiles. Not only to protect the target, but also making the launch of the missile and flight in trajectory obstructed.
 
3. LAWs. Effectiveness against tanks increases in heavily vegetated areas and especially forests. More concealment and cover and better ambush possibilities for tank-hunter teams, just like in urban areas. Expect to need up to 4 to 6 hits with lighter LAWs to knock out modern MBT. LAWs are also effective especially if used with antitank mines. Finnish tactics emphasis a strong combined use of mines and LAWs. Immobilize with mines and shoot stationary targets with LAWs to maximize the possibility of hits. Avoid shooting frontal arcs, always look for sides and rear. Actually, nothing new with this tactic since WW2.

Givi's situation reports from the Donetsk airport are fun to watch.
 
I start to giggle like little girl every time he or his subcommanders start to comment Ukranian forces. They are described like Germans in old Dirty Dozen movies, and in the other hand like Spielberg's title Saving private Ryan.
 
They are either stupid, poorly trained and motivated, and can't stand to the "real men of separatist forces" in a real and honest man-to-man fights. And always killed like flies in huge numbers. Only time when Ukranian forces prevail are situations where they use unfair advantage of superior firepower or manpower and "unfair" methods of fighting like snipers, boobytraps and mines.
 
Some other situations they are described as "bandits and rogues" or nearly as cannibal child eaters who get satisfied only, when they destroy civilian targets and kill, abuse and torture helpless civilian population. 
 
I'm quite sure that things ain't that simple. So naive propaganda, who the hell even believes that?  

Givi's situation reports from the Donetsk airport are fun to watch.
 
I start to giggle like little girl every time he or his subcommanders start to comment Ukranian forces. They are described like Germans in old Dirty Dozen movies, and in the other hand like Spielberg's title Saving private Ryan.
 
They are either stupid, poorly trained and motivated, and can't stand to the "real men of separatist forces" in a real and honest man-to-man fights. And always killed like flies in huge numbers. Only time when Ukranian forces prevail are situations where they use unfair advantage of superior firepower or manpower and "unfair" methods of fighting like snipers, boobytraps and mines.
 
Some other situations they are described as "bandits and rogues" or nearly as cannibal child eaters who get satisfied only, when they destroy civilian targets and kill, abuse and torture helpless civilian population. 
 
I'm quite sure that things ain't that simple. So naive propaganda, who the hell even believes that?  

I like your style.

Givi's situation reports from the Donetsk airport are fun to watch.
 
I start to giggle like little girl every time he or his subcommanders start to comment Ukranian forces. They are described like Germans in old Dirty Dozen movies, and in the other hand like Spielberg's title Saving private Ryan.
 
They are either stupid, poorly trained and motivated, and can't stand to the "real men of separatist forces" in a real and honest man-to-man fights. And always killed like flies in huge numbers. Only time when Ukranian forces prevail are situations where they use unfair advantage of superior firepower or manpower and "unfair" methods of fighting like snipers, boobytraps and mines.
 
Some other situations they are described as "bandits and rogues" or nearly as cannibal child eaters who get satisfied only, when they destroy civilian targets and kill, abuse and torture helpless civilian population. 
 
I'm quite sure that things ain't that simple. So naive propaganda, who the hell even believes that?  

That is an excellent point (much like the argument that our 4 tank Pls are better than Soviet 3 tank Pls for much the same reasons). Of course, the counter argument to this has always been - does it really matter when one of your squads is going to be fighting against an entire platoon of enemy infantry and APCs/IFVs? That's where the operational aspects of combat come in and tactical ones tend to take a second seat; that's why I was careful to preface my post by saying that comparing individual unit OOBs is not that productive outside of looking at their higher formations and associated role that they perform within that formation’s operational doctrine...

Likewise Tapio. It's always a pleasure to share my thoughts with a worthy match. Sorry for the "sir" gig... old habits die hard. You can call me Dre (not a Dr, but I do have an MBA)

Fair enoght good sir, I did not mean to call you out on it; just more of a friendly debate.. I would certainly agree and support everything that you've stated in this latest post.

Tangent: I just recalled my one disciplinary action in the military was for actually striking a soldier, but that was rather a long and silly story.
 
But yeah in line with what Splinty was saying, taking people to the woodline or "wall to wall counseling" was referred to, but usually as a reference to what we would have done with someone back in the day when men were men, and stuff was hard.  The only NCO I ever knew who out and out struck a soldier was heavily disciplined for it, lost rank and likely only stayed an NCO because outside of hitting that one guy, he'd been a stellar soldier and excellent tanker (and still was when I was working with him).
 
He used to tell the whole thing as a cautionary tale about how beating soldiers never fixed anything, and was a failure to be a good NCO.  Sharp guy.  Great tanker.  Hope it pays off and he gets promoted again.  
 
While I was usually the end of the line for most things, I usually followed the "everyone gets their one" philosphy and stuck to assigning extra duty and restricting folks to post.  Guys tend to offend less when they still have things to lose, and I always found the "I am disappointed in you and you're smarter than this" line to work better than the "you are a terrible soldier and I hope you get herpes from the ville"
 
Re: Field kitchens
 
Related field kitchen rambles:
 
1. The newer US Army field kitchens are called "Assault Kitchens."  It's actually not a terrible idea in that it's less a kitchen and more a large heating vessel in a small trailer (if I remember right it's about the size of the smaller utility trailers.  You plop in whatever the warm parts to the mean are in vacuum sealed bags, and then tow the thing behind a HMMWV.  Serve on arrival.  Kinda neat in that it's not really cook intensive.  On the other hand, whoever thought "assault" and "kitchen" belonged next to each other is a special person.  
 
2. One of the benefits to doing field exercises in Korea, is most Company sized elements had a "mah" from the Korean word "Ajumma" (Old Lady) that would follow them to the field.  Your mah milage varied, but as a general rule they'd set up a camping style grill and make food for sale.  Our mah was pretty awesome in that she had a full on tent with a heater, and in addition to food brought along cigarettes, and other similar comfort type items.  
 
I mean if we went to war we knew we'd be eating MREs, crapping in bags and the like.  All the same I do like my bulgoggi egg and cheesy, and the training value of eating MREs for a week is dubious.   

Those are all great points sir. The AT guns can definitely still be a potent threat, espcially when facing less advanced and older armor (i.e. Ukranian Army). For instance, the first combat use of T-64BVs had occured in Trans-Dnestria region of Moldova in 1992. At that time a company of T-64s had attacked a key strategic bridge that was held by Moldovan forces. Two T-64s were completely destroyed and a couple more had suffered serious dammage and had to withdraw within the course of that battle. All of those losses were claimed by a battery (or less) of well deployed MT-12s... Yet I wonder if the results of that battle would have been even more decisive if the Moldovans were to deploy ATGMs in place of AT guns... I also wonder how long those MT-12 crews would have survived if they were to face more advanced tanks with better protection, advanced FC, and decent thermal sites...

There were always stories about difficult soldiers being "taken to the woodline" meaning getting beaten up by NCOs,but I never saw or met anyone who actually did or had it done to them. So I'm thinking they were just stories. When I became an NCO, I would never even consider disciplining my troops in such a manner. It was much more effective to have them dig holes or do many dozens of push ups, sit ups etc. to wear off that extra energy young soldiers seem to have in abundance.

What they didn't point out was that was an average...

Actually, that wasn't really such a bad thing. Some of the combat rations (C-Rats) I got in 1969 were packaged in 1945. But, I ate them anyway:-) It was said that Marines would eat anything that didn't move quickly enough to get away. Made our "steel pots" very useful.

Greetings from Finland, this is my first post to this forum.
 
Thank you for all the participants in this topic, it has been a fun and very informative subject to read. I'm eagerly waiting for the CMBS to be released. I even bought new computer to play the game. 
 
As beign aging reservist by myself, I would love to see some reserve, Category B or C units in the game. No matter what conflict would it be, real or fictional, all the sides would use and deploy similar units to the operational area to hold the ground and occupy area, to free better units to more critical tasks. And when or if the conflict escaletes to "worst case scenario", these troops would be used to direct combat tasks (like German Volkssturm in Seelow heights in 1945) to fullfill the gaps and lack of more suitable infantry combat units.
 
Ukraine has it's national guard activated last year and Russia has long history of deploying and arming pro-russian militias in occupied territories (like all major military powers have done in most of the large scale armed conflicts over the past decades and centuries). Seeing catergory B or C units in CMBS with simplified OOB, older and/or lighter equipment and more modest soft factors would be a fresh experience. 
 
Ps. While our nicknames are quite similar, I hope all of you won't confuse me and member "Weer" with each other.

Buhahahhahaha!

May I add picking up all the sticks from nearby forest or collecting cones for several hours.