IICptMillerII

For the most part, my tanks were engaging enemy infantry the furthest away from them, so the depression was actually realistic. This was partly by design. I wanted to make sure the tanks weren't overexposing themselves to reduce the chance of RPGs being fired at them, and so that whatever unit they were shooting at was thoroughly suppressed/destroyed. The Bradley scout vehicle that was destroyed was also engaging targets at the least extreme depression angle. Though I do think one of the tanks did fire at an enemy unit that was below realistic depression, but moments like that were the exception. Looking back at the pictures they are a bit disorienting and don't do the best job of conveying the scale. All that said, it would have been slightly more difficult to get effective vehicle fire down into that gully, and the infantry likely would have had to intervene sooner if there was turret elevation modeled in game.

This is great to hear! Having had a chance to play a bit of 4.1 in the WWII titles, I've noticed that machine gun teams tend to displace more often than not after taking a bit of fire, which makes using them to suppress the the enemy rather troublesome. To me, this behavior appears to be directly linked to troops displacing in general, some of them towards the enemy. It appears that this has already been addressed and a hotfix can be expected "very soon," which is great news! Just to clarify, I think that the modern titles are great as they are, and I am overall quite happy with v4.1. Still looking forward to the final tweaks to be released. Then we can all go back to asking when the new modules will be out

The Bridges (Cont.) Then the infantry make contact. An enemy radioman is spotted moving between the buildings of NAI 6 up on the ridge. A Bradley from 2nd platoon spots the movement and pumps some 25mm HE rounds into the area. As 1st squad cautiously advances closer to the buildings of NAI 12, they draw fire. A casualty is suffered, and the squad goes to ground and begins returning fire. A sharp firefight breaks out. The infantry returns fire as tanks are brought up to pump coax and .50 cal fire into the buildings. A few enemy RPGs are fired at the tanks, but none hit. It’s a race to see who can build fire superiority and win the fight. A fire mission is called in on the buildings up on the ridge on NAI 6 to help suppress/destroy the enemy infantry there. Abrams along the MSR pump HEAT rounds into the buildings of NAI 12 and quickly help me gain fire superiority. With the enemy forces near the MSR either destroyed, suppressed, or under direct observation, I move 2 Abrams across Bridge 32 to strongpoint the other side. They take no fire and encounter no obstacles on the bridge or the far side. I now have possession of both Bridge objectives. I’ve spoken too soon. Scout team 2 moves up along the left (North) side of the bridge, only to discover what appears to be an entire infantry platoon in foxholes down in the gully directly next to the bridge. The scouts take a casualty before returning fire. This is a curious threat. It doesn’t pose any direct threat to vehicles moving across the bridge, though I can’t just leave it be. The enemy infantry could mount a suicidal yet potentially damaging attack from this position so it must be dealt with. The scouts Bradley moves up to put direct fire down into the enemy foxholes. It is only able to get a few bursts off before it is hit and knocked out by an RPG. Luckily, the crew survives and are able to bail out. Further, the Bradley is not on fire, so there is little risk to the scouts in close proximity. A moment later, the scouts return fire with their javelin, vaporizing one of the enemy foxholes. I decide to risk moving a tank forward to put fire into the gulch. I have the tank move forward just enough to only spot one of the enemy foxholes and give it a pause command of 20 seconds. After which the tank will reverse. The maneuver pays off, the tank is able to lay down coax fire and causes a casualty before reversing to safety. No RPGs are fired. The tank repeats this maneuver and is soon joined by a wingman. The wingman performs the same maneuver but from a different vantage point. They fire both coax and main gun rounds into the foxholes down in the gulch. 1st squad, 2nd platoon takes up a position overlooking the enemy in the gulch. They add their fire to the two tanks, and the enemy position is quickly destroyed. 2nd platoon continues to slowly advance on the buildings of NAI 12. A few enemy infantry make their presence known, but they are quickly bombarded by both small arms and 25mm fire from my infantry and Bradleys. One of the Bradleys fires a TOW into a building, destroying it. The resistance in NAI 12 is rapidly diminishing and the area is soon cleared. Some stragglers are seen milling around NAI 6 and are sporadically engaged by both Bradleys and infantry. The stragglers appear to be shellshocked and disoriented, wandering around with little semblance of order. At this point I think it is safe to assume that any threat posed by enemy units on NAI 6 has been neutralized. As final insurance, another short but sharp fire mission is called in on the rubble of NAI 6.

FWIW I used to really struggle with arrows as well. I also have taken to drawing them manually with the pen tool in photoshop, and then adjusting them to make them look more presentable with the available pen manipulation tools in photoshop. Unfortunately as others have said, it is a pain to do and it takes time and practice. I've also found that photoshop is a highly perishable skill, so I tend to take a few notes on how I accomplish something in a word document for easy reference. Plus its always nice to have a great example from Bil to shamelessly emulate yourself! Back in relation to the AAR, I'm excited for a large fight to break out over this bridge. I really want to see how the C2 rules affect the dynamic of the firefight, and more specifically I want to see how they affect tactically adjusting once a fight is in progress. Reacting to new situations once one is already engaged is extremely difficult in reality, even with good C2. I'm interested to see if the rules depict this at all.

This is a fair point and I agree for the most part. Javelins should prioritize enemy armor, as this is what they are primarily designed to destroy, and because it is a limited asset. That being said though, a heavy machine gun/sniper/etc pinning you down and causing casualties is a more immediate threat than a possible tank that isn't currently causing casualties. I am of the mind that while ammo should be prioritized, it should not be strictly rationed. Those reserve javelin missiles aren't worth anything if all the operators have been killed by that heavy machine gun/sniper/etc. Again, I agree with what you're saying, I just have a slightly different way of viewing the use of ammo. Both rationing and liberal use have drawbacks. Which approach is correct largely comes down to the specific situation and the ever present fog of war. C'est la guerre. Again I agree with what you are saying, but I tend to take a more proactive approach to defense. The best way to survive a gunshot wound is to not get shot in the first place. Same goes for tank combat. Many tend to place most of their faith in the armor of an Abrams tank, instead of following the tactical principle that if you are doing everything correctly the Abrams should never get shot at in the first place. Of course this is an ideal that is usually not attainable, but the principle remains. The best way to survive on any battlefield is to not get shot at. This is why I think the javelin increases survivability for infantry assets. It allows them to engage enemy armor (or other threats) from a concealed position, and has a very high certainty of destroying whatever target its engaging. If my javelin operators can wipe out all enemy tanks/IFVs before the enemy ever has a chance to engage my men, then I view them as the more survivable asset. Again, lots of this comes down to the specifics of the tactical situation and fog of war. I think the last screenshot of the previous update is a decent illustration of what I'm trying to convey: In this specific situation, the javelin operators have greater survivability compared to the tank they are engaging. Without the javelin, the only thing this infantry team would have would be concealment to protect them. With the javelin, they become the hunters and the tank the prey.

Would you rather spend $100,000 on a missile to kill a single sniper, or would you rather sacrifice the life of your son to kill the sniper? I would gladly rot in debtors prison before I even began contemplating the latter option. The javelin is a fantastic weapon system that (in my humble opinion) redefines the tactical battlespace. It not only greatly increases the survivability of soft assets on the battlefield (such as infantry, light vehicles, recon assets, etc) but it also greatly increases their lethality as well. The 'holy trinity' of tactical warfare are lethality (firepower) mobility and survivability. The javelin is a real force multiplier of both lethality and survivability. Throw in a stryker for mobility, and the SBCT starts to make a lot more sense. The javelin is a tactical weapon designed to engage threats on a tactical battlefield. A tactical threat can be a tank, an IFV, or a single sniper or enemy forward observer. An actual example of inefficient use of assets given the target would be to call in a Tomahawk cruise missile on a single sniper. However this is impossible, seeing as the Tomahawk is a strategic level weapon and is never used for close support. That said, I would still hemorrhage millions of dollars on Tomahawks before contemplating the grim option I listed above. The next AAR update will be posted in the next few days, and there is a small tactical example of this discussion in action which is why I decided to address the javelin/cost/target "dilemma."

THE BRIDGES At this point, things are looking pretty good. I’ve established a decent base of fire observing both Bridge objectives as well as the far side of the objectives. So far, things have been relatively quiet. Back on the elevated road leading to NAI 5, one of the fire teams from 1st platoon spots an enemy tank. It is on the far side on the bridges, in an orchard of small, short trees, surrounded by a dirt berm. They quickly break out the javelin and take aim. The javelin gunner acquires a lock and fires. The missile flies true, and comes down on top of the turret of the enemy tank, destroying it instantly. There are additional faint contacts in the area, but no one can see anything else yet. It is probably that there is at least a platoon of tanks, maybe more in this orchard. It appears that they are lying in wait for my forces to expose themselves while crossing the Bridges before they attempt to engage. To deal with this, I’ll keep the infantry in position and try to spot more tanks to engage with javelins. I’ve also made sure that my tanks in a base of fire can observe the dirt berms of the orchards. This way if the enemy does choose to reveal himself, I will have at least 2 assets to engage them, from 2 different angles and at different elevations. This should increase my ability to both spot and engage threats as they appear. Covered by infantry and tanks, 2 tanks from 2nd platoon move forward across Bridge 31. They take no fire as they move across the open bridge and encounter no obstacles of any type. The two tanks establish overwatch positions on the far side of Bridge 31. More assets move up and the bridge is strongpointed. Infantry from 2nd platoon begins to move up, mounted in their Bradley’s. They move up and deploy in front of NAI 12. The buildings on this NAI are right next to the MSR and would provide a good place for enemy infantry to set up an ambush against my vehicles. As this is happening, the infantry along the elevated road spot another T-72AV parked in the orchard. They engage it with a javelin missile, destroying this one as well.

His gifs, and AARs in general, are fantastic and are the main inspiration for the graphics and presentation of my AAR. My trouble with the gifs though is I cannot seem to find an easy to use software to create the gifs in the first place. I can record and edit video no problem, but creating gifs eludes me thus far. I think there's a sweetspot somewhere in there that I'll attempt to find. I will say that posting the longer updates can get rather tedious, and mistakes are easier to make, so for the sake of workflow I want to reduce the size of updates in the future. I'll figure it out eventually @Sgt.Squarehead Here's a little behind the scenes info for you. When I first set up this mission, I used the T-72AV thinking that it used the same ammo as the T-72AV TURMS-T. I chose it over the TURMS as I wanted to simulate an OpFor having the more typical day/night sights found on most Soviet/Russian tanks (at least until pretty recently) instead of giving them the Italian thermals. However, after the battle was already being fought, I found out that the ammo used in the T-72AV TURMS-T is actually better than what is used in the base AV. In a perfect world, OpFor would have been equipped with a T-72 with day/night sights (like the AV) and also the best tank ammo the Syrians have access to in SF2 (the TURMS-T). If I break out OpFor for some more fun later on, I'll be equipping them with the TURMS-T to reflect the better ammo, and to make battles more challenging against mid-tier US assets (like the M1A1HC as opposed to the M1A2) To be clear, I do not know the specific ammo designations the Syrian tanks are using, but my testing showed that a TURMS-T can reliably penetrate the front armor of both the M1A1HC and Leopard 2A4 at combat ranges (1-2km). If I were to take an educated guess as to what the TURMS-T is firing, it would be BM-32 or BM-42 (or the closest equivalent).

I think this is an excellent example of these rules in action. I find this situation to be very realistic. Units that are out of C2 will generally have less initiative all around as opposed to units that are in C2, and I think this depicts that. I also like how it forces to you think more realistically as well, instead of being able to spread out assets into hand picked points on the map and then just relying on the player having instant reactions to anything observed on the map through target commands. Very cool. Again another great examples of the rules in action. It adds more importance to HQ units, but also forces you to place them in positions where they may be more vulnerable. Agreed. One of the single most important factors in combat is the will to fight, or the will to keep fighting. This is just as true in a one on one fight of individuals, all the way to the strategic level with nation against nation. Many times throughout history, the victor is the one who manages to hang on for a few extra moments. I've always thought that CM does a really good job of capturing that aspect, specifically in PBEMs. Here is a technical question about CM and its C2 system: does it simulate line of sight radios? As in, are these BMPs out of contact because their HQ element is on the other side of a ridge, thus the radio signal cannot reach them?

I appreciate the feedback all. I think I'll be able to find the balance between detailed posts and appropriate brevity. If I ever figure out how to incorporate gifs into future AARs that will go a long way to cutting down on text (I hope).

I agree. Everything I have read on the modern Russian military (which admittedly is not a whole lot) shows that while the Russians have tried to professionalize their army, specifically their NCO corps since the fall of the Soviet Union, the effort has been largely ineffective. That doesn't mean that the army itself is ineffective, just that at this level I think Bil has it right that their C2 situation is going to be more rigid/restrictive than NATO counterparts. Here is a free PDF (though long) that attempts to detail objectively the way the modern Russian army fights. It is written by Lester Grau, a former combat infantryman in the US Army who wrote other very notable works on the then Soviets in Afghanistan, The Bear Went Over the Mountain as well as other books detailing the Soviet/Russian military. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot Spots/Documents/Russia/2017-07-The-Russian-Way-of-War-Grau-Bartles.pdf For those looking for a study of a contemporary combat example involving the Russians, this paper titled “Cyborgs at Little Stalingrad”: A Brief History of the Battles of the Donetsk Airport was released a few weeks ago and does a good job (though rather brief) on detailing how the Russian military was able to systematically surround and reduce the Donetsk Airport over a series of months, and paints a very competent picture of the Russians. https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP-125-Cyborgs-at-Little-Stalingrad-A-Brief-History-of-the-Battle-of-the-Donetsk-Airport.pdf My intent isn't to turn this discussion into something not about C2 rules, just to show that while the Russians may have perceived disadvantages, there is reason to what they do and it can be very effective.

Thanks for the technical feedback! I'll experiment with some new fonts and font sizes for next time. As to the length, I agree. I've been thinking about ways to cut down and shorten things to help streamline them. Its tough though, because I also do not want to leave out any of the action or context as to whats happening and why. When I set out to make this AAR I was thinking of it more like a long report, with chapters/sections. When its finished I'm going to post the whole thing as a PDF for those that want to read through it that way. Next time I'll try to streamline or restructure so that the updates are more bite sized.

RE: Restriction of direct fires I actually think this is one of the single best elements of these rules, and I would actually love to see something like this added to the Iron difficulty mode. There are tons of reasons why having fire like this be directed by a command element is more realistic. For one, there is basic psychology. Men will tend not to fire (even if they are shot at first) unless their leader tells them to shoot. This is slightly less true in the modern era as lots of training is devoted to instilling muscle memory responses, but it is still a factor. Much more so in WWII. Then in the modern era you have more concerns over what constitutes a safe target. Teams and squads aren't just going to go around blasting any building they think looks suspicious. Stuff like that requires the go ahead from a leader at the very least. Overall I think these types of C2 restrictions makes the game much more realistic in this regard. RE: Irregulars This one is tough and complicated, but I tend to agree with Bil. This is very true, but it is worth mentioning that this is by and large the main way irregular forces move around cities. They tend to form large groups and then move down streets towards the sound of fighting. This happened constantly in Mogadishu, and helicopter gunships took advantage of this. Crowds of fighters would mass and start making their way towards fighting, only to be strafed and rocketed by gunships. However, the irregulars did not adjust their tactics. They continued to form large crowds and move down the same streets and continually get blown apart. Similar things happened at night, where a small group (2-3) fighters would try to infiltrate a perimeter, only to be gunned down. Then, just a few minutes later, another small group would attempt the same thing, across the same path, with the same end result. Repeat that all night. These behaviors have been repeatedly observed in other urban environments with irregulars operating as well. For example, the drive to Baghdad in 2003 saw Bradley gunners killing tens and hundreds of Fedayeen fighters who kept assaulting in groups down the same roads directly at the IFVs, and then after the invasion in the city fighting that sprung up similar things were observed. Groups of enemy fighters moving through streets towards strongpointed positions and getting cut down in the open, only to have another group follow shortly thereafter and suffer the same fate. This can even be directly viewed by watching some now infamous footage of gun cams on places like YouTube. An Apache or F-16 strafes/drops a bomb on a large group of people clustered in a street. Out of context, it looks rather horrifying and barbaric. In context however, these are combatants forming up and getting ready to walk down the street towards fighting raging a few blocks down the road. Of course there is plenty of nuance to urban warfare, especially when irregulars are involved, but I think what Bil is trying to capture is that while irregular forces can move faster (less weight carried, personal knowledge of terrain) when it comes to actual warfighting coordination, there essentially isn't any. The only thing they have to go by is, "move towards the sound of fighting, and when you get close, start shooting in the same direction your buddies are shooting in." It's also important to remember that in high stress, terrifying situations like these, basic human psychology causes people to group and bunch up together. This is one of the fundamental things that modern training has to overcome in soldiers. Irregulars by and large do not get any type of modern training or conditioning to combat this, so they default to bunching up together. You actually see the same type of behavior in city gangs. Men from the opposing gangs have a general idea of where they want to confront the others, and then everyone groups up and makes their way to the confrontation. A final note, irregular forces tend to take atrociously high casualties on the tactical level for reasons detailed above and more. Aside from a lack of training and advanced weapons/sensors, the main contributor to their high casualties is their tactical inflexibility on the battlefield. Again, this has nothing to do with their operational flexibility, purely the behaviors used once a fight has started. All of this is to illustrate my thinking as to what I think Bil is trying to achieve with the rules regarding irregulars. P.S this isn't a direct response at you @Sgt.Squarehead just my general thoughts using something you said as an example.

Hitting the forest with arty is something I should have done sooner. However, it was difficult to pull my infantry out of that environment, partly due to the nature of the terrain and partly due to the enemy presence. It’s another example of why fighting in dense woods like this fortified by a decent sized enemy force is a nightmare. I’m certainly glad to be rid of the place, doubly so now that friendly artillery is plastering it. At this point in the battle I was feeling confident in my bases of fire, but I was still concerned about clearing the bridges and immediate areas surrounding the MSR. Based on what I’ve been up against, I’m expecting the enemy to have a significant amount of infantry still in play, plus there are likely more tanks out there somewhere. To add to that, my unit organization is very helter skelter right now, especially my tank platoons. The killsack engagement really scattered them. In a few instances I have tanks that are paired up with tanks from different platoons. It’s an organizational nightmare and it degrades C2 a bit. It’s also hard to reorganize them because they’re all in overwatch positions, and based on prior experience I’ve put a premium on overwatch over organization. Needs of the battlefield and all that. Thanks for the compliment Bil! I appreciate the feedback on the more technical aspects of the AAR, such as writing, formatting, etc. I’m always open to suggestions on how to improve the presentation as a whole. Speaking of improving the presentation, what do people think of the font for the picture captions? I defaulted to using it as it’s the same font I use for labeling pictures, but after posting a few sections of the AAR I’m reconsidering it. To my eye, unless the image is full sized, the font seems a little hard to read. Has anyone had issues with it?

DOWN THE MSR After the violent exchange, a momentary calm comes over the battlefield. A few enemy crewmen are seen fleeing away from the carnage, and there are a few pops and bangs from cooking off ammunition. I wait a turn or two to make sure there are no late surprises. When its clear there aren’t Task Force Miller begins to cautiously creep forward again. Some of the tanks that were covering the infantry clearing the woods on NAI 1 are repositioned to move up and help cover the move on NAI 11. The calm persists as infantry from 2nd platoon cautiously approach the buildings on NAI 11 and begin to enter and clear them. The infantry clear the buildings without incident, discovering the corpses of what looks like an enemy infantry squad deployed in a scout role. On the other side of the MSR, the situation is repeated. Infantry from 1st platoon clear the remaining buildings on NAI 3, discovering only corpses and the two burned out BMP-2’s. The final T-72 in the reverse slope killsack is destroyed. That makes 10 tanks, an entire tank company. There don’t appear to be any other fortifications or enemy units in the area. Back at NAI 1, the infantry are slowly making their way through the woods, trying to avoid making contact with the enemy dug in there. On the left, there is a small opening in the tree cover, looking down slope into a clearing. There are a lot of vehicle sound contacts in this clearing. I decide to move a tank over to help cover the infantry and spot for enemy vehicles. This quickly pays off. Just a few moments after the tank gets in position, a BMP-2 is spotted. The Abrams fires, destroying the spotted BMP-2. A second BMP that was unspotted but unfortunately positioned between my tank and its spotted target is killed when the sabot first passes through it on its way to its intended target. The vehicle itself remains unspotted, but a plume of smoke begins to rise into the sky, marking its location. A team of infantry from 3rd platoon, currently making their way through the woods over to the position the tank has taken, set up in a shallow trench next to the Abrams and immediately spot another BMP-2 in the clearing. The AT-4 flies true and hits the BMP-2, destroying it. The crew of the stricken vehicle bails out and are quickly greeted by a hail of bullets. Also spotted are some foxholes with a lone enemy infantryman crawling next to them. As suspected, this entire area looks like a fortified hornets nest. For now, I’m trying to stay along the periphery and engage opportunity targets as they appear, while trying to avoid getting sucked into a slug match in the woods. I spoke too soon. The infantry spot another BMP-2 and attempt to engage it with the Javelin. However, this time the enemy sees me as well, and the BMP fires first. Casualties are caused, including the javelin gunner. This is an example of how deadly close range forest fighting such as this can be, and something I’m trying to avoid. My tank, mere meters away from this infantry team, cannot see the enemy BMP. Sight line geometry in environments like this are a nightmare. I quickly pull the infantry back, trying to disengage from the situation. The entire platoon is able to move away without drawing any fire, though the team in the woods next to the tank takes an additional casualty and is pinned down. To help cover 3rd platoon by NAI 1, NAI 11 is reinforced with more infantry from 2nd platoon, as well as some tanks and Bradleys. NAI 11 provides good lines of sight across NAI 1, and forward along the MSR. The goal will be to use NAI 11 as another forward base of fire as I advance further down the MSR towards the bridge objectives. If any enemy units in the woods on NAI 1 decide to make a break for it or try to flank my units as they advance on the bridges, NAI 11 should be able to spot and interdict them. Back on NAI 3, 1st platoon moves forward and clears the woods to their front. The road leading up to NAI 5 climbs in elevation, and has a ditch running along it. I place some infantry teams in the ditch to provide overwatch, armed with a javelin. From their position, they can see the bridge objectives, which appear to be clear of the enemy and obstacles. Scout team 1 moves up in its Bradley to get a better view into the back of NAI 1. The team dismounts and sets up on a berm, covered by their Cavalry Fighting Vehicle just behind them. Moments after setting up at the berm, the scouts spot a BMP-2. However, the BMP has also spotted the scouts Bradley, and the Bradley has not spotted the BMP. The javelin takes around 20 seconds or so to acquire a good lock on a target before the missile can be fired. In that time, the BMP-2 is able to fire an AT-5a at the Bradley. The enemy missile zips overhead and hits the Bradley, destroying it instantly, though both crewmembers survive and bail out. A few seconds later, the javelin is fired and the BMP-2 is destroyed. The 1:1 trade of vehicles is a bad one, especially for cavalry scouts who are generally supposed to avoid engagement if possible. After the BMP is destroyed and no further contacts are spotted, I decide to push out the perimeter around NAI 11. Two tanks, the Company XO and 2nd platoons platoon leader, bound forward in a pair. They establish overwatch positions along a lightly wooded berm that can directly observe both bridge objectives, as well as the far side down the MSR. Nothing is spotted either on the Bridges or on the far side. With this area looking clear, more vehicles are moved up to expand the perimeter of NAI 11 and prepare an initial push for the Bridge objectives. Back on the right at NAI 1, the bulk of 3rd platoon (infantry) are disengaging from the woods and moving across a field to an assembly area. There they will remount their Bradley’s and be moved forward to assist in the capture of the Bridge objectives. However, there are still unrecovered casualties from A Team, 3rd Squad. To help recover the casualties, B Team moves up to the shallow trench. Number 3 tank from 1st platoon is still in position trying to provide cover to the pinned down infantry. As soon as B Team arrives, they take fire from a BMP. 30mm HE rounds tear through the foliage and explode around the team, causing another casualty. A SAW gunner equipped with the teams AT-4 stands up through the withering incoming fire and takes aim. This act of bravery is rewarded. He fires his AT-4, and his aim is true. The BMP-2 is hit and destroyed. With this BMP-2 destroyed, all incoming fire ceases. After making sure the coast is clear, 3rd squad begins the task of recovering its casualties. The casualties are recovered, and the infantry and tank fall back away from NAI 1. As they clear the area, a fire mission is called down on the NAI. The mission will be a steady rate of fire for a long time (7-10 minutes) to keep anyone left in the woods pinned down.

It looks like you have well established positions that dominate the likely avenues of approach that Ian could use against you. Very excited to see how the battle develops. It looks like push will soon come to shove. I also really like the gifs you've been including in your AARs. I tried it myself but couldn't get it to work. They really help to show off cool action moments, and save a lot of typed explanation as well. I can't wait to tell an FA buddy of mine this. It's always nice to remind the redlegs that there is more to a battlefield than cannon cocking!

Thanks for putting this together Bil! I like the tweaks and changes you've made. I agree with the others who said that allowing manual use of smoke dischargers on vehicles might be the best way to go. I know that on Soviet IFV's they were originally designed to be "offensive" smoke dischargers. The idea was that as the infantry was preparing to deploy and assault through the objective, the BMP would launch its smoke far forward, giving the infantry some extra space to maneuver behind the concealment. That said though, I can't seem to find that specific tactical reference at the moment, so please take it with a grain of salt. I also remember reading about US Bradley's popping smoke to provide cover to dismounted infantry in urban environments, but again I can't recall where I read it. Regardless, I think these rules look great in their current form.I'll try to give them a playtest soon and provide some feedback but I'm a bit swamped at the moment so it might take me a bit to properly test them out. Still though, thanks for putting this together!

I generally agree with @IanL on the use of target arcs, though I would add that I tend to use them much more on heavy weapons teams (such as an anti-tank gun or an ATGM). I think that the target armor arc is especially useful for certain heavy weapons teams. I could easily see a set of rules governing the use of target arcs being very important for units like that. For example, in order to target arc your various ATGMs (or more importantly, change their already set target arcs) they would have to be in C2 range of their commander. That would require you to keep heavy weapons elements closer together, instead of spreading them out all across a map. It would also make the commander a much more important and mobile asset. Plus, because the commander would be moving around between his teams, he could act much more as a runner, transferring spotting information around. That said, my thinking doesn't extend much beyond heavy weapon units so its rather niche. Still an interesting concept that might be worth trying out at some point.

Yes, that is the effect I was thinking of, and I agree that it is likely much more relevant in the modern titles than the WWII titles. My thinking didn't extend past area target commands, though I'm sure it could be extended to cover more, like the target arc rule you mentioned. I also agree with @IanL and @domfluff that additional rulesets should be streamlined. They are right to point out that a single turn in CM can already take a while to tackle without additional rules/conditions applied on top. Though, I would point out that in the case of my area target idea, I don't think it would negatively impact either side that much. OpFor would require higher levels of leadership to do the same thing as BluFor, yes, but at the same time OpFor is meant to be played at a higher scale anyways. Platoons are more like large squads, and companies like platoons, in practical effect on the battlefield. If anything, the additional 'national characteristics' may encourage players to play more towards the doctrinal strengths of each side. An OpFor platoon that acts more as a single cohesive unit is more effective in combat than if they are split up and used like a BluFor platoon. I could go on but I don't want to belabor the point and distract from the AAR. That said, I do think the rules as they are are good, and I'm excited to see how they play out once both sides really come into contact.

I'm really liking the area fire rules and their implementation. I especially like how it puts more emphasis on small unit leadership. Looking forward to what comes next! Has any thought been given to how different nations treat leader initiative? For example, a SSG in the US Army could have a greater leadership effect (himself being able to direct area fire with his squad) as opposed to the Syrians, who would require a LT to do the same. I think it could help add an additional layer of C3 realism that it looks like these rules are going for. Just a thought I had.

This is awesome! Careful though, you may now be contractually obligated to make a very cliche video featuring the song "Bodies" by Drowning Pool In all seriousness though, this is great! Always a joy to see another CM vid from you.

The initial intel estimates were 1-2 companies of tanks with the possibility of there being another as a reserve. Based on what’s happened so far in the battle, I’m not confident that there is a battalion of enemy tanks out there. Well, minus roughly 2 companies at this point. Mad a quick technical note, the T-72AV TURMS-T likely would have performed a bit better here, on a purely technical standpoint. Agreed Bil, on both points. Though I personally think point 2 is the more significant. If my opponent had even just timed his attack a little better, deploying both of his companies against me at the same time and catching me in an instantaneous cross fire, this could have gone very differently. I also agree that my opponents spacing should have been better. Even though Soviet style companies are meant to be operated as a single unit, at the very least the platoons should have been more spread out. Glad you're enjoying it!

INVERTED KILLSACK Moments after the Bradley engages the single ATGM team on Hill 113, a worst case scenario develops. An entire company of T-72AV tanks appear along the ridgeline of Hill 113. My entire force suddenly finds itself in a killsack. Most of my assets are deployed. The infantry are in the process of advancing on and clearing objectives, with their Bradley’s sitting in overwatch positions. Further, most of my tanks are either engaged at point blank range with the remains of the T-72 company on the reverse slope, with their sides and rear facing Hill 113. I only have a handful of tanks in overwatch observing the direction of Hill 113. This is an extremely dangerous situation. The potential exists here for OpFor to inflict severe casualties on my force in a very short amount of time, and all of this can occur without me being able to properly react. In short, it could all be over for Task Force Miller. The drama kicks off immediately. CPT Miller’s 66 tank, part of the handful of tanks on overwatch of Hill 113, is fired on by one of the enemy T-72s. A half second later, the 66 tank engages the same T-72 that fired at it. The sabot from the T-72 crashes into the lower glacis plate of the 66 tank, but is defeated. The T-72 is not so lucky. The sabot from the 66 tank hits and penetrates its target, sending the sabot through the chin of the turret and out the back, detonating the ammo stored in the turret on its way through. What follows is another short, violent tank duel. The other tanks in overwatch, including 2 tanks on the MSR, engage the threat on Hill 113. Bradley’s, including the infantry company commanders track, engage with TOW missiles. Sabot rounds and ATGMs (TOW’s from the Bradleys, AT-11s from the T-72s, and AT-5a’s from a few BMP-2s) zip past each other. Despite the excellent gunnery of my tanks and Bradley’s, not all shots find their targets. The T-72s are firing from behind a berm at an elevation advantage, making them tough targets to hit. A number of sabot rounds and TOW missiles miss, and some that hit are defeated by the combined armor and angling of the T-72s. Casualties are suffered on both sides. I quickly lose an Abrams when an enemy AT-11 tank fired ATGM slams into the top turret of one of my Abrams as it tries to orient itself towards the new threat. The ATGM punches through the soft top turret armor and explodes inside, killing the entire crew. A moment later, one of the tanks engaged in a knife fight with the enemy T-72s in the reverse slope killsack takes multiple hits to the rear of its turret. It too is quickly destroyed, taking its entire crew with it. Bradley’s from 3rd platoon in overwatch of their infantry currently clearing the woods of NAI 1 are hit next. One enemy sabot round destroys 2 of them, punching clean through the first Brad and into the second. If there is a silver lining to this, it is that the infantry was already dismounted. My tanks and Bradley’s quickly increase their return fire, and soon gain fire superiority. A flurry of killing blows follows, and within the next 20 seconds, most of the OpFor T-72 company on Hill 113 has been smashed. This engagement occurred over the course of roughly 50 seconds. I had no chance to give new orders based on the new threat. All I could do was watch. Luckily for me, I had maintained decent overwatch positions with my reserve tanks, and many of my Bradley’s were in positions that granted them some level of concealment to the threat. The rest all came down to the gunnery skill of my crews and, in the case of my Abrams, their excellent armor that allowed them to survive frontal hits. This could have been disastrous for my forces. If I had not maintained good overwatch, I could have been stuck waiting an entire minute to react to the new threat on Hill 113. With modern weapons and targeting, as well as it being an entire company of enemy tanks, a minute would have been more than enough time for the T-72s to destroy/cripple most of my soft/vulnerable assets caught in the open. Remember, if I lose more than 30% of my force, I lose the battle. What saved me from defeat has more to do with basic tactical fundamentals and less to do with equipment or technology (though equipment and technology certainly helps). All elements, while moving through the open, positioned in the open, or overwatching smaller assets like infantry, were in turn being covered themselves. Further, I knew Hill 113 was key terrain based on its near dominating sightlines covering the part of the map my Task Force has to initially deploy across. If I had not had my rearmost tanks oriented towards Hill 113 overwatching the rest of my Task Force, the T-72 attack could have been a complete disaster for me. Additionally, if my opponent had committed his two tank companies at the same time (the company in the reverse slope position, and the company up on Hill 113) he could have overwhelmed my vehicles by catching me in a deadly crossfire. 20 T-72 tanks, firing at me from different directions, elevations, and distances likely would have caused much more damage to my forces. For now, I’ve managed to keep my Task Force intact. However, these killsack engagements are a sobering reminder of how quickly I can lose my command, and how crucial basic tactical fundamentals are regardless of weapons and technology.

I can't take any credit for that one. All credit goes to Bil. (Don't want to tag him as he is away on vacation, poor guy doesn't need to be spammed while hes trying to relax!) The "picture in picture" effect, as well as the map grid graphics and screenshot graphics (arrows, dropshadow effects and such) are all directly inspired by his excellent AARs. Glad to hear the time put into the images is being well received though!

Have to build up the suspense somehow Yeah the graphics have been really time consuming to make. I was originally planning to use the large maps more to make graphics with them, but the process was so time consuming that it would have taken me far too long to create each AAR update so I decided against it. Overall though I'm pretty happy with how they're turning out. Glad to know you like them too!