IICptMillerII

Thanks for the positive feedback everyone!
You're in luck, I have an 82nd skin nearly ready to go. I'll add 2ID to the list as well. Might as well throw in 1st Cav at this point too. 

In the game the ability to call for artillery fire is not based on having a radio but instead on the authority of the caller.  It is often referred to as the field telephone abstraction.  As an example you will notice if an FO team's officer becomes KIA and the RTO is still alive with a working radio the FO team can no longer call for or adjust fire.  
So the US XOs can call for arty even when they don't have a radio.  As a result I will often have an XO accompany a maneuver platoon.  Then when the platoon needs to call for indirect fire support the XO team will handle leaving the platoon HQ team free to move about keeping the fire teams in C2 and facilitating the sharing of OpFor contact information. 
Also when I have different formations in the same scenario I may use XOs, 2ICs, etc as liaisons.  Example you have an infantry company from 1st Infantry Battalion and a tank company from an tank battalion.  I will put the two Bn XOs in the other Battalion TOC so they will horizontally share OpFor contact information between the two formations.   See the below link for an explanation on C2. 
I also sometimes assign them to the TOC as a TRP officer.  They are responsible for calling in fires in the area of Target Reference Points (TRP)s to support the scheme of maneuver.  They generally have one off map 105mm howitzer platoon I reserve for their use.  They can call for fires from the safety of the TOC to impact in the area of the TRPs which were placed to support the planned Avenue of Advance.  At the appropriate time the TRP officer (XO) will call for a maximum duration, light, low tube count mission which lasts for about 34 minutes.  The XO will adjust this mission between TRPs to support the maneuvering platoons.  I like to have the TRP officer in the relative safety of the TOC because if he is KIA while the maximum duration fire mission is ongoing control of those tubes will be lost and they will fire on the last adjustment until dry (I had this happen once in a PBEM).   
At times I have also used them as medics.
This should give you some ideas 11Bravo.  Keep swervin and happy hunting!!   
 
     
 

Simple answer:  Dismount BEFORE you expect to make contact
Basically you want to lead with your infantry and use the armored vehicles for dedicated fire support.  
Bottom line is that you do not want your APC or IFV to get hit with a full load if infantry... both types of units, infantry and APC/IFV have their value and you need to make sure they can support each other.. for example, leading with infantry dismounted allows them to listen and spot better than the vehicle will be able to alone.  Although, if you keep them behind masking terrain, mounted, and wait for an opening to make a dash deep in enemy territory, then that can really pay off big too.  See:  Deep Attack  also Movement Techniques

There is not really an easy answer to this, as it depends on the individual situation. 
A good rule of thumb is that if you’re expecting contact you should dismount. 
I know it sounds counterintuitive - in the situation you described it’d be best to dismount them and have the vehicles offer support by fire. Theoretically their chances are better on the ground. Your infantry will be smaller targets if they come under fire. They can also  take advantage of small depressions in the terrain that an IFV couldn’t, and can bound toward the objective as well. There are also more eyes and weapons on the ground overall. The vehicle itself is a big, fat target. 
It’s somewhat counterintuitive. It was not an easy thing to have to get used to in a mechanized infantry unit. It boils down to the fact that grunts are cheaper than IFVs. We were taught that the IFVs were essentially a mobile support by fire element. They were a ride to the contact area (from potentially dozens of miles away) and not really a ride within that area. 
The real advantages of the mobility aren’t necessarily in small tactical situations. Instead, it’s in moving long distances (dozens of miles) quickly. In the case of Strykers that’s really, really fast. 
An exception would be, say, one platoon plus its vehicles providing a base of fire while another still mounted platoon moved by covered/concealed route to the flanks. 
You can google “bounding overwatch mechanized infantry” and check out some battle drills. There is definitely no easy answer, but having to dismount guys under fire is usually the wrong one. It’s not quite flipping a coin but there are a lot of factors to consider. 
Good luck! It’s the biggest tactical problem with mounted infantry 
 
 

Are there any plans to make one of these tactical problems in SF2? I think it's a great idea, and setting one in the modern setting would be a really interesting way to show how the tactical principles are the same, but the tools can drastically change how they are specifically implemented.  With SF2 being the hot new title right now, you might get a larger pool of people looking to try it right away too.
Plus, it would selfishly be a scenario I could play!

Yes, that is in the plans.  CMSF2 will feature one of these in the near future.
Bil

I was not aware of @Josey Wales work in this area.  Thanks for pointing us to it @domfluff, very valuable information that I might write a blog post about, giving credit where it is due of course.  This goes to the heart of battle management and the Control portion of C2.
Love it, Bil

In the CMSF2 BETA AAR I had an M1A1 hit a Challenger II on the front turret and that shot bounced.. however, fire from another Challenger II easily penetrated an M1A1.  There is much more beneath the skin of this game than you may realize @Armorgunner .
For an example, and this is WW2 related, but if you read the following post which is a quote from Charles:  CMBN BETA AAR - An Explanation you will see a comparison between the Sherman and the Pz IV and I think you, as an armor gunner, will appreciate the subtleties in armor protection, quality of armor plate, and angle of shot that this engine simulates.  The modern games, CMSF2 and CMBS go to the same lengths to simulate reality as closely as possible.
Bil

Some more screenshots of @Pete Wenman 's Squalor mod.  
 

In hindsight I should have known that RT was Red Thunder.  I don't have Red Thunder.  Thanks for the replies.  Since Red Thunder covers the last year of the war I would be  more interested in the earlier years of the eastern front.  I am surprised Battlefront isn't working on that or a North African game like they had in the original Combat Mission series.  However, I am very much looking forward to Rome to Victory.  In my opinion, the current Combat Mission series is the gold standard for computer tactical warfare.

I have tested it out in the past, and the M1A2 fares better in every regard. It spots better, and when it takes a hit it is much less likely to be penetrated than the M1A1HC. I've also used the scenario in question to test out the differences between the Leopard 2A4 and the 2A6. Same thing, the 2A6 fares much better than the 2A4. 
I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that all of these tank variants are the same, but I can assure you that it is a misunderstanding on your part. As MikeyD mentioned, the 'Defense' UI graph is merely a rough estimate, a generalization that is made between the tank and various enemy munitions. It is not a comparison between tanks. 
If you really want to see for yourself, open up the editor and pit the M1A2 against the M1A1HC, or the Leopard 2A6 against Leopard 2A4s. The differences in protection levels will become quite clear. 

I have tested it out in the past, and the M1A2 fares better in every regard. It spots better, and when it takes a hit it is much less likely to be penetrated than the M1A1HC. I've also used the scenario in question to test out the differences between the Leopard 2A4 and the 2A6. Same thing, the 2A6 fares much better than the 2A4. 
I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that all of these tank variants are the same, but I can assure you that it is a misunderstanding on your part. As MikeyD mentioned, the 'Defense' UI graph is merely a rough estimate, a generalization that is made between the tank and various enemy munitions. It is not a comparison between tanks. 
If you really want to see for yourself, open up the editor and pit the M1A2 against the M1A1HC, or the Leopard 2A6 against Leopard 2A4s. The differences in protection levels will become quite clear. 

OK - sh/t mod (official tag [squalor] )is up on CMmods. This also includes amended rubble texture, rural wall and wooden 48m bridge.

https://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=7522

@mjkerner
@MOS:96B2P
P

Here is the generic scenario description for PBEM Tactical Problem 02.  For best results use the CMRT Floating icons referenced in the post above.
STRONGPOINT!
~ Russian Defense ~
 German player must assault and clear the heavily mined enemy strongpoint through very restricted terrain, time is short as enemy reinforcements are close.
Russian player must defend at all costs and counterattack with reserves, if they arrive in time.
Time: 30 Minutes.
 Complexity:
Russian Player:  Moderate German Player:  Advanced Game:  CMRT
Author:  Bil Hardenberger
Download Link: PBEM 02 - Strongpoint!

Now that it is released we aren't tied to just showing stock pics.    Modded for the true crappy affect for Iraq.  And I really do mean crappy.
Yes this is Kieme's building mod along with some other stuff for street sewage.
 
 
 

And alt+t to make sure trees are turned on. Also shift+ESC to turn off the pause notice. If you do that once then all future presses of the play / pause button will also not display the pause notice.

Full disclosure - I’m friends with WriterJWA in real life. I’ve been watching this and his other topic on scenario design for a while. 
I’m also really new to the game, having only played CMFB for a couple months and CMBN for much less. I started out with a few campaigns and scenarios and vacated them, although I plan to once I really master the mechanics of the game and the interface. Quick Battles are a great way to train, and there seems to be more freedom to accomplish your mission however you see fit as the commander. 
In the few campaigns I did play, I did badly. I suspect it’s because I’m so new to the game, but I got the sense that they were *very* difficult. Some are meant to be (Sing Sing comes to mind). In any that I attempted though, I think the clock made most of the difference. There was little time to be careful - to probe, work the flanks, and prep - adding a degree of pressure for which I can’t quite grasp the real life parallel. 
An idea: Would it be possible to make the factor of time something more open ended but with consequences for follow on missions? It’d be something like a penalty or bonus system for subsequent missions. For instance, Col Joe Snuffy lollygags his way through the first town. If he takes more than X hours he misses link up with his reinforcements for the next mission, or he sacrfices an off map arty battery for the next mission because they’ve got another tasking. This would perhaps reflect the real life consequences of time on the battlefield. (Please keep in mind that this novice suggestion without fully grasping what’s possible to accomplish on the scenario design end) 
Anyway...This is one of the most fantastic games I’ve ever played. It is really close to an all-out combined arms simulation. I appreciate the work that’s gone into it 

This may have been true of the initial invasion, but the insurgency was decidedly foggy as hell, especially in its infancy when we hadn’t developed the doctrine to deal with things like IEDs or car bombs. Their asymmetric tactics really forced us to be creative. At that, it could go conventional really quickly. Our preponderance of firepower was mitigated by the fact that we were fighting in populated areas in which we just couldn’t use our assets. The need to minimize civilian casualties actually made for situations in which we had to take a lot more risks - and potentially more casualties. Even routine route clearance was a calculated risk.
But yeah, the insurgents used the fog in their favor. They’d hit lead vehicles first and then have secondary bombs go off when we went to help casualties, for instance. Between that and hiding in plain sight among people we couldn’t (and wouldn’t) target, it was a complicated conflict. 
(Please don’t read any snark at all into that, and apologies for being off the main topic. Merely discussing personal observations that may provide you insights)

No, there is no in-game way to hide the interface. However, you can easily crop the interface out of a screenshot after you take it with any number of free or paid software. For example, the Photos software that comes with Windows 10 allows you to crop pictures. Photoshop or its free alternative GIMP also allow cropping. 

Just a quick update. I will be releasing a new version of icons for CMSF and CMBS in the near future (no idea when exactly) that will in corporate the feed back from @Combatintman. In the mean time I have been using my older CMSF icons just fine in v2: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=2684

Congrats to BFC for the release!
Very excited to get my hands on it this evening. 

CMSF 2 Upgrade "Big Bundle" ... Purchased, Download, Installed, Follow instructions to Activate and Get Some 😀! 

Seamless....👍 another Happy Holidays from Battlefront. 
Thank you Battlefront, Steve, Charles and ALL those Elves who made CMSF 2 happen. You all hit the 🎯 10 ring again.
Buzz

To round out the Turkish mod pack, here's my almost-completed Dutch-turned-into-Turkish troops. Their new uniform  camou scheme looks like it might've been bought from Russia because it resembles the new Russian camou pattern. And yes the 'Artic Warfare Sniper Rifle' is used by the Turkish army.
Next up, assembling the full mod pack. I hope its not too large.
 

This made me chuckle.
I agree with you in some ways. Particularly in CMSF1 there were a handful of scenario's that had time limits that were very restrictive, especially when dealing with urban warfare. The good news is, the more recently released games like CMFB and CMBS tend to have more appropriate time limits in my experience. Plus, you can always load up the scenario in question in the editor and increase the amount of time.
I do sympathize with some of the time limits. In many cases, they are the only real thing that gives the defender a chance at winning. It's a debate that's been had more than a few times here.