IICptMillerII

+1.  I bet that would be a very useful, informative video.  And with your talent for making videos players would be more likely to actually watch, think about things and learn. 

This is dumb.  “Z” is not “Z” in Cyrillic, but rather “з”.

Combat Mission/Command: Modern Air Naval Operations AAR
Consulate Crisis
By IICptMillerII

 
INTRODUCTION
This is a hybrid after action report (AAR) using two simulators, Combat Mission Shock Force 2 (CMSF2) to depict the tactical ground combat, and Command: Modern Air Naval Operations (CMANO) to depict the naval and aerial combat. This scenario features a conflict at a US and Canadian consulate in the fictional Middle Eastern/North African city and country of Al Mout, Abbudin.  
The CMSF2 map was built by LongLeftFlank and then modified by MOS:96B2P for his scenario “The Coup” and is being used with his permission. All credit goes to LongLeftFlank for designing this excellent map and to MOS:96B2P for designing the scenario. I have modified both BluFor and OpFor forces as well as their respective objectives, as well as add in some relevant battle damage, but otherwise the map remains in its original layout.
Carrier Strike Group 12 is a historically accurate recreation of the USS Enterprise cruise to the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf from June to December of 2007. The USS Enterprise carrier air wing, and all supporting ships are accurate to the 2007 cruise.
This scenario is not designed to be balanced. BluFor is significantly stronger and more capable than OpFor in nearly every way. This is more a showcase of a hybrid AAR between two sims carrying out an operation that fully incorporates both sims strongpoints (CMSF2 for ground warfare, CMANO for naval/air warfare) and weaving them together to tell a story. It is also a proof of concept to see how viable creating hybrid AARs like this is. My advice is to treat this like a superhero movie; there is no doubt about the ending, but you still enjoy the journey.
This AAR features several mods. Chief among them are:
Veins Smoke and Effects mod Drakenlords Fire mod Regime Forces by myself playing the OpFor DISCLAIMER:
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this AAR are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
CMANO DISCLAIMER:
CMANO is designed to accurately portray military hardware from real world nations, from the years of 1980-2020+ and 1920-1979 (not used in this scenario). It simulates the planet Earth using open source terrain data. While fictional factions can be created and named so, the globe itself cannot be edited. The real-world location of this scenario is located in Libya, however the above disclaimer still applies. This scenario is not meant to portray Libya in any way. It is entirely fictional.
 
SITUATION:
Over the past few months the Abbudin Regime has been increasingly belligerent. On numerous occasions they have used their large air force to intercept commercial aircraft and shipping in international territory. In response to this, the UN passed a resolution enforcing economic sanctions against Abbudin. The Abbudin Regime responded by increasing their interceptions, in a few notable cases forcing commercial aircraft to land at Abbudin airports and be subject to “inspections.” The so-called inspections were largely just the Regime seizing commercial property for their own. In response to the Regimes increasingly belligerent actions, the United States deployed the USS Enterprise carrier strike group (CSG) and the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (2nd MEU) aboard the USS Wasp to the Mediterranean. Additional military assets in the Mediterranean have been put on high alert.
Two days ago, large numbers of Regime military units were seen moving into the city of Al Mout, the location of the US and Canadian consulates. They began heavily patrolling the city in what appeared to be a martial law posture. Last night, the Canadian consulate was surrounded by the Regime’s military forces. The Regime has demanded an end to the economic sanctions and for the US to recall the USS Enterprise away from Abbudin waters. A tense standoff ensued, with the Regime changing their ultimatum deadline seemingly at random. Finally, at 0200 local this morning the Regime’s military forces stormed the Canadian consulate. There have been reports of gunshots being fired inside the consulate and the fate of the consulate personnel is unknown.
Two hours later, US naval and Marine forces were given the green light to initiate combat operations in the city of Al Mout in order to evacuate the US consulate and rescue any surviving Canadian consulate personnel.
 
MISSION:
The primary objective is to evacuate US and Canadian consulate personnel from Al Mout, recover/destroy any sensitive material at both consulates, and withdraw from the city.
Mission Specific Tasks:
Carrier Strike Group 12 (USS Enterprise):
Establish local air superiority over friendly naval assets, the city of Al Mout and surrounding area Strike strategic targets in and around Al Mout Strike Al Mout International Airport in order to prevent Abbudin Regime air force from being able to sortie Conduct Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) Provide close air support (CAS) to US forces in Al Mout Task Force Wasp:
Transport and deploy 2nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (2nd MEU) amphibiously to the shore of Al Mout Provide naval and close air support to 2nd MEU Receive US and Canadian evacuees Provide emergency medical care to casualties 2nd Marine Expeditionary Unit:
Conduct amphibious infiltration of Al Mout Secure both US and Canadian consulates Evacuate US and Canadian consulate personnel to USS Wasp Desired End State:
All US/Canadian consulate personnel recovered All sensitive materials recovered/destroyed All US ground forces withdrawn from city  
Area of Operations (AO) and Initial Deployment:

Close-up of Al Mout and Surrounding Area:

 
ENEMY:
Regime Military Forces:
The Abbudin military is typical of many Middle East/North African dictatorships. It has a large arsenal of older Soviet-era equipment, such as the T-72 and T-62 tanks, and BMPs for infantry fighting vehicles (IFV). The military is made up of roughly 6 divisions and a number of independent brigades, including special forces units that are primarily tasked with guarding key regime assets.
Enemy Air Forces:
The Regime has a large air force, mostly made up of old Soviet-era aircraft. These include the Mig-21, 23, and 25, along with a small fleet of Mi-25D gunship helicopters and Mi-8 helicopters for troop transport and logistics. Additionally, they have several SU-22M attack aircraft. These are capable of carrying the AS-9 anti-radiation missile with a range of 65nm, which can potentially threaten friendly ships. They have roughly a regiments worth of each fixed wing aircraft variant (20-25 aircraft per regiment) and about a squadron of each helicopter variant (10-18 helicopters per squadron) in range of the area of operations (AO). The Abbudin air force is not known to have any airborne AEW or EW aircraft, though they likely have some conventional reconnaissance aircraft equipped with cameras and ELINT equipment.
Al Mout International Airport is just outside the city and has a significant number of air force assets, including at least one full squadron of Mi-25D gunship helicopters and another full squadron of Mi-8 helicopters. Both the Mig-21 and Mig-23 can be outfitted in ground attack roles. The SU-22M is a ground attack aircraft, though they are expected to be tasked in an anti-surface warfare (ASuW) role. The Mig-25 variant operated by the Abbudin air force is an interceptor only. 

Enemy Naval Forces:
The Abbudin navy is essentially non-existent. They do not operate any craft larger than small patrol boats armed with small arms which are not expected to be a factor.
Enemy Air Defense Network (ADN):
Abbudin’s air defense network is extensive, though dated. In the vicinity of Al Mout, there are at least two groups of SA-6 Gainful SAM (surface to air missile) sites (roughly 10-14 launchers per group) and at least one battalion of SA-2 Guideline SAM launchers (roughly 3-6 launchers per battalion). These SAM sites pose the most direct threat to our forces, as they actively cover both the city of Al Mout and Al Mout International Airport.
Further, there are a number of SA-5 Gammon SAM groups. The SA-5 has a range of 150nm, meaning these sites will be a close second priority for SEAD/DEAD missions. There are multiple SA-5 sites that cover Al Mout airspace, one to the North of the city and another to the West.
There are also several radar sites, including the P-14 Tall King, P-18 Spoon Rest, P-40 Long Track, and P-80 Back Net air search radars. All these radars have sensor ranges in excess of 100nm with overlapping coverage areas. Many of the radar sites are located near SAM sites and thus will have some form of protection against air strikes.  
Enemy Ground Forces in Al Mout:
Regular Regime military forces wear a uniform that is part olive drab, part knockoff DPM camouflage in an arid configuration. Their helmets are tan colored with red triangles on the front.
The exact number and composition of enemy ground forces present in the city is not fully known at this time. From what intelligence there is, it is expected that the Regime has at least one company of mechanized infantry in the city, mounted in BMP-1’s. There have also been confirmed reports of both T-72M1 and T-62 tanks, though their exact number and location is not currently known.



Additionally, the Regime is operating a large military police (MP) force in the city right now. These are essentially dismounted infantry operating on foot or out of light vehicles such as the Russian made UAZ car and URAL trucks.  MPs can be identified by their white helmets, red armbands and plain olive drab uniforms. There are likely two companies worth of MPs operating in the region of the city that the consulates are in, though an exact estimate is not possible at this time.


It is expected that once hostilities commence and the Regime determines our objectives to be centered in Al Mout, they will attempt to reinforce the city from outside. There is at least a battalion’s worth of mechanized infantry that can be road marched to the city within a matter of hours. Other units are present but will take longer to reach the city.
Irregular Forces:
The Abbudin military is largely a conventional force. They are not expected to have paramilitary or irregular forces in any significant numbers.
 
 
TERRAIN AND WEATHER:
The city of Al Mout is located on the coast and is surrounded by desert. Temperatures during the day are expected to reach a high of 90° F. The weather is forecasted to be a mix of clear and partly cloudy over the course of the next three days and should not hinder aerial or amphibious operations.

 
TROOPS:
Carrier Strike Group 12 (CSG 12):
USS Enterprise CVN VFA-211 12x F/A-18F VMFA-251 12x F/A-18C VFA-136 12x F/A-18C VFA-86 12x F/A-18C VAQ-137 4x EA-6B VAW-123 4x E-2C 2000 VS-32 8x S-3B HS-11 6x SH-60F 2x HH-60H USS Gettysburg CG USS Arleigh Burke DDG USS Forrest Sherman DDG USS James E Williams DDG USS Stout DDG USS Philadelphia SSN USNS Supply T-AOE CSG 12 is the main aerial and naval effort of this operation. The USS Enterprise is equipped with its entire carrier air wing. She has 36 F/A-18C Hornet multirole fighters, 12 of the new F/A-18F Super Hornet multirole fighters, and a full complement of support aircraft including the E-2C Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning (AEW) and EA-6 Prowler Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft. A carrier air wing carries an immense amount of firepower for both enemy air and ground targets.
Supporting the Enterprise is her primary air defender, the guided missile cruiser (CG) USS Gettysburg. The Gettysburg carries a suite of anti-air missiles that can shoot down both incoming aircraft and missiles at ranges out to 150nm. The extremely powerful AEGIS radar greatly enhances her ability by allowing her to simultaneously scan, track and engage multiple targets from multiple bearings, as well as hand off targeting info to coordinate air defense with other ships. Four guided missile destroyers (DDGs) provide additional air defense, as well as an overwhelming land strike capability. There are 224 Tomahawk missiles (112x RGM-109C, 112x RGM-109E) between these four destroyers.
Also in support is the USS Philadelphia, a Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarine (SSN) which brings with her an additional 8 Tomahawk missiles (4x UGM-109C, 4x UGM-109E). She is primarily assigned to Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and is not expected to play a major role in this operation.
Task Force Wasp:
USS Wasp 4x AH-1W 4x CH-53E 4x MV-22B 6x AV-8B 2x CH-46E 4x UH-1N 2x HH-60H 4x SH-60F USS Ticonderoga CG USS Bainbridge DDG USS Oak Hill LSD Task Force Wasp is an amphibious assault group that carries the 2nd MEU and all assets required to support the MEU during amphibious operations. She is equipped with her own suite of aircraft, though these are primarily to support the MEU while engaged or perform logistical functions. The four AH-1W Super Cobra’s and AV-8B Harriers can provide the Marines with on call CAS, while the CH-53s, MV-22s and CH-46s all provide a heavy lift capability.
The Wasp is escorted by a CG and a DDG with the same roles as the CG and DDGs assigned to the Enterprise; defend the air space and strike land-based targets.
2nd Marine Expeditionary Unit:
A Marine Expeditionary Unit is a reinforced battalion capable of quickly responding to flashpoints around the world and conducting sustained amphibious operations. Due to the nature of this operation, no heavy lift amphibious craft are available, meaning the Marines will have to leave their tanks and Humvee’s behind. Two companies of Marines will secure the consulates and will be supported by the battalion headquarters, an engineer platoon, scout sniper platoon, reconnaissance platoon and the AAV platoon that will transport all personnel to and from the beach. This consolidated force is called the Marine Landing Party. C Company, the third rifle company of the MEU, will stay on USS Wasp as a Quick Reaction Force (QRF), responding if needed.
Marine Landing Party:
Battalion Headquarters Scout Sniper Platoon Engineer Platoon Reconnaissance Platoon AAV Platoon A Company B Company Quick Reaction Force:
C Company Naval Support Activity (NSA) Souda Bay:
1x U-2S 1x RQ-4B 1x EC-130H 3x KC-135R 2x E-3C A number of supporting assets are located at the NATO naval base at Souda Bay on the island of Crete. All of these are support assets. A U-2 spy plane and RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV will provide constant on-station reconnaissance of Al Mout and the surrounding area. The EC-130 Compass Call will provide offensive electronic warfare capabilities such as jamming specific enemy radar and SAM sites. KC-135s will provide aerial refueling capability allowing station aircraft to remain in the air longer, and E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Command System (AWACS) will provide additional AEW support if needed.
Due to the rapid escalation in Al Mout, some assets at NSA Souda Bay are still being prepared and will not be ready for at least a few hours, namely the AWACS and refueling aircraft. The U-2 is already airborne and flying a racetrack pattern waiting for the enemy ADN to be reduced, and the Global Hawk is ready to be launched.
TIME:
The date is 5 May. The time is currently 0500 Zulu, 0600 Local. Amphibious operations are templated to begin by 1000 Zulu, though this is subject to the reduction of enemy air and air defense assets.
 
CIVILIAN CONSIDERATIONS:
Al Mout is a populated city full of civilians. Efforts to reduce civilian casualties are being taken primarily in the form of weapon use restrictions. Only precision guided munitions are authorized for use within city limits. These weapons include JDAMs and Tomahawks but exclude weapons such as unguided bombs (ex. Mk82 without JDAM conversion, CBU cluster bombs) or naval gunfire support from 127mm deck guns.
Once troops are in direct contact, the use of unguided weapons for CAS is authorized (such as unguided rockets fired from Super Cobra gunships) but only against positively identified enemy targets. All other use of unguided munitions within city limits remains restricted.
Personnel not in uniform registering weapons cannot be engaged unless they engage friendly units first. All uniformed enemy combatants are free to be engaged at will.
INITIAL TASKINGS
CSG 12:
CSG 12 is initially the main effort. It is tasked with both establishing and maintaining air superiority, as well as carrying out strikes against enemy radar, air defense, and strategic targets.
USS Enterprise CVN is the flagship and will support naval aviation as well as being the primary command and control center for this operation USS Gettysburg CG will provide comprehensive air defense to the carrier and ships of CSG 12 USS Arleigh Burke will strike targets designated in Strike Package North USS Forrest Sherman will strike targets designated in Strike Package West USS James E Williams will strike targets designated in Strike Package Airport USS Stout will strike targets designated in Strike Package Al Mout USS Philadelphia SSN will provide electronic intelligence (ELINT) and maritime surveillance, and pilot recovery USNS Supply T-AOE will provide on-station replenishment if necessary and aid in pilot recovery if needed Map of Strike Packages:

 
Naval Aviation:
The primary conventional striking power of the US Navy, the entire carrier air wing will be tasked with establishing air superiority and striking enemy military and strategic targets in order to allow the Marines to conduct their amphibious infiltration and evacuate the consulates.
VFA-211 (F/A-18F) will establish and maintain a combat air patrol (CAP) over CSG 12 and Task Force Wasp in order to maintain air superiority over all friendly naval assets VMFA-251 (F/A-18C) will remain on standby, ready to perform CAS for the Marine landing party once it has been deployed VFA-136 (F/A-18C) will perform SEAD/DEAD strikes in cooperation with Tomahawk strikes from CSG 12 ships VFA-86 (F/A-18C) will conduct an alpha strike (entire squadron sorties) against Al Mout International Airport with the goal of destroying enemy aircraft on the ground and eliminating the ability of the airport to support flight operations VAQ-137 (EA-6B) will provide EW support in the form of ELINT and directed jamming VAW-123 (S-3B) will provide aerial support, such as aerial refueling, as well as maritime surveillance HS-11 (HH/SH-60) will provide anti-surface warfare (ASW), maritime surveillance and pilot recovery Task Force Wasp:
Task Force Wasp will transport the 2nd MEU close enough to the shores of Al Mout to conduct the amphibious infiltration, will support the Marines during their infiltration, and then will receive and care for all consulate personnel and any casualties sustained during land operations.
USS Wasp will support both aerial operations and Marine amphibious operations, and will receive all evacuated consulate personnel and casualties suffered during land operations 4x AH-1W will provide Marines with CAS while embarked on amphibious operations 4x CH-53E can provide heavy lift support of both land and naval operations 4x MV-22B can provide heavy lift support of both land and naval operations 6x AV-8B will provide Marines with CAS while embarked on amphibious operations 2x CH-46E can provide heavy lift support of both land and naval operations as well as pilot recovery and humanitarian assistance 4x UH-1N can provide logistical support to both naval and land operations as well as pilot recovery 2x HH-60H can provide logistical support to both naval and land operations as well as pilot recovery 4x SH-60F will provide ASW and maritime surveillance to Task Force Wasp USS Ticonderoga CG will provide comprehensive air defense to the carrier and ships of Task Force Wasp USS Bainbridge DDG will provide air defense and maritime surveillance, and is capable (though not initially tasked with) conducting land strikes with Tomahawks USS Oak Hill LSD will provide amphibious support to Marines and can receive Marines, consulate personnel and casualties as an alternative to USS Wasp 2nd MEU:
Upon arriving on station off the coast of Al Mout, the 2nd MEU will conduct an amphibious infiltration of the city. Using amphibious vehicles and supported by CAS, they will make landfall and proceed into the city to the US and Canadian consulates. They will evacuate all personnel and human remains (if/where applicable) and remove or destroy any sensitive materials before withdrawing from the city and returning to Task Force Wasp. A detailed landing plan and tasking follows in the next section titled “Amphibious Plan.”
 
Special Assets:
Special assets are designated as units not operating directly from either CSG 12 or Task Force Wasp. They are primarily reconnaissance and support units, providing constant direct intelligence gathering capabilities and EW support as well as aerial refueling and AEW
 
1x U-2S is tasked with providing direct imaging and intelligence gathering of Al Mout and the surrounding area to give commanders a better idea of the situation on the ground and to provide early warning and tracking to new threats, such as enemy reinforcements to the city 1x RQ-4B is tasked with providing direct imaging and intelligence gathering of Al Mout and the surrounding area to give commanders a better idea of the situation on the ground and to provide early warning and tracking to new threats, such as enemy reinforcements to the city 1x EC-130H is tasked with providing comprehensive EW support in the form of direct jamming of specific enemy radar and air defense assets as well as providing additional ELINT support 3x KC-135R is tasked with providing aerial refueling 2x E-3C is tasked with providing additional AEW Emissions Control (EMCON):
EMCON BRAVO
All ships will restrict radiation emissions (radars are off) but can still communicate and data transfer All aircraft are EMCON DELTA – unrestricted emissions
 
AMPHIBIOUS PLAN
Plan:

 
The amphibious plan is as follows. The engineers will land first and perform a quick sweep of the beach for mines and obstacles. Imagery shows that the beach should be clear and free of mines and obstacles, so the sweep should be quick. A and B Companies along with the scout sniper and recon platoon and battalion headquarters element will land when cleared to by the engineers.
The engineers will make breaches large enough for AAV’s to pass through at breach points Elmer and Fudd.
A Company will proceed through breach point Elmer onto MSR Wiley to MSR Market. At the intersection of MSR Market and Wiley, blocking position Bugs will be established. Then the company will continue down MSR Liberty to the US consulate. Similarly, B Company will proceed through breach point Fudd onto MSR Coyote to MSR Market. At the intersection of MSR Market and Maple, blocking position Bunny will be established. Then the company will continue down MSR Maple to the Canadian consulate.
Upon reaching the consulates, the Marines will secure the compounds and establish a security perimeter. Scout snipers will establish overwatch points on the roofs of the consulates. The Marines will first evacuate consulate personnel to the AAVs, then secure/destroy any sensitive materials on site.
Once the consulates are secured and policed, each company will withdraw to their respective blocking positions, recover the Marines manning those positions, and then withdraw to the beach. From there everyone will amphibiously embark and return to the ships of Task Force Wasp.
Taskings:
A Company: Establish blocking position Elmer on MSR Market, move to and secure US consulate via MSR Liberty B Company: Establish blocking position Fudd on MSR Market, move to and secure Canadian consulate via MSR Maple Engineer Platoon: Provide initial beach screening and breach points at point Bugs (for A Co) and Bunny (for B Co) to allow immediate road access to MSR Scout Sniper Platoon: Will provide rooftop security at both consulates once they have been secured Recon Platoon: Reinforce blocking positions C Company: QRF Landing Plan:
A MEU comes with 12 AAV-7s organic to the formation. Due to the size of the Marine Landing Party and the lack of use of other amphibious landing craft, there are not enough AAVs to land the entire landing party at the same time. The landing party will infil and exfil in waves, designated below:
Infil:
1.      Engineers, Scout Snipers, Recon platoon
2.      A Company, Battalion Headquarters
3.      B Company
Exfil:
1.      Engineers, Scout Snipers, Recon platoon, all consulate personnel and casualties not already evacuated
2.      A Company
3.      B Company, Battalion Headquarters
 
Supporting Fires:
Once ashore, and as long as the airspace remains clear, the Marines will have overwhelming air support. Both the USS Wasp and USS Enterprise will have on call CAS dedicated to supporting the Marines.
Wasp:
4x AH-1W Super Cobra’s 6x AV-8B Harrier’s Enterprise:
12x F/A-18C Hornet’s VMFA-251 (Marine aviation) Due to the restrictions on unguided weapons use inside city limits, the Marines will not have access to mortars or naval gunfire support. However, the Cobra’s will still be allowed to engage positively identified enemy targets with unguided rockets.

That's absolutely how I see it as well!

Totally agree. I think this is why Cold War utilizes the CM engine best. Both sides have very different ways of winning and you have this perfect balance of speed and firepower that allow every battle to be very dynamic.
@Free Whisky thanks for sharing this video. Looking forward to the next one. I hope none of this discussion is taken as nitpicking. I think we all just enjoy trying to solve this puzzle together.
I think the amount of discussion/critique just shows how much is left to solve in this match and the variety of strategies available in each engagement.

Not going to weigh in here on @Free Whisky's tactics I will leave that to the rest of the group.  I so want to highlight somethings that jumped out at me though as I watched this excellent AAR.
First, CM is really unique, or at least one of very few, in that it is a game about 'managing chaos' or in this case "surviving chaos".  Free Whiskey had a plan going in, it met an opposing plan and not a small amount of just random acts of tactical turbulence in that collision.  
Second, clicks per minute are not going to save you.  In CM, it more likely that "re-thinking per minute" or re-strategizing (e.g. 4 Plans) faster and better than an opponent is going to carry the day.
Points 1 and 2  are in constant dynamic competitive motion, forcing players to constantly make decisions.  These are what makes CM realistic, in many ways beyond its contemporaries; not the vehicles and weapon systems, they are the means to the end.  I play other wargames (I can hear the gasps) and in a lot of RTSs it is about clicks and strategy is very attritional (i.e. how fast can I throw more stuff in that direction).  This is not to say they are not without merit, and they can get the blood pumping but one does not get the same "combat chess on a ship deck, in a storm" feel.
So when I look at what Free Whiskey did right, I see a lot of adaptation of "the plan" and improvisation with limited resources in the face of an opponent under the same conditions.  His ability to re-think and adapt with what he had (e.g. Toothless) is the real stuff and frankly what led him to a solid draw.  "But how could he have won there Capt?".  No idea, in fact in this QB, on that map, maybe there was no way to win.  But I do see those skill sets that need to be nurtured and enhanced that will lead to more wins than losses.  
I also see bottle madness as the red god laughs his ass off, and that is simply outstanding.   

Obviously that 4cm "miss" doesn't take into account the 7.5cm shell, or that the tank is a 3D object, but again, this kind of tool is useful to get some understanding of the physics involved, but one that needs to be applied carefully to real-world results. Spherical elephants in a vacuum, etc.

So I make that an angle of about 0.18 degrees, which means at 600m, the shell is at +50cm.

The height of a Panzer IV is 2.68m, with the turret taking about a third (judging by eye) of that, or 0.89m.

Centre of the turret then has 0.46m either side of it. That means the top of the tank is 4cm lower than the "point blank" (which I agree, pedantically, is not the correct term - "point blank" would mean "can hit without using the sights" in this sense), or rather the pre-zeroed position.

CM is also explicitly not a firing range - it's a design principle that there is an assumption that you're involved in full-on combat - so there will be deviation from that point. That'll take the form of a vertical ellipse from this central point, and the size of that ellipse will depend on too many factors to guess at (but you can iterate solutions to get a reasonable idea).

Its worth pointing out that the battlesight is zeroed to a figure, which we believe to be 800m (since this was increased for cold war).
That means that although I do think ballistic calculation isn't entirely the wrong tool to use here, the angle certainly will *not* start at zero degrees - best way to model that is for the shell to lose zero height at 800m (so the trajectory will go up, then down), for the given velocity.
Then it's worth considering both error bars, and the height of the exposed portion of the tank.
This is a good tool to help understand ballistics, but it does need to be used carefully
 

Hi all, I uploaded a video AAR of Combat Mission Cold War to Youtube. I thought I'd post it here so you can all tell me what it was you believe led to my demise 😉
 
https://youtu.be/qxLCkSFYq2c

It’s good to see that CM is accurately simulating reality then. 
 
Hull down makes it harder for the tank that is hull down to be spotted, which in turn makes it harder to kill vs a tank out in the open. 
 
It also shows that at point blank range of 600m, ballistics are simulated correctly. The shell being fired is going to hit where the crosshair is placed with a very small degree of deviation. 
 
I would be interested to see the same test run again at tank combat ranges. That is to say, ranges that are beyond battle sight zero/point blank range. Say, double the distance at 1200m. 

Ditto. 

Ditto. 

If you all expect any good to come from a Semmes topic...well, prepared to be disappointed. 

This entire discussion is misunderstanding some basic fundamentals. 
Hull down means that a tanks hull is covered by terrain or a fortification, leaving only the turret exposed. 

(Not my graphic)
Fighting from hull down is entirely different. Tanks who fight from hull down are not stationary. While not under fire, they observe from a hull down position. This increases protection, reduces visibility (reduces the chance of being spotted by presenting a smaller target), while maintaining situational awareness by observing the battlefield. Once engaged, tanks move. They fire from a hull down position (ideally) and then reverse into a turret down (similar to hull down, but now both the hull and turret of the tank are completely concealed by terrain) while reloading. The tank either then moves back up into a hull down position to fire again, or changes positions to a new battle position and does the drill over again. This is known as jockying. A tank moving from hull down firing to turret down reloading and back to hull down is known as a berm drill. 
Here is a video I have posted before showing the basics of a berm drill, without firing the main gun:
A test that has a tank in hull down being fired at while not moving is a flawed test. Anything not moving while being fired at is increasing its chance of being hit. Whether that is an infantryman, a machine gun team, a tank, an IFV, whatever. Displacing is a fundamental tactical movement.

Nice explanation and good point on the 'fighting' bit :). 

Jockeying in CM is a bit difficult, although with using pauses it's quite doable imo especially with modern tanks and using the pause feature. 

This entire discussion is misunderstanding some basic fundamentals. 
Hull down means that a tanks hull is covered by terrain or a fortification, leaving only the turret exposed. 

(Not my graphic)
Fighting from hull down is entirely different. Tanks who fight from hull down are not stationary. While not under fire, they observe from a hull down position. This increases protection, reduces visibility (reduces the chance of being spotted by presenting a smaller target), while maintaining situational awareness by observing the battlefield. Once engaged, tanks move. They fire from a hull down position (ideally) and then reverse into a turret down (similar to hull down, but now both the hull and turret of the tank are completely concealed by terrain) while reloading. The tank either then moves back up into a hull down position to fire again, or changes positions to a new battle position and does the drill over again. This is known as jockying. A tank moving from hull down firing to turret down reloading and back to hull down is known as a berm drill. 
Here is a video I have posted before showing the basics of a berm drill, without firing the main gun:
A test that has a tank in hull down being fired at while not moving is a flawed test. Anything not moving while being fired at is increasing its chance of being hit. Whether that is an infantryman, a machine gun team, a tank, an IFV, whatever. Displacing is a fundamental tactical movement.

This entire discussion is misunderstanding some basic fundamentals. 
Hull down means that a tanks hull is covered by terrain or a fortification, leaving only the turret exposed. 

(Not my graphic)
Fighting from hull down is entirely different. Tanks who fight from hull down are not stationary. While not under fire, they observe from a hull down position. This increases protection, reduces visibility (reduces the chance of being spotted by presenting a smaller target), while maintaining situational awareness by observing the battlefield. Once engaged, tanks move. They fire from a hull down position (ideally) and then reverse into a turret down (similar to hull down, but now both the hull and turret of the tank are completely concealed by terrain) while reloading. The tank either then moves back up into a hull down position to fire again, or changes positions to a new battle position and does the drill over again. This is known as jockying. A tank moving from hull down firing to turret down reloading and back to hull down is known as a berm drill. 
Here is a video I have posted before showing the basics of a berm drill, without firing the main gun:
A test that has a tank in hull down being fired at while not moving is a flawed test. Anything not moving while being fired at is increasing its chance of being hit. Whether that is an infantryman, a machine gun team, a tank, an IFV, whatever. Displacing is a fundamental tactical movement.

Now, in terms of the platoon sergeant - in CMCW, the HQ element is two men, and I suspect there's a good argument for making that a one man team, and giving the HQ BMP a fixed three man crew, with the third sitting in the commander's seat.

My statement about this "not being for spotting" - this will clearly help spotting and be a C2 link. The main thing I rankle at are the (historically very common on this forum) suggestions about splitting off a scout team to occupy these seats, or to buy Strela teams to do the same. This will let you use a BMP a bit more like a worse Bradley, but it won't help you use the BMP like a BMP.

Thanks for the kind words.
 
I made some more.
Pebble in my shoe
 
Last charge of the 120th Part I
 
Part II
 

Every. Single. Soviet campaign mission is a battalion level action, and the final battle is a regimental action. And all of them are on large maps that accommodate the force size. Most of the US missions are battalion level as well. The training scenarios for the Soviets are all battalion level actions, and a good number of the independent scenarios are battalion and larger actions as well.
The record is so beyond broken at this point. Have you even played Cold War? Sheesh.

It may be an interesting document indeed, but the part that you cited didn't contain anything about optics. I asked you about this but you didn't reply (yet).
 
The issue some people may have with your posts is that you are aggressive in tone claiming that CMx2 is very biased towards US and that everyone who says anything else is blind/biased etc. You make broad sweeping statements but don't follow up when the actual bolts and pieces are discussed. 
This is sometimes called 'seagull management'; as in someone (in the example a manager) comes flying in, makes a lot of noise and **** on everything than flies away. 
When you get pushback (which is to be expected when utilizing the form and tone of communication you favor), you start acting like a victim and cry about ad hominems on your person and than project your own discussion style onto others. 
To get back to the point (although slightly OT): in game m60 is perceived to have better spotting and targeting capabilities compared to T-62. Do you assert that is wrong? If so, on what base?
Simply shouting that T-62 is blind because m60 can see it while T-62 can't see m60 isn't proving anything. Posting an interesting document about how some researchers who have written stuff in the past might have come to wrong conclusions also doesn't proof anything to anyone.
Most people on this forums understand that, but you seem to believe you have excellent scientific empirically valid dissertation about why CMx2 has stuff wrong.
Which you haven't. Basically you make a lot of noise, but often not much else.

Da, comrade! Check out this vid of me giving one such address to my men before a battle: 
 
Extra rations of carrots every day!
How do you say, "hit the nail on the head" in German?

That's quite a layered question, with some curveballs thrown in, so bear with me:

Firstly, sourcing:
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot Spots/Documents/Russia/2017-07-The-Russian-Way-of-War-Grau-Bartles.pdf
In some respects this is apparently (and unsurprisingly, since it's five years later) out of date by now, but it's absolutely relevant for CMBS.

In there, you can see that the majority of the fundamentals of Soviet doctrine have survived intact into the modern day - attacking on-line for maximum mass, the focus on meeting engagements, on counter-attack in the defence, etc. In this sense, CMCW lets you see those fundamentals very clearly, in their intended context, before you translate them to a new one.

First curveball - there's a large difference between Russia vs Ukraine and Russia vs the US here. The latter is significantly more asymmetric, so ends up breaking a lot of the rules or otherwise forcing you out of where you want to be. That's essentially why things like Javelin exist, of course - they're supposed to be disruptive technology, aimed at plausible opposition. Will focus on Russia vs Ukraine then, with some notes on the US at the end.

Second curveball - I'm not convinced that all Black Sea scenarios capture or represent the main tropes of hyper-modern warfare as well as they could. Arguably that's true for all CM titles, but I suspect it's inevitably a little worse for Black Sea, due to the speculative nature of everything. As an example of that, Between Two Fahrbahns in Cold War. That's scenario that's great fun to play from either side, plays well H2H, and it's perfectly competent... but isn't terribly representative of "Cold War", and doesn't really make an argument, express a concept or investigate a tactical problem of the period. The same scenario might as well have Shermans vs Panzer IVs and it would work equally well.

So, what defines Black Sea? Philip Karber has a definition of the real combat in the region as "high intensity combat on a low density battlefield", and I think that core idea should also define CMBS. As a basic rule of thumb then - it's pretty common to use a Quick Battle map that's one size larger than your force. In Black Sea I think that should really be two sizes larger by default. That same thinking can/should apply to scenarios, but it's intended as a quick representation of the idea.

The other difference in theme is that in Cold War the operational tempo is paramount. Typically the tactical battlefield is not something that needs to be taken, it's something that needs to be move through, as fast as possible. This is part of the reason why the Soviets could be (had to be) comparatively free with casualties - gaining operational freedom is the goal here, and the tactical-level losses are acceptable.

This is not true for Black Sea. The Russian army is smaller, more casualty-adverse, and isn't screaming towards the Rhine at maximum velocity. This means you'll be more interested in capturing objectives, and can't afford to take the losses. In addition, the Russian army has significantly improved equipment. Much better spotting and C2, faster call-in times for artillery, ERA and APS, drones to call in massed fires, etc. They also have pushed assets down to lower levels - not as much as the US do, but significantly more than the Soviets, meaning that small units are significantly more capable and independent. The Russian air defence is significantly better than the US, so they should have drone superiority (and the US have nothing that can shoot down Zala at all). 

So how do you marry these two ideas? Soviet fundamentals, whilst being casualty-adverse? This is perhaps the major problem to solve as the Russians, but a lot of it comes down to controlling your engagements. You still want to be attacking on-line, with maximum firepower against a subset of the enemy, but you want to be careful as and when you engage, and to control that engagement with overwhelming firepower. An actual engagement might only last a minute or two, and a battle might be a lot of sneaking and manoeuvre, followed by a brief period of devastating fires. High intensity, Low density.

The first mission of the Russian campaign in the core game is indicative, I think. This is fundamentally a Soviet doctrinal meeting engagement. This is identical in concept to Miller's training scenario from CMCW, or the first mission of the Soviet campaign in Cold War, but the differences start to become apparent.

In the Russian campaign scenario, you have all the elements of that meeting engagement - you have a recon platoon, followed by a Forward Security Element of a BMP-3 company and a tank platoon, and they should be doing the same fundamental job.

The differences really start when the follow-up to that FSE is a single tank company, and not an entire battalion. That means that you're inherently more limited in how you can approach this.

The approach I took with this was to advance with the recon platoon and get spots along the route of contact, then advance at the speed of the fireplan. The FSE wants to march into a valley, so, suppressing the high town objective on the valley's far side is what allowed the follow-on tank company to take up a base of fire on the right side hill, on-line, and dominate the valley with fires.

The FSE can then approach into the valley floor, preceded with drone-summoned fires on the central objective, and with covering fires on likely enemy positions to the flanks. This FSE can then bypass, surround and reduce the central objective, before moving on to take on the others to the conclusion.

At each stage the fundamentals are the same - your fire plan is paramount, and in each bound you're attempting to go fires-first, maximising firepower at every engagement. 

So, how about the US? Well, Abrams, Bradley and Javelin represent disruptive technology, that will do terrible things to you. The fundamentals remain identical, but you can do everything right and still lose sometimes, and anything you do wrong will be punished severely. Fighting javelins is about firepower and the terrain read - they're systems used on foot, and the modern US infantryman doesn't like mortars anymore than anyone else does, so denying potential javelin positions is as important as anything. Abrams need to be engaged from the flank where possible (ideally from two angles at once), and Bradleys are near-psychic in their spotting, so you need to engage them quickly and decisively with excellent recon - you never want to get into an engagement where you don't already have spotting contacts.

(It's worth noting that the above is talking about the regimental and divisional level - CMCW focuses on battalion level stuff, so is the tactical sharp end, rather than the operational fluidity.)

So, I think it's important to learn the right lesson from those training scenarios. The basic "attack" scenario represents the most basic form, and it's really intended to teach two lessons - the importance of co-ordinating with your artillery, and the value of mass (i.e., the first tank to spot usually wins an engagement, but if you have enough tanks then one of them will get the first spot).

These principles are still true for the Russian army today, but this structure of attack was not the expected default, even then.

The default assumption, as above, was that the usual tactical fight would be the meeting engagement - rapid attacks from the march. The core principles of mass and fires are as true there are they are in the basic attack, but their implementation was much more fluid, complex and subtle.
 

So, to give you an idea of what that should look like, based on a currently-running game of this I'm playing as the Soviets: http://www.wargaming.co/professional/details/britisharmy1956.htm
In that game, I have a division, and I'm approaching a German town bisected by a major river running north-south.

I chose to advance on two axis, with one regiment on each, preceded by recon. The regiments had orders to attack anything they find directly from the march.

The north regiment made visual contact, so the remaining parts of the division (engineers, two more infantry regiments and the tank regiment, all headed south.

What this means from an operation/ooda loop standpoint is that the north regiment will make contact, and might well bounce off (attacking from the march isn't great, and a regiment attacking a defensive battalion from the march doesn't have great odds in that ruleset). This regiment will then recombine and reform, and make a more formal attack, which is likely to succeed. This gives the NATO player a real decision to make - they have no contact with the south forces at all, so they will have to decide whether they reinforce the north, and how much of their reserves are committed in that direction.

The whole point of this north attack is to buy time in the south, to screen and engineer a way across the river, and to bypass and surround the town. This fluid, multi-axis approach is exactly what the above is discussing, and is represented in CMCW very well.

A good discussion on this kind of thing (same chap who publishes the above ruleset): https://20thcenturywargaming.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/why-cold-war-warsaw-pact-tactics-work-in-wargaming/