HerrTom

Of course it has. The VP-7M fuze has an arming distance of 3 - 15 meters.
And nevertheless in my Army I believe it is instructed not to fire it closer than 25 meters (I could be wrong as I do not instruct the RPG).

TOW / ITOW had a xenon near-infrared beacon in the tail.  Consequently, the missile could not be tracked through obscurants by the optical tracker even if the AN/TAS-4 thermal night sight was used in conjunction with the optical tracker.  This was only rectified with AN/TAS-4A, which was an active tracking unit, and the TOW-2 missile, which had a thermal beacon in the tail in addition to xenon near-IR beacon.
However, the tail beacon in the M47 may have been thermal rather than near-IR, so should be able to both see and guide through smoke if so. Need to double-check that.

Some idyllic campfire scenery

These held their own quite well.

Enjoying the view

Found this on Youtube 😄

What about them Erwin?
They're human beings and they deserve to be able to do what anyone else can in the US military.
The only thing your good for is sitting in your chair and bitching about people taking jobs or something, luckily your backwards disgusting opinions are all very unpopular with most of the country. Keep your bigoted views to yourself or find some obscure dirty hole on the internet where you can whine.

You lose.

Ok. Fair enough it is. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I just don't want to see a bunch of weirdness dragged into this hobby/place like has plagued and destroyed a lot of others in the last few years. I come here to escape modern politics and real world BS. We'll chalk it up to bad timing/misunderstanding/lack of knowledge.
I am normally pretty friendly to noobs, believe it or not, thread just struck me wrong, I suppose.
So, welcome.
Mord.

I can see why you'd think that. Fair enough.
I knew it'd be rash to ask and am now kicking myself for not researching it thoroughly. Again, I am glad to be wrong!

Good point, duly noted!
Just the LOD bugs mentioned that are specific to CW, as well as other bugs specific to CW, like the QB TOE and others noted in the bug thread. The render distance is an engine limitation as far as I understand, so that has more to do with the engine than any specific title. For engine issues, all we can do is make requests/suggestions. Sometimes it works out, like getting DPICM in, and sometimes we get told no or not possible. 
 

Really suffering from this too. Maps seem great, but I mainly see featureless low detail. 
 
Fact I got slaughtered in first NTC mission probably didn't help.... 

It’s because the maps in CMCW are, on average, larger than most other CM titles. So you will notice the effect more in CW, but it is the same in every CM game. 

Roads and railroads have always looked terrible for me (1070 here) in all CM games. I started experimenting with some massive maps a while back in CM:BS and came across the same issue of trees disappearing in the distance.  I'm not sure I buy the DirectX/OpenGL argument rather than it's a limitation on the CMx2 rendering engine that hasn't been addressed.  I would think it really hasn't been an issue until we started getting these (awesome) big maps in CM:CW.

Fun fact, for most of the title's development Shilellagh range was limited to 2000m, the range of the original MGM-51A missile (Its currently firing MGM-51C out to 3000m). So retreating up the hill would've meant the Russians being out of range until until they were 1/4 the way down the map. Event the Russian tanks sitting on the road would've been outside the range of the roadway M60A2s. Giving M60A2 the MGM-51C missile threw off gameplay assumptions a bit.
 😭

Not a lot, but I spend time way zoomed out all the time planning my battle at the start of the game or when a big change happens tactically in the battle (like a new column marching out of the woods). In particular, the disappearing trees is a big problem in figuring out where forests are on the big maps - but it even is a problem at ground level. Say I want to blow up this M901. Looks like a prime position to get some eyes on:
Edit: to note, since it's not clear from the pictures, they're taken from up on a hill at big zoom levels for clarity.

But nope, you can't see it. Why? You drive the camera forward quite a ways and suddenly trees sprout from the ground.

When planning my mission, I can't see any of the trees on the other half of the map from here. In reality, it's covered with trees.

Not a lot, but I spend time way zoomed out all the time planning my battle at the start of the game or when a big change happens tactically in the battle (like a new column marching out of the woods). In particular, the disappearing trees is a big problem in figuring out where forests are on the big maps - but it even is a problem at ground level. Say I want to blow up this M901. Looks like a prime position to get some eyes on:
Edit: to note, since it's not clear from the pictures, they're taken from up on a hill at big zoom levels for clarity.

But nope, you can't see it. Why? You drive the camera forward quite a ways and suddenly trees sprout from the ground.

When planning my mission, I can't see any of the trees on the other half of the map from here. In reality, it's covered with trees.

Remember your training, Corporal!

Corporal did not in fact remember his training. The Dragon ploughed into the street and they received a kindly worded reply delivered by 125mm express mail.
Meanwhile, the rest of the company deploys on a hillside, searching for signs of Ivan.

Good scouting gave us some good warning, allowing us to catch a forward security element by surprise.

With some of the discussion of using tanks and hull down positions I was try to think of something simple to improve controlling armor. One thought is maybe an order that is essentially the anti-hunt, where  instead of stopping movement on spotting an enemy, it starts reverse movement (or just quick move for infantry). So you could for example give a move order up to a ridge line and then a "withdraw" order back behind cover. The vehicle will move to the move order and sit there until it spots something. Once a target is spotted it'll complete any current action like a short stop to fire, then reverse to the withdraw order location. You could queue a couple moves and withdraws to have the vehicle pop up, shoot, and reverse away. Might also be useful in ambushes or with a hunt order then withdraw to allow scouting. 

Not a lot, but I spend time way zoomed out all the time planning my battle at the start of the game or when a big change happens tactically in the battle (like a new column marching out of the woods). In particular, the disappearing trees is a big problem in figuring out where forests are on the big maps - but it even is a problem at ground level. Say I want to blow up this M901. Looks like a prime position to get some eyes on:
Edit: to note, since it's not clear from the pictures, they're taken from up on a hill at big zoom levels for clarity.

But nope, you can't see it. Why? You drive the camera forward quite a ways and suddenly trees sprout from the ground.

When planning my mission, I can't see any of the trees on the other half of the map from here. In reality, it's covered with trees.

Here is the FAC procedure in more detail. This is from late 60s/early 70s in Vietnam:
01preface.qxd (defense.gov)  (pp. 316-317)

I admit, I'm only really familiar with Soviet FAC procedures, but the pilots would be given anchor points and directed to enter combat through specific azimuths ("251, expect to work from control point 14, combat 270-280, offset 2.5-3" - meaning aircraft 251 is being directed to head to a predetermined point 14, typically coordinated through the ATO, then is expected to enter into the battlespace from a bearing between 270 to 280 and expect the target between 2.5 and 3 km from the point).
I'm only particularly familiar with the cockpits of the F-14A/B, Mirage 2000C and AJS-37, but they all have dials (or buttons) to adjust the spacing and quantity of bombs to drop (except the Viggen which I don't think can drop in singles or pairs). This would be the purpose of a linear fire mission: the FAC directing the aircraft to drop bombs along a treeline, down a street, etc.
Honestly, the way I would rework CAS would be the following:
Linear missions: Pickles all ordnance along the length of the mission, or fires a burst from beginning to end with guns or rockets (which might not be able to get fully expended, for example). With guided weapons, it gives the aircraft a bearing to fly along and the option to engage enemies spotted nearby the target area. Point missions: Blow up that building, would drop two bombs instead of all of them. Vehicle missions: This would be the bigger change, targeting a vehicle would be the equivalent of "Your target: motorised infantry company, 10-12 targets, in battle formation, moving with a course of 80-90, speed 5-10 km/h." Gameplay wise, a vehicle target would give the aircraft the ability to search for similar vehicles in the vicinity of the callout like an area strike does now. This would be exceptionally dangerous to use directly on the frontline since it gives the pilot latitude to engage similar targets nearby. Bonus points would be the ability to tell the aircraft what ordnance to use! I know we kind of have that ability, but if it was a lot more explicit (guns/rockets/bombs/missiles, etc) rather than light/medium/heavy I think usability would be much improved!

I agree, this is very annoying. The other end of the map itself will literally disappear on the largest maps at certain angles.

Remember your training, Corporal!

Corporal did not in fact remember his training. The Dragon ploughed into the street and they received a kindly worded reply delivered by 125mm express mail.
Meanwhile, the rest of the company deploys on a hillside, searching for signs of Ivan.

Good scouting gave us some good warning, allowing us to catch a forward security element by surprise.

Night fight

Correct.
I agree with @domfluff when it comes to aircraft. I think that a few tweaks would go a long way to how they are in game. Longer loiter times (when not being shot at) and larger area missions I think would be a good start. Plus, allowing aircraft to come in and drop all their bombs in one pass would make them both more effective, more survivable, and more realistic, especially in Cold War. 
There are certainly other fixes/tweaks that could be implemented but those are a few things that come immediately to mind that I think would have a positive effect.