Kaunitz

Let's start with the most lethal weapon: a direct fire high velocity gun. I used a British Airborne 2lber (57mm) AT gun, a highly accurate flat trajectory weapon with HE and AP ammo. I have modded it to look like a 75mm recoilless rifle of the type used by both sides at Dien Bien Phu. Gun crew is Green.



I ran four plays of 10-12 minutes each. The results were similar enough that I didn't see value in running more. I also ran a 30 minute playthrough as the French defenders, and found the results consistent with these tests.

Test 1. Gun spots all 3 bunkers quickly, but does not fire. I order Area fire to a point beyond each bunker.
1.(left bunker, 215m). Area shots 1-2 penetrate, shot 3 sets it afire.
2.(centre bunker, 230m) Area shots 1-5 overshoot, shots 6-8 penetrate (bunker KOed).
3.(right bunker, 250m) First Area shot sets it afire. This is a cement bunker!

Bunker 1


Bunker 2


Bunker 3 (revetted 3 meters below the range -- a 4 meter depth would put it out of sight of the shooter).


Test 2. Gun spots bunkers 1 and 2 immediately and fires on 2.
2. 5 shots in 1 minute -- all penetrate and shot 5 KOs.
1. Area shots 1-2 penetrate and set afire.
3. Never spotted - 5 area shots do not reveal it.

Test 3. Gun spots bunkers 2 and 3 within 30 seconds. Order Area fires
3. Area shot 1 sets afire
2. Area shots 2 and 4 hit - KO. others overshoot.
1. Never spotted.... I didn't bother trying area fire

Test 4. No area fire or other commands needed.
2. Gun spots immediately, KO'd in 2 shots (all penetrate)
1. Gun spots in minute 2, KO'd in 4 shots (all penetrate)
3. Gun spots in minute 3, KO'd in 4 shots (all penetrate)

And here is a surviving French para, stunned at how easily his "cement blockhouse" was destroyed and set ablaze. Note the Kilroy graffiti visible through the door.


EARLY CONCLUSIONS:

Just reconfirms what we already know; bunkers are virtually helpless against flat trajectory guns, even of lighter calibres, and are knocked out very quickly. Putting them in hull down positions does nothing to extend their lives -- even bunker 3, whose roof is the only part visible was killed instantly. Their firing slits are not their weak point (like you'd expect) -- they get killed just as quick from behind or the sides.

The only protection seems to be to hide them deep in the earth (4 meters) or behind crests so they aren't visible from a distance.

I don't know what the motivtion behind the topic is: Making the gunner duck in order to survive longer or making him duck in order to make him cease fire. Is the topic about the defensive or offensive capability of the halftrack? In any case, once panicked I also think that the passengers should keep their heads down.
I don't think that the halftrack is badly constructed. In my recent H2H game, I was very happy that my halftrack gunners were keeping their heads up and returning fire. In this case, the enemy's fire was ineffective (rifle shots from ca. 350-400m against the frontal armor & gun shield of the halftrack). Despite the halftrack getting hit by more than 100 bullets in a matter of perhaps 10 turns, not a single one penetrated or caused any casualties (video AAR will be available once the game is finished). The important precondition was that all bullets came strictly from the front. Combat Mission's cover mechanics are very detailed. As soon as the angle slightly changed, the gunner got exposed and shot, as the enemy was now able to fire "around" the gunshield. As always, distance/the laws of triangulation help to make it harder for the enemy to work around some piece of cover. And as always, you should not expose a weapon to areas that it can't control.
In fact I think halftracks are extremely strong (if used correctly) for their point cost. Major advantages:
elevated MG and eyes (better for spotting and firing over obstacles, but also harder to hide), radio good protection against light and medium artillery (a shell needs to land really very close for its shrapnel to have any chance to penetrate - protection can be increased further by proper positioning and sandbags; Note how elegantly the german halftrack is designed with the inwards bending upper armor plates of the passenger compartment - shrapnel striking upwards from the ground will hit the armor in a bad angle and be deflected just enough to protect the gunner) good protection against long range small arms fire from the front mobile extra ammo can transport troops Basically, you get an artillery proof mobile heavy MG with slightly less ammo (which can also be used as a small supply dump) and a radio included. If you buy an ordinary hMG (and add a trench for arty protection), you pay more and still don't have a radio and are not mobile.  The only drawback is that the halftrack has no binoculars, which means that the mounted hMG is not that good at shooting on sight (prefer area fire). 
PS: The M3A1 doesn't even have a gun shield for its MG.

When a US halftrack is unbuttoned (manning the gun), it will stay unbuttoned even if the crew and passengers are in the "panic" state. And the player is unable to order the halftrack to button. So the vehicle will keep driving around randomly, and the passengers will keep getting shot one by one as they pop up to man the gun. This is not the behaviour of panicked people, but of very brave or fanatic troops.
Panicked guys should stop manning the gun, and try to hide at the bottom of the halftrack. If rounds start to penetrate, they should bail out and run away.
I know there have been cases of very brave troops who kept manning the guns even though they were under heavy fire. However, I'd argue they were not panicking, but merely rattled or shaken in CM terms.
Thanks for your attention. You're now welcome to tell me I'm all wrong

Here is a diagram I've quickly tossed together, showing the effect of distance and muzzle height in relation to the aimpoint. If your aimpoint is at a different height than your muzzle, increasing the distance to the aimpoint results in a flatter trajectory, which can be used for grazing fire. Note that for the two muzzle points at lower height (red + blue), the intended grazing zone would be reverse-slope and could not be targeted. 
(Of course there is always some random inaccuracy/deviation from the "ideal" lines. This is not shown in this pic.)

Here is a diagram I've quickly tossed together, showing the effect of distance and muzzle height in relation to the aimpoint. If your aimpoint is at a different height than your muzzle, increasing the distance to the aimpoint results in a flatter trajectory, which can be used for grazing fire. Note that for the two muzzle points at lower height (red + blue), the intended grazing zone would be reverse-slope and could not be targeted. 
(Of course there is always some random inaccuracy/deviation from the "ideal" lines. This is not shown in this pic.)

Here is a diagram I've quickly tossed together, showing the effect of distance and muzzle height in relation to the aimpoint. If your aimpoint is at a different height than your muzzle, increasing the distance to the aimpoint results in a flatter trajectory, which can be used for grazing fire. Note that for the two muzzle points at lower height (red + blue), the intended grazing zone would be reverse-slope and could not be targeted. 
(Of course there is always some random inaccuracy/deviation from the "ideal" lines. This is not shown in this pic.)

If both tiles have the same height, it could work, especially since there is always some random dispersion? From my understanding, given a perfectly flat terrain, your bullets will cross through the "effect zone" at a greater height if you aim "behind" the zone. As soldiers tend to go prone (reduce their height), such a fire might be less effective .
If you aim short of the effect zone, by contrast, your bullets will cross the effect zone at a lower height, if at all (if they don't hit the ground in the effect zone that is), which is more dangerous for prone soldiers.
But really this depends on the exact height of the "aim point" which is unknown?
 

*super necro powers*
As it has been mentioned elsewhere, grazing fire (and theoretically also indirect fire) is possible right now in certain situations. You can let your units fire in a "flat" manner over ground if you position your units properly and the terrain is suitable. So it's not really a feature, but rather a very complex work around.
From my observations, it depends on the height of the firing weapon in relation to the height of the aimpoint on the area-targeted tile. Draw a line between those two and you get the path/angle of the projectile. If the line continues close to the ground for a long distance "after/behind" the tile you've aimed at, what you achieve is grazing fire. They bullet stays dangerous as it travels on.
Since the aimpoint is hardly ever on the exact same height as your muzzle, the distance between the muzzle and the area-targeted tile plays a major role. The higher your muzzle, the greater the distance to the targeted tile needs to be in order to achieve a "flat" trajectory. Therefore, it's pretty much impossible to get a flat trajectory with the main gun of a tank atmedium ranges. A prone infantryman with a MG, however, can get a flat trajectory at medium ranges. At extremely short ranges though, even the prone MG will get a "negative"/downwards pointing angle, firing into the ground at the area-targeted tile - so I assume the aimpoint must be slightly lower than the muzzle-height of a prone infantryman.  
To sum it up, you need to consider the height of your muzzle, the height of the tile you're targeting, the distance to it, and - importantly - the shape of the ground "behind" the area-targeted tile. You want your bullets to travel close to the ground after it passes the targeted tile. 
--------------------
Of course you still require a LOS on the tile you want to target. So, while small muzzle heights are generally good for grazing fire, they also suffer from terrain that obscures LOS (from my observations, each terrain type has a LOS-reducing value and a "height"). If you're on a hill or in the upper floor of a house, you have an easier time spotting enemies (as your LOS travels above most terrain tiles and thus cuts through fewer terrain tiles), but you trajectory is not flat.
It's also worth mentioning that the distance to the aimpoint affects your rate of fire. Before firing a shot or burst, a unit needs to aim, and the time it takes to aim depends on the distance to the aim-point (for a regular XP unit, I suppose it's ca. 1 second aiming per 100m distance). As you're generally targeting tiles that are much closer to you than your actual target zone, using the grazing fire method described here will result in relatively high rates of fire (and ammo consumption).
I also need to point out that due to its high ammo consumption, this method of grazing fire is not really usefull except for very few situations - mainly for MG flanking fire along the path of the attacker. With "target briefly", it can also be handy to make some impression on distant targets that pop out only for very short durations - if you don't use area-target, your units' aiming takes too long so they don't fire at all. Last but not least, it could probably be used for heavy MGs, whose capability for indirect fire is underrepresented in the game (also due to maps being too small in many cases). It would be interesting to place a heavy MG on the reverse slope of a very gentle hill. The MG would have many tiles in front of it, with the height increasing very gently from one tile to the next. This would allow you to fine-tune the elevation of the gun (by area-targeting different tiles). And then you'd need to observe where the bullets "land" (affected by bullet drop) for each elevation. Interesting idea, but probably not very practical .
The only thing you'd really need to make intentional grazing and indirect fire a real thing in Combat Mission is some form integrated gun-elevation. E.g. you should be allowed to target reverse slopes if the circumstances (1) terrain, 2) max/min elevation of the gun, 3) bullet or projectile drop, distance to the target) would allow an effective line of fire on that tile (one that is close enough to the ground to inflict suppression).  It would make a lot of sense for MGs and also infantry guns which, by the way, are also also underrepresented in the game right now (they suck because you can't make them fire indirectly!). Right now, you need to elevate the gun by firing at a tile that has a suitable height (if you're lucky enough to have one within your LOS...). 

In my eyes, "large" CM maps are just medium maps, really. Small maps usually lack ("cut off") observation and support positions. This in turn means that many units suffer disproportionally, especially scouts/observers and other recon elements as well as support elements (assault guns, infantry guns). Due to the tiny size of many maps, these units are forced into closer, uncomfortable ranges to the "frontline". Ranges at which they're spotted more easily and at which the opponent's shots miss rarely. Also, since the overall number of positions is limited on a small map, artillery can be extremely dangerous - there are only so many positions where the enemy can hide, which again increases the weakness of the aforementioned units which are typically only lightly armored. 
Anyway, back on topic!

On topic: I've already found an opponent!  (at The Few Good Men...)

I've posted these observations some time ago in my Gerbini scenario-topic, but I think they deserve a better spot and some discussion, so here we go!
Some short notes on dust in Combat Mission 
I have not conducted serious tests, just some quick hotseat-experiments in Combat Mission: Fortress Italy.
What raises dust?
Vehicle movement over "dusty terrain". The faster the vehicle goes, the more dust is thrown up. Firing large calibre guns (AT guns, tank guns, etc) from "dusty terrain". MGs are okay. Shell impacts on "dusty terrain" Whether a terrain is dusty or not depends on the ground condition (no dust if wet, eg.) and on the type of terrain. E.g. the ploughed field tiles don't raise any dust, most crop tiles do. Also consider different road types.
Who can see dust?
Dust generated by shell impacts can be seen by the opponent. Dust generated by firing or moving can only be seen by the opponent if he has spotted the unit generating the dust (confirmed contact required). Note that the enemy can only see the dust that is created from the moment on at which he has spotted the source (i.e. "older" dust generated by the source is not shown to the opponent retrospectively). On the other hand: once you've spotted dust, it stays even if you lose sight of its source. Effects of dust?
Dust reduces/blocks LOS. For example, if you have 5 tanks on a sanddune fire, they will literally disappear in a cloud of dust. This is a two-edged sword and something to consider if you want to area-fire. Fire --> dust-cloud --> No LOS --> no area fire until the dust dissipates. This also raises an important question: Do dustclouds that my enemy can't see (because he has not spotted the source) still handicap his LOS? In order words: Is it possible that he can't see me because he's looking at a dust-cloud of which he is totally unaware?  Can you be fooled by an invisible dust cloud? Another highly interesting question: I don't know whether dust raises the chance of getting spotted (as an unconfirmed contact at least, even if you're shrouded in your own dust-cloud?).  Behaviour of dust?
Dust travels with the wind (scenario condition) and dissipates at some point.

I've posted these observations some time ago in my Gerbini scenario-topic, but I think they deserve a better spot and some discussion, so here we go!
Some short notes on dust in Combat Mission 
I have not conducted serious tests, just some quick hotseat-experiments in Combat Mission: Fortress Italy.
What raises dust?
Vehicle movement over "dusty terrain". The faster the vehicle goes, the more dust is thrown up. Firing large calibre guns (AT guns, tank guns, etc) from "dusty terrain". MGs are okay. Shell impacts on "dusty terrain" Whether a terrain is dusty or not depends on the ground condition (no dust if wet, eg.) and on the type of terrain. E.g. the ploughed field tiles don't raise any dust, most crop tiles do. Also consider different road types.
Who can see dust?
Dust generated by shell impacts can be seen by the opponent. Dust generated by firing or moving can only be seen by the opponent if he has spotted the unit generating the dust (confirmed contact required). Note that the enemy can only see the dust that is created from the moment on at which he has spotted the source (i.e. "older" dust generated by the source is not shown to the opponent retrospectively). On the other hand: once you've spotted dust, it stays even if you lose sight of its source. Effects of dust?
Dust reduces/blocks LOS. For example, if you have 5 tanks on a sanddune fire, they will literally disappear in a cloud of dust. This is a two-edged sword and something to consider if you want to area-fire. Fire --> dust-cloud --> No LOS --> no area fire until the dust dissipates. This also raises an important question: Do dustclouds that my enemy can't see (because he has not spotted the source) still handicap his LOS? In order words: Is it possible that he can't see me because he's looking at a dust-cloud of which he is totally unaware?  Can you be fooled by an invisible dust cloud? Another highly interesting question: I don't know whether dust raises the chance of getting spotted (as an unconfirmed contact at least, even if you're shrouded in your own dust-cloud?).  Behaviour of dust?
Dust travels with the wind (scenario condition) and dissipates at some point.

I've posted these observations some time ago in my Gerbini scenario-topic, but I think they deserve a better spot and some discussion, so here we go!
Some short notes on dust in Combat Mission 
I have not conducted serious tests, just some quick hotseat-experiments in Combat Mission: Fortress Italy.
What raises dust?
Vehicle movement over "dusty terrain". The faster the vehicle goes, the more dust is thrown up. Firing large calibre guns (AT guns, tank guns, etc) from "dusty terrain". MGs are okay. Shell impacts on "dusty terrain" Whether a terrain is dusty or not depends on the ground condition (no dust if wet, eg.) and on the type of terrain. E.g. the ploughed field tiles don't raise any dust, most crop tiles do. Also consider different road types.
Who can see dust?
Dust generated by shell impacts can be seen by the opponent. Dust generated by firing or moving can only be seen by the opponent if he has spotted the unit generating the dust (confirmed contact required). Note that the enemy can only see the dust that is created from the moment on at which he has spotted the source (i.e. "older" dust generated by the source is not shown to the opponent retrospectively). On the other hand: once you've spotted dust, it stays even if you lose sight of its source. Effects of dust?
Dust reduces/blocks LOS. For example, if you have 5 tanks on a sanddune fire, they will literally disappear in a cloud of dust. This is a two-edged sword and something to consider if you want to area-fire. Fire --> dust-cloud --> No LOS --> no area fire until the dust dissipates. This also raises an important question: Do dustclouds that my enemy can't see (because he has not spotted the source) still handicap his LOS? In order words: Is it possible that he can't see me because he's looking at a dust-cloud of which he is totally unaware?  Can you be fooled by an invisible dust cloud? Another highly interesting question: I don't know whether dust raises the chance of getting spotted (as an unconfirmed contact at least, even if you're shrouded in your own dust-cloud?).  Behaviour of dust?
Dust travels with the wind (scenario condition) and dissipates at some point.

I've posted these observations some time ago in my Gerbini scenario-topic, but I think they deserve a better spot and some discussion, so here we go!
Some short notes on dust in Combat Mission 
I have not conducted serious tests, just some quick hotseat-experiments in Combat Mission: Fortress Italy.
What raises dust?
Vehicle movement over "dusty terrain". The faster the vehicle goes, the more dust is thrown up. Firing large calibre guns (AT guns, tank guns, etc) from "dusty terrain". MGs are okay. Shell impacts on "dusty terrain" Whether a terrain is dusty or not depends on the ground condition (no dust if wet, eg.) and on the type of terrain. E.g. the ploughed field tiles don't raise any dust, most crop tiles do. Also consider different road types.
Who can see dust?
Dust generated by shell impacts can be seen by the opponent. Dust generated by firing or moving can only be seen by the opponent if he has spotted the unit generating the dust (confirmed contact required). Note that the enemy can only see the dust that is created from the moment on at which he has spotted the source (i.e. "older" dust generated by the source is not shown to the opponent retrospectively). On the other hand: once you've spotted dust, it stays even if you lose sight of its source. Effects of dust?
Dust reduces/blocks LOS. For example, if you have 5 tanks on a sanddune fire, they will literally disappear in a cloud of dust. This is a two-edged sword and something to consider if you want to area-fire. Fire --> dust-cloud --> No LOS --> no area fire until the dust dissipates. This also raises an important question: Do dustclouds that my enemy can't see (because he has not spotted the source) still handicap his LOS? In order words: Is it possible that he can't see me because he's looking at a dust-cloud of which he is totally unaware?  Can you be fooled by an invisible dust cloud? Another highly interesting question: I don't know whether dust raises the chance of getting spotted (as an unconfirmed contact at least, even if you're shrouded in your own dust-cloud?).  Behaviour of dust?
Dust travels with the wind (scenario condition) and dissipates at some point.

Ohh man wouldn’t that be a scenario to piss people off.  The briefing tells you a platoon of tigers is expected in 15 minutes. At the 20 minute mark you get a reinforcement notice that the tigers are bogged and all that shows up is a kubelwagen messenger.  LOL

As mentioned, I've joined them in the past, but I always get auto-deleted due to inactivity.  I'm waiting for confirmation of my new account right now.

This came up in another thread, but I think it deserves its own thread as it seems to not be widely known (at least I had no clue it was different from a normal fast move).
 
The point being after some quick tests it seems it's the "Don't Stop!" move I had been missing for a long time. Unlike a normal fast move the troops will try much harder to complete an evade move under fire. 
 
So if your units get pinned in the open, an evade may get them on their feet and running to cover rather than laying there to be picked off. 
 
But the really interesting thing is it can be used preemptively. You can use it to say run across a street with much less risk of them stopping in the middle and all being killed. You can even use it to charge an enemy if you're feeling a bit desperate/suicidal. Obviously because they won't hit the deck, they'll be very exposed standing and running. So use it wisely.
 
They also seem to stop to fire while carrying it out. I need to test it more, but it might work in some cases for an assault or room clearing move when you want them to keep going. Ironically, evade may be the closest thing to a proper 'assault' order...
 
 
The evade button is the 4 arrows '+' looking button next the to the 'M' button. When you press it it'll create a waypoint you can drag around. Try putting it on an enemy and watch your guys keep running under fire to see it in action. 
 
 
Should save a ton of pixeltroopers, especially in urban combat. 
 
EDIT: Also seems like you can change the waypoint type and it'll keep the effect. Not so sure about following waypoints after the first. 

This thread is about the creation of a historical map and scenario for CM:FI/GL: The battle of Gerbini which was fought on 20/21st July 1943 between elements of the commonwealth 51st (Highland) Division and the german parachute-tank-division Hermann Göring. As I don’t want to create or play scenarios that are larger than 1 company, and there is a limit to the maximum map-size, the scenario will only comprise part of the battle. But maybe I will end up with several company-sized scenarios.
Context
There is not a lot one needs to know about the overall context: After its landing south of Syracuse, the british/commonwealth 8th army (XXX. and XIII. corps) pushed north along the eastern coast of Sicily. The aim was to get to Messina as fast as possible in order to cut off the germans’ path of retreat and trap them on Sicily. A few kilometers south of Catania – a major coastal town – the 8th army met stiff resistance. Montgomery tried to bypass Catania further to the west, on the inland. In the battles of Gerbini and Sferro Hill, however, he had to learn that his army had made contact with the first (Hauptkampflinie) of three main defensive lines of the Germans, stretching from the west coast to the east cost of Sicily. While the western half of the defensive line made use of the mountainous terrain, here, on its eastern end, it ran along the plain of Catania, a large plain south of mount Etna. The germans set up their defenses at the northern edge of that plain, stretching 40 kilometers along and behind the river Dittaino. At Sferro and Gerbini, the commonwealth/british army tried to penetrate the eastern sectors of the Hauptkampflinie. 
The 51st Highland-division had established a bridgehead north of the Dittaino from which it started a night attack on Gerbini. It was primarily carried out by the 7th battalion Argyll & Sutherland highlanders and 2 companies of the 1st Blackwatch Highlanders – both these battalions were part of the 154th brigade of the 51st Highland Division/XXX. corps/8th army. Gerbini itself was northing more than a crossroad, orchards and a few houses. North of Gerbini, however, lay Gerbini airfield - a major axis aerodrome which had been a high priority target for allied bombers. Also, a single railroad-track ran east-west in between Gerbini proper and the airfield, with a stop at Gerbini station (stazione di Gerbini on the map). Today, you can only make out some remains of the runway on a field in between the railroad and the modern highway.
Sources
For a contemporary 1943 map (1:25.000) take a look here: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/italy_25k/ (Gerbini) (same here: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/maps/europe/zoomify138659.html ). This seems to be the US Army Map Service -map that the allied troops actually used during the campaign. 
You can compare this to modern maps, like the OpenTopo map (https://opentopomap.org/#map=15/37.47215/14.84386) and google maps (https://www.google.at/maps/@37.4691357,14.842885,1698m/data=!3m1!1e3).  
Thanks to the 51st Division online museum, there are two quite detailed reports about the action available online: The first source is a report by brigadier T. Rennie, the commander of the 154th Brigade, dating from August 14th 1943. It also includes a sketch (based on the map linked above) on which the objectives/artillery targets are marked: http://51hd.co.uk/accounts/gerbini_combs (report + artillery fire plan), http://51hd.co.uk/history/sicily_gerbini (Map/sketch).
Note that if you compare the plan to the report of the action nothing seems to have gone according to plan. None of the 7th Argyll & Sutherlands coys seem to have reached their assigned target area - instead they stayed further to the east and advanced on the airfield and beyond (D coy) and along the railroad (where A coy made it to the station). The west was therefore still held by the enemy as the 1st coy/1st blackwatch found out when it tried to secure the road north to clear the way for the support weapons and got pinned down in the process. The course of the tank platoon is a riddle for me. They showed up at the road/rail junction (where the 7th A&S's C coy held out) in the east at 00:00, then sent a tank to support A coy in the station, but later took up position in the orchard north of Gerbini, in the west. I wonder how the tanks got there.
The second source, also to be found on the 51st Division online museum, is a shorter account of Dell Porchetta, a member of the 8th platoon of A coy of the 7th Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders. http://51hd.co.uk/accounts/porchetta_gerbini (His company surrendered at Gerbini station)
I also found this account quite helpful: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/02/25/the-plain-of-catania-1943-part-i/
I could even find some drawings by the Division's artist Ian Gilber Marr Eadie (1917–1973):http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/8379 It is labeled with "Gerbini". We can try to identify the exact location (see next post). 
Some impressions filmed at Gerbini airfield: https://youtu.be/6HOPxnK2a6A
Selection
The Gerbini-attack is too large to be put into a single scenario. Therefore, I've decided to select (a) single theater(s) of the battle. I think that the western flank of the battle is very interesting. Here, the 1st coy. of 1st Blackwatch got pinned down, the 2nd coy managed to take a german pillbox with the help of a smoke screen, AT-guns were moved forward, and also, the german counter-attack on the next morning has been very strong, knocking out a good part of the Shermans who had been positioned in the orchard north of Gerbini. I think that this makes for one (or two) interesting scenarios (attack - counter-attack).
Moreover, I feel confident that maps and the accounts give me a quite detailed picture of the terrain. Gerbini station and the airfield are harder to imagine, since I couldn't find any contemporary pictures. 
 

Hello, kindred spirit! Although it won't make me stop working on my scenario, the discrimination of infantry is certainly my worst (and only really major) gripe with the CM series. The lack of proper defensive assets and the inability of infantry soldiers to use the ones that are in the game (because of bad positioning, bugging-out when arty strikes close, etc.) severely handicaps infantry and leads to implausibly high casualty rates in my opinion. In modern warfare, infantry and defensive works need to work as an integrated team. Infantry alone doesn't stand a chance. 
I will run some more tests to confirm, but as far as I can remember, using smaller (split-up) units didn't really change a thing. It seems as if soldiers are randomly assigned eligible positions within the action square.
I'm really excited to hear about new ditches in CMSF2! Can you point me to more information?
--------------------------------------------
Real life got in the way a bit, and there are ups and downs of motivation. Also, my desire to understand how the game works gets in the way repeatedly. But then again you need to understand how stuff works if you want to create an interesting scenario, right? I'll be back soon! 

I'm pretty sure that a blue line means that all weapons (for vehicles: weapon-systems) of a unit can fire at the targeted spot, while a grey line means that only part of the unit can fire. 
This is very obvious when you have an infantry squad and one guy is kneeling, while the rest of the squad is prone. You will notice that the blue LOS will be limited by the prone soldiers' LOS, while there is an additional grey LOS that ends where the kneeling soldiers' LOS ends. If you order the very same squad to hide=go prone, there is no grey LOS anymore. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Update concerning my problems with the functionality of ditches in Combat Mission games: I've done more experiments, but ditches that you create by shaping the terrain simply don't work. Soldiers will not stick to the trench, but instead still roam around at the elevated edges, horribly exposing themselves to artillery fire. I really wish that the placement of soldiers on an action spot will be improved so that they stick to the "lower" areas. Fortunately, placing trenches in ditches helps to mitigate the problem. As soldiers now stick to the depression (because they're placed inside of the trench, which is in the middle of the action spot), and because the trench itself might also provide some kind of bonus, they are now protected against artillery fire.  IN my testing barrages, the casualty numbers for ca. 20 men placed in a ditch decreased significantly. With the natural ditch, I lost ca. 12-17 guys, with the ditch + trench, the casualties are down to 1-2., which is still very high for 2 minutes of bombardement but far better than a wipe-out. 
There are still many problems though. While the trench "in" the ditch provides good cover versus artillery, the protection against small arms fire and LOS is a different matter (see my post from 16th June in this thread, where I describe a way to create positions that offer good protection against small arms fire and good LOS, but are very vulnerable vs. arty). Also, moving along a trenchline can still result in soldiers exposing themselves on the elevated borders of the ditch. Also, you still get the problem that units tend to leave the trench (for whatever reason) when they come under artillery fire and prefer to get killed in the flat open.
Pictures to make the problem clearer:
Natural ditch: horrible soldier placement - all but one soldiers are on the high terrain at the border of the ditch. If an artillery shell strikes anywhere close, half of the squad is dead.

 
Trench placed in ditch: good soldier placement. Nobody gets hurt unless a shell lands a direct hit in the trench (for that reason, I wished that trenches were narrower...)

Something similar can be achieved by placing walls/hedges in the ditch. It looks totally stupid, but it leads to slightly better soldier placement.

So, generally speaking, if you want to have a trench/ditch that actually works (i.e. offers protection to infantry), you have to make sure that the infantry will stick to the ditch/the center of the action spot somehow.  
I really think that these issues are a major concern. I'm pretty sure that the game uses a very sophisticated system to determine hits, both from artillery shells and direct fire. For example, when I was creating good MG-positions for CM:BlackSea by using craters and logs, I noticed that in many cases the MG gunners (behind the log) survived while the MG got destroyed by enemy fire! Until then, I didn't even know that MGs could be destroyed in that way! So it's a pity that the game engine is so sophisticated when it comes to determining hits but doesn't really let us "fine tune" the amount of cover and create proper positions.

Addition/correction to previous post:: Test 1 / tank / tall grass:  460 / 650 / full lane (second value was missing)
Conclusions from the tests described in the post above
1. Weather and daylight conditions don't seem to have an effect on LOS per se. For dawn (05:00) and hazy conditions, the LOS is the same as for clear conditions. At night (00:00), there is a hard cap on visibility (400m in this case - I've read that CM titles do consider the moon phases, so the exact value may vary with the date respectively). As there clearly is an effect on LOS in adverse light an weather conditions, but LOS as given by the target command stays the same, it seems as if units might rather receive a "hiding bonus"?
2. I think that my theory from last year (based on observations in CM: Black Sea) is not too far off the mark: There must be at least two values for each terrain: 1) density/LOS blocking value, and 2) height (either as in an acutal hitbox of some sort, or a z-value for the whole action spot). Different densities must be the reason why the range of full lines of sight vary with terrain. For example,  forest terrains (105m full LOS) are not as dense as crop terrains (60m full LOS).
The tricky part is to explain the "reverse slope" line of sight zones and the difference of results between tanks and infantry. It's much easier to explain my theory in pictures so here we go: 

Eyes below terrain height (e.g. prone infantry --> creates limited "reverse slope" LOS)


Eyes above terrain height (e.g. tank --> creates unlimited "reverse slope" LOS)


Explaining hull-down results with different terrain heights


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If things work indeed as described in the diagrams and when you consider the test results from above, we end up with these terrain characteristics:
clear: no effect on LOS crops: large height, large density forest: medium height, low density tall grass: small height (but still higher than prone infantry), medium density  

I'm still hoping that the infantry's inability to use cover (in particular depressions in the ground, ditches) while retaining good LOS will be fixed by a glorious patch some day! The more I tried to make it work and delved into the problem, the more it became a deal-breaker for me, which affects all CM titiles and makes infantry die like flies.
The problem is described (including some screenshots) in my Gerbini project, especially in the posts on page 3: 
 

I want to share what might be an interesting idea for fellow scenario-designers. I've been thinking about woods and thickets for my scenario lately. Looking at the maps featured in CM, planting trees on top of forest-ground seems to be the most common method. But then I asked the internet. And the internet gave me the idea that there might be a better way to give woods a bit more love, both in terms of gameplay-mechanics and aesthetics.  
The problem I found with most woods on CM-maps is that they lack a proper woodland-edge (http://www.spektrum.de/lexikon/geographie/waldmantel/8789) - a rim of ca. 10-20 meters (1-2 squares) of very thick bushes and small trees. Basically, you want to create a rising, unbroken forest canopy, with bushes on the outside, followed by trees growing in size as you go deeper, first leaf trees, then conifers. A proper woodland-edge should block any LOS into the wood and provide excellent concealment. Once you're "inside" the wood, you'd get larger trees, i.e. no more treetops blocking your LOS. 
Right now, mapmakers seem to rely on an increased density of trunks in order to block LOS into woods. This looks and feels wrong and severely restricts the ability to fire "out of the wood". Also, as long as concealment in woods comes from tree-trunks, moving to the edge (from inside) is very dangerous as the number of trunks between you and the enemy decreases. Breaking up forests into an edge-zone and an "interior"-zone is the way to go! With those dense hedges at the edge, you can quick-move units to the edge and only let them crawl the very last square safely. With treetrunks only, quick-moving towards a forest-edge was a game of roulette.
After quite a lot of testing and fiddling around, I'm quite happy with my result (see screenshots). The most important finding was that - in CM:BS - you must not use "bushes" (foliage terrain) but bocage (fence-terrain) to represent thickets in the woodland-edge (or thickets in general!). What I've done is to simply place hedges in totally random patterns to create thickets. In my playtesting, the results were superb. Not only does the "low bocage" that I used provide excellent concealment (and still let's you see out), but also, a 2-3 square-wood-land-edge gives the enemy a much harder time when it comes to selecting suspected targets for area fire.
Also, I placed smaller random patches of bocage/hedges "inside" the wood. This was a real relevation. The combination of readily available lines of sight (because there are only high trees "inside" the wood, so LOS is only obstructed by spaced-out tree trunks) and drastically increased concealment potential (hedges everywhere) led to very satisfying engagements in which firing almost never gave away the position of a unit to the enemy. Of course, in such a setting, you simply need to area-fire, and the AI cannot make use of it in a way an actual player could. But I'm really looking forward to testing my "wood" in a H2H game!  
 
Some screenshots of the map for the scenario:

It has been a long time in the making, and was previously known as the project "Man of the Our", but is now "Rittersprung H2H".
Scenario description:
After being severely decimated in the battle for the Hürtgen Forest, the 28th Infantry Division was sent to the rear to rest and refit. The 112th Infantry Regiment got located in the tri-country area of Lieler-Ouren-Lützkampen, spanning Luxembourg, Germany and Belgium – a six mile stretch of land on both sides of the Our river where the Siegfried Line had its westernmost fortifications, now occupied by the Allies. The 28th ID had just about recovered 100 % strength, with replacement units getting basic combat training, when the Germans launched their massive attack in the Ardennes on december 16th 1944. The crossing of the Our at Ouren would be an important part in the German advance and it was upon the 112th IR of the 28th ID to protect it as long as possible.
It is 10:30 on Dec 17th and the 112th IR was engaged in combat with German forces on the 16th and throughout the night. The morning fog has lifted but it is still misty from the cold and the wet ground. Visibility is reasonable but it is hard to make out units in the mist. Units in Lützkampen and Harspelt were swept aside on the 16th. Sevenig town was also attacked by a green force of Volksgrenadiers but was able to hold on. The Volksgrenadiers suffered a lot of casualties and many prisoners were taken. They are now presumed to be hiding in the woods west of Sevenig.
Semi-historical scenario which is aiming to capture a “what-if” combat based on units and turn of events that happened in the opening days of the Ardennes offensive.



 
It can be downloaded here: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/uncategorized/rittersprung-h2h/
Enjoy, and all feedback is very welcome.

CMBS: T-64BM “Bulat” Digital Camo By Oleksandr
The T-64BM Bulat is a Ukrainian upgrade of the ageing Soviet T-64B main battle tank.
In this mod I reworked and retextured many things. I hope it will serve you as a good addition to your collection. Enjoy.





Link to Download: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=5512