Howler

Another example of a doctrinal attack, this with a Bradley platoon:


 
Scale here is to dismount about 2km from the objective, outside of the range of RPGs and the like, but within range of the 25mm. The dismounts are dismounted early, and make use of their ability to use close terrain to move up on the target, whilst the Bradleys and artillery provide smoke and supporting fires.
You'll note in both of the above examples that particular care is taken to protect the vehicles. They both offer significant and useful firepower, but need to be used extremely carefully to get anything useful out of them.

This is actually a core tactical question, and one which does not have a best answer.

Doctrines differ, but the general advice with any transport (be that halftracks, bradleys or trucks) is to dismount out of sight of the enemy, and proceed on foot. The vehicles in a tactical sense are there to redeploy quickly, possibly across otherwise open ground, and to provide protection against unexpected fires (especially mortars).

That's useful as a default tactic for all transport vehicles, in all eras.

Where this gets complex is when you start sticking guns on them.

Your basic APC (say, the British FV432, or the US WW2 halftracks) are fulfilling the same role as unarmoured trucks, with a little more protection against unexpected fires. That's one extreme, and should be used as the above. The MG in this case is not intended to be used as a fighting platform - it's a defensive tool and one mostly of desperation. It can be used in support, typically from a hull down position, but it's rarely a great idea and should never be the primary plan.
The other extreme are the varying models of BMP in CMSF and CMBS. These carry a ton of firepower and weapon systems, to the extent that they severely limit the abilities of the attached squad. In these cases, the IFV is supposed to be used as part of the squad, and therefore has to be exposed. This doctrine has some significant and obvious disadvantages, but does mean that the Russian-type squads have a significant advantage in firepower over their equivalent.

Example of this. Note that the BMP and squad elements are in covered positions.



BMPs have firing slits, so the squad can fight mounted, but really shouldn't. That's useful in an NBC environment, which doesn't apply here.

In Afghanistan, new tactics were developed, of dismounting the troops and combining the vehicles into a flanking/support fire unit. That will be stronger tactic against irregular forces, which lack the amount of AT weaponry that a conventional army will have.
 
Bradleys in CMSF are a bit of an outlier - they match up well against pretty much everything in the Syrian arsenal. The troops should still not engage in a fight mounted, but you can afford to be much bolder with your transport vehicles in that game. That's pretty much unique to that setting though - they're not as scary in Black Sea.

Strykers in particular are useful for their electronics and networking. Paying attention to C2 links and using them as communication hubs can be very important, but this can be done with minimal or zero exposure of the actual vehicle.
 
So... think of it as a spectrum, with unarmoured trucks at one end, and BMPs at the other, with all other APCs and IFVs in between. If you never use the weapons of a Bradley, BMP or Warrior, then you're wasting a resource. On the other hand, the more you expose them, the more you're risking the resource. The IFV concept has this dilemma at it's core, and it's not a problem with a clear solution.

As mentioned elsewhere - although fatigue does not have a direct impact on accuracy (or similar), fatiguing your soldiers means that you won't be able to Quick or Fast move when you really need to, when mortar rounds are incoming or when you need to rush up a support weapon to a forward position. Fatigue therefore absolutely degrades your ability to fight, just indirectly.

I use Fast movement a lot. The TacAI does as well, during Assault commands - the moving element moves Fast whilst the other element is in overwatch.
 
The order prioritises movement above all - you're the least likely to stop and open fire on available targets, so you have the most control over your actions.
 
Some theoretical examples:

1) I'm developing a firefight. One squad in the platoon has made contact, and is exchanging fire with the enemy.  I decide that I need to send a fireteam to a specific piece of cover to add to the outgoing volume of fire, and I don't want them engaging from any other location. Fast move is the best way to do that, quickly and with as much certainty as possible.
2) The lead squad of a platoon comes under fire. The rest of the platoon is in good position to return fire, but the lead squad is cowering out of C2, so can't share spotting contacts, meaning that the enemy has not been spotted by the rest of the platoon. My HQ element will Fast move between platoon elements to pick up the contacts and Fast move back to share them to the other squads.

3) Incoming mortar rounds. Priority number one is being anywhere but here, so you don't want to start engaging in a firefight.
 
Fast moving tires them out, obviously, which will degrade their movement (Fast->Quick->Move->Slow). It's also a large commitment - if your order was unsafe (e.g., the fireteam element you've moved up to support is flanked by an enemy MG), then you've probably just lost that element. You should therefore use it in situations where you're confident about the move, and where you are not expecting to cover large distances or make multiple Fast moves in the future.

Every year manufacturers are adding more model specific tools to automobile components not to mention locking down the software needed to what was once thought of as routine diagnostics. It's progress I guess...

Perhaps but I doubt it will be changed.
If you want to control facing and have a cover arc you can use a wedge arc - the unit will "face" the centre of the wedge. Once the unit is done moving and facing the way you want you can replace it with a circular cover arc.

A couple of thoughts:
 
- Short covered arcs are the way to go, as noted.
- Your move order into position should be Move or Slow, and ideally Slow. It only has to be for the last action spot or two.
- 200m is really close. Are there any positions further out?
- Forests are a bunch of telephone poles with blobs on top of them, and the engine seems them as such. There's only so much cover a pole will give you.
- The ground cover matters. Trees help, but trees on grass tiles will obstruct less than trees on forest tiles.
- You don't need to be in the actual tree line to see out of a forest - if there's a position deeper inside a forest that still gives adequate LOS then that is preferable.
- The ideal position on paper is usually a building. In practice, that's often *not* the ideal position, because it can be obvious, and subject to speculative fire.
 
Skylining is not explicitly modelled, but it's still an issue - crawling over a bare ridge will get you spotted pretty quickly.

There's also this
U.S. Army Field Manuals--World War II

I definitely can appreciate this. R2V feels like it has "dragged," both its own development and development of other CM projects over the past few years. I also think that more packs is a good idea. I really like the two battlepacks that have been released thus far. More maps, scenario's and campaigns is always a good thing. Very much hoping to see (a lot) more of these in the near future. I also liked the vehicle pack for CMBN, and I really hope we see more vehicle and general packs like this in the future as well. Fore example, an engineering vehicle pack for the modern titles, even if it was just an M1 and T-72 with mine plows. Or a slightly larger pack that adds in a new formation, such as unconventional fighters for CMBS as an example. 
That said, the main issue I see with switching from larger modules to smaller packs is content getting spread out and piecemealed, which could fragment the multiplayer community. Perhaps the packs adding content would be better if it was more niche, out of the way content that isn't necessary for most people to enjoy the game, but still there for those who want it. A ready example in my mind is partisans in the WWII titles. Some really want to see them, but I think most are fine playing CMBN for its conventional warfare and wouldn't care about the lack of the French Resistance. I'm sure the guys at BFC who have to make these decisions for real have a pretty good idea of how to move forward. At the end of the day, as long as we are getting more CM content I'll be happy, and if that content comes out at shorter time intervals all the better. 
 

Here is the test. 
After intercept 4 9K114 ATGM, the Trophy APS on Abrams turned to dark grey. The 5th and 6th ATGM hit Abrams

This can happen if you are using the Dismount order  (I don't know if you are or not).  If you are using Dismount it has the effect of making infantry dismount at the start of the turn. It allows you to dismount infantry and then move the AFV, in one turn. Whereas the infantry movement orders allows you to move the AFV, and then dismount the infantry.
So you plot the AFV movement waypoints.  You also plot the infantry movement waypoints (ignore dismount).  The infantry will stay in the vehicle until the vehicle stops (as planned or due to enemy action).  After the vehicle stops the infantry will dismount and attempt to follow their waypoints.  

I've been under small arms fire a small number of times. I never got up to run in any direction, or even crawled to better cover  - I just tried to press my body as deep into the ground as it could go, eyes closed and whimpering to myself, 'God, God, God.' I wasn't special forces or SWAT; just a basic infantry soldier. Might be better if the game sprites just froze in place like me; 'suppressed', as the old infantry tactics manual describes it.

It did work that way in CM1. You actually got control over the surrendering soldier and were able to issue move orders. CM is about combat not prisoner management so this new way is simpler but does not detract from the game.

Clearly, neither myself or the original posters who brought the issue up, have explained ourselves... I apologize for my part in that.
Syrian Squads have 100 rounds of MG ammo at the start of a battle... no matter the situation, context, battle type, supply situation or anything else. I agree that 100 rounds of PKM ammo is a reasonable loadout for a man... the issue is that the PKM is a Squad GPMG in CMSF2. Squad level GPMG's are quite rare in modern games (I can't recall them in CMA anyhow) however the Dutch do have them &, for them, 750 rounds per squad is a typical loadout. Additionally, all of the WW2 games features higher GPMG loadouts than 100 rounds per squad. Finally, this 'situation' is difficult to work around... we have no ammo dumps & Syrian trucks don't carry MG ammo (that might explain why the front line units don't have much of it!).

No unit should EVER rush forward and towards known contacts when a simple movement back,  away, and down slope from their position (hedges) is but 5 feet away. How is choosing to leave cover to run 20m forward fully exposed to a small rise in the open - EVER a good decision?
Speaking for myself only - I still have no idea what factors are evaluated to produce an evasion way point. Until that changes - I can't show a failure. Ergo, there's no fault to correct.
Perhaps your response to my question will help me better understand what to look for other than nearby HE, small rises in elevation, and small arms fire...

No unit should EVER rush forward and towards known contacts when a simple movement back,  away, and down slope from their position (hedges) is but 5 feet away. How is choosing to leave cover to run 20m forward fully exposed to a small rise in the open - EVER a good decision?
Speaking for myself only - I still have no idea what factors are evaluated to produce an evasion way point. Until that changes - I can't show a failure. Ergo, there's no fault to correct.
Perhaps your response to my question will help me better understand what to look for other than nearby HE, small rises in elevation, and small arms fire...

As @Howler said this still sounds bugged to me. I did some tests with this scenario and noted that in v3.12 and v4, not only do the troops not flee forwards, they usually flee back, which makes far more sense. In 4.01 and 4.02 whenever they flee, it's always forward. So even if the issue here is that the pixeltruppen are seeing the elevation change in front of them as "better cover," that is itself new behavior in 4.01 and 4.02. The old behavior--seeking safer cover by moving back from the hedgerow--seems far more realistic to me.
 
 

No unit should EVER rush forward and towards known contacts when a simple movement back,  away, and down slope from their position (hedges) is but 5 feet away. How is choosing to leave cover to run 20m forward fully exposed to a small rise in the open - EVER a good decision?
Speaking for myself only - I still have no idea what factors are evaluated to produce an evasion way point. Until that changes - I can't show a failure. Ergo, there's no fault to correct.
Perhaps your response to my question will help me better understand what to look for other than nearby HE, small rises in elevation, and small arms fire...

I fear too many have done exactly that already.
It'd be a shame to loose @RockinHarry and I know you feel that way also... sometimes that darn keyboard is too close in the heat of the moment.

They are exclusive of each other, so no you do not need Commonwealth module for Market Garden. 

On a vaguely similar note, here's the web archive for the defunct 'Bayonet Strength' site: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20160425143250/http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/General/site_map.htm

On the flip side, the large teams allow the MG to stay in action longer. With US teams that are split, you will sometimes end up with the three-man team all wounded or dead and no way for the ammo bearers to take over the MG.

I think the OP is observing that 150 rounds don't go very far and doesn't add much to the MG. While, I'm assuming their rate of fire falls in line with the general behavior of a lower rate of fire when engaged beyond effective range - it would be nice to somehow be able to explicitly control fire of the bearers.
At the moment - it hurts to see them add their fire to the MG and results in their expending all rounds while the MG still has several hundred left.
I believe the OP understands that it is what it is and doesn't expect a fix (it's not a bug - more a limitation of the engine).

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/NHC/NewPDFs/USArmy/USArmy, Busting the Bocage, 1944-06-06 to 07-31.PDF

Is anyone able to provide an update to the issue reported by @Falaise concerning a reproducible evade in the CMBN Roadblock scenario? He's able to show US troops rushing forward through a hedgerow gap 10 out of 10 times in patch 4.02.
His post ...
 
Is it considered a fault? Of so, what corrective action should be expected?