Howler

Exactly - I had the exact same experience. Went from being a big TW fan to never buying one of their games again.

Nope... although it's easy enough to find such things.
http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=3984
http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=3991
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/mods-aris-and-other-popular-mods-combined-into-easy-to-download-packs.17477/

Engineers can most reliably and safely locate unidentified minefields using the Slow command.  
Marking a minefield substantially reduces the chance of triggering a mine for infantry traversing the minefield.
Antitank minefields can be marked but there is no effect. Infantry can traverse them without risk and vehicles don't benefit from marking.
Minefields can be neutralized by heavy artillery (150mm+), if it scores a direct hit.
Minefields can be neutralized by a blast from a demo charge if there is a blastable obstacle (wire) in the action spot.
Anti-personnel mines have a cumulative effect on vehicle mobility. ie: Number of Action Spots a vehicle can generally cross in an AP Minefield before immobilization: Armor= 2 A/S, light Armor= 1 A/S, Transport= Destroyed.
Red sign with a skull and crossbones = Active non-marked minefield.
Off white sign (yellow in CMBS) with a skull and crossbones = A marked minefield. 
Green sign with a white X = Neutralized minefield (all mines detonated)
+1 The floor is lava is a good way to think of it.  
I never tried with hand grenades but my understanding is minefields can be neutralized by heavy artillery (150mm+), if it scores a direct hit.

I don't really get your point.
But I do find that there's a small gaggle of really vocal weirdos on this site who work hard to create the impression that the customers are dissatisfied.
Having played the game since the last Millennium, bought every game and module except Afghanistan, played them incessantly and enjoyed them all, I feel some loyalty to the BF team and would like to play my part in dispelling the impression that the average, normal buyer is unhappy.
They're a small development team. The product is amazing. I don't care how many delivery dates they overshoot, I just hope they keep going.

I'll purchase Fire & Rubble first day.  Right now I'm immersed in GMT Panzer & MBT as well as Graviteam Mius Front.  Too busy to spend time wishing for something that will come when it comes.

Final Update
My opponent was kind enough to KO the HT which reset the team stuck in embark limbo. That team has since moved to a more secure location out of sight.

In the modern titles, anything 120mm plus will hurt *and* demolish structures. Anything caught in a barrage is pinned. Casualties are a bonus. Do expect a lot of bonus.
Infantry in a building isn't an issue as there are too many things (brads/bmps) that will cause the structure to collapse.
The challenge, normally, is how best to clear the building while leaving it still standing.
You want to clear mines or demo a structure - call a short mission (linear or point) with 155s. You want to demo a building - target light with a brad or abrams.

No - it is an extension of the manoeuvrist approach - you shatter the enemy player's will by getting them into a situation where they think they cannot win and hit the surrender button.  This can be achieved in part by deception but it requires other mutually supporting activities.

Welcome to the addiction. You can post a thread looking for opponents here (if you haven't seen this part of the forum):
https://community.battlefront.com/forum/126-cm2-opponent-finder/
You can check out A Few Good Men for a match up:
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/
The Blitz Wargaming Club:
https://www.theblitz.club/index.php
We Band of Brothers:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/webandofbrothers/

Generally you get good deals on bundles so in terms of getting bang for buck I would hang on until Fire and Rubble comes out.  I can't remember much about the campaigns as its been a while since I played them but from memory the German one is at least battalion-sized in three of the campaign scenarios that I recall.

Thanks for the advice, I'm sure what you describe is correct, although how they got split off I don't know as they were still supposedly 'whole' units. 
I first tried to move the existing first waypoints for the whole units, I could not - I got a strange symbol (perhaps meaning movement to that point is not possible) and it wouldn't let me move them.  This may explain why they never even tried to move to their first waypoints?  Anyway, I then split them into teams and the wayward troops still seemed to be in limbo.  I then cancelled all waypoints and re-routed carefully around hedges.  Success!   They are now all reunited and loaded in their Bedfords on their way to contribute to the cause.  I hope 😉.

I feel like actually launching a Mercedes Benz S class at a building is something I would like to see.

Really interesting replies, thank you to everyone.
The responses help with my mindset question. Really rather than thinking about setting up one SBF position to deal with an enemy position, I think i need to be thinking about a whole fireplan in order to gain fire superiority over the enemy where it counts, and then exploiting that area, making sure that enemy positions that I cannot adequately suppress are avoided until later, when hopefully a different angle opens up from manoeuvre that means i can bring forces to bear on it.
I like the idea of tactics scalling up as described by IICptMillerII. I must confess that I have focussed on platoon level tactics where I always have more than a platoon as my disposal therefore I'm thinking too small scale and trying to do the TacAI's job for it.
 

Tactics scale. Think of it like math. First you learn to count, then add/subtract, then multiply, then divide, etc. Eventually you go from 2+2=4 to [insert long equation with numbers/letters/symbols here]. 
The military (well, competent ones at least) teach everything following a crawl, walk, run style. That is, you start small and simple and build up from there. The point of those manuals is not to show you how to overcome every possible tactical situation you are going to find, but to give you the basic template that can be applied to any situation and built upon. So you are correct that a lot of the examples in the manuals are not ones that you will find out in the real world, with a few exceptions. But, when you apply the right tactical principles to situations which the manuals attempt to teach, you will be better off than not. 
Don't think you are alone here. A common anecdote from many wars is that "only newbies actually follow the manuals." That is a famous line I've heard in reference to the Vietnam War more times than I'd like to recall. Doing something "by the book" and stating that in a bad context is the same idea. When people want to learn about military tactics, most turn to manuals covering the fireteam and squad level. This is the wrong thing to do, but this is what pop culture fuels (videogames such as Brothers in Arms, while great, depicts a ludicrously oversimplified depiction of combat at the squad level) people to do. In actual warfare, squad "tactics" are irrelevant. What is more important is squad SOPs, such as "spread out enough not to all get wasted by one shell but not too far that you get lost/unsupported," and "keep track of yourself, your gear, and your team members," and "be aware of your surroundings and your own status, such as ammo and injury." In CM, all of this is taken care of for you by the TacAI. 
Here is a better way to think of tactics in CM; you always want to apply tactics from the highest level you command. What that means is, if you are in command of 1 platoon, then use platoon level tactics. If you are in command of 2 platoons, use company level tactics. If you are in command of multiple companies, then use battalion tactics. Another way to think of this is, if you have multiple elements (lets say 2 companies) what authority would be required for you, the player, to give company commanders orders? The answer would be a battalion commander, and so battalion level tactics is what you want to use. 
Tactics generally scale up, not down. If you are in an environment where you have an entire battalion at your disposal, a single platoon likely will not be able to do much on its own. This is where that scaling comes into play. If a manual depicts two platoons attacking an objective, one as the base of fire and the other as the assault, but you are commanding multiple companies, then you just upscale it all. Instead of using a platoon to fix and a platoon to flank, you swap the platoon for a company. There is a lot of nuance to that, but that is the general principle. 
A final note on manuals: most of them that you will find from a quick google search are going to be somewhat dated. The principles remain, but the nuance changes a lot. Basic infantry tactics are the same now as they were in WWII. However, the weapons of war have changed a lot since then, creating a whole different set of nuance to deal with. 
Manuals are not a bible, and by that I mean a perfect reference. Many of them are more complicated than they need to be, confusing or unintentionally misleading. For example, the manual detailing how to call for artillery is long and dense, but the actual procedure is very simple. In the case of an artillery manual, it also makes general assumptions about its reader, like the ability to already know how to read a military map and derive coordinates from one. So, sometimes manuals are missing a piece of information because it assumes the reader already knows the institutional knowledge. If you don't know what information is missing, this can complicate reading manuals even more. This is one of the many reasons why basic training exists in the first place, to create a common standard of knowledge, and why further instruction is needed to learn a given specialty within the military. 
Hopefully that helps some. 

Not only Battlefront produce wonderful game but these guys also have outstanding customer support.
ticket solve very quickly, all ok. back to game
cheers

Are you implying it's not because of his good looks?

You can't, but after you D/L and install the game you can add it to Steam. Which will give you access to the Steam Community pages etc,

One of my all time favorite maps is the CMBS Demo map from Black Sea with its rolling hills and detailed village. It features in at least two of the scenarios in that game.
I have converted it to work in Red Thunder. This wasn't easy, I have tried a few times before and it would never load. This time I deleted all the buildings in CMBS and then manually replaced them all after getting it to load in CMRT. A few extra tweaks were needed but not much. Kudos to its original author. This is Map 260 from Black Sea, (basically the meeting engagement version of the CMBS Demo map). AI plans are rudimentary but functional. 
 

Town-Hills Meet 260.zip

Looking at the pams would not reveal the complete answer - any plan worth its salt will have a High Payoff Target List (HPTL) which will drive the overall targeting effort and may not be consistent with what an operator might consider 'normal' targeting priorities.  Personally, contrary to the OP, I don't think 250m is an excessive range for a hand-held anti-tank weapon such as the AT-4.  I recall when being taught the 84mm Carl Gustav that 300m was about the max that you should consider for a moving target engagement and 500m for a stationary target so the 250m range in the example sits well within those parameters.  Although the "Charlie-G" is a different weapon system to the AT-4, the rule holds true for pretty much all weapons of this type as greater distance reduces the likelihood of hitting the target.
I also disagree with the view that Javelin should engage anything above 75m when the team also has AT4s.  Javelins should be sited and employed to engage at range because it allows you to knock lumps out of the enemy before they get close enough to cause you problems.  Of course it is often impossible to create those ideal conditions and Javelin, as with any weapon system in game, should be capable of being employed against any target that sits within its designed engagement envelope.

The bottlenecks are: a) CPU (single core speed); and 2) OpenGL. I noted load times in CMBN (oldest and slowest title) and using MSI Afterburner - looked at the CPU and GPU loads along with GPU MEM utilization both on the old and new systems. Can't find my notes from that time! 😞
I was satisfied once I realized that no scenario was never going stress the GPU. I have what is now considered a rather pedestrian GTX 1660-6GB card.
I'm a recent NVidia convert and can attest that they provide better support for OpenGL which always annoyed me about AMD. AMD has a knack for providing even worse drivers. Wonderful hardware but their drivers are near useless.
Otherwise, any difference will be attributable to single core clock speed of the CPU.
What are your system specs? I'm sure you can get a few others here to run comparables for you.
Some numbers for you... There are other similar posts in the forums if you wish to search.
 

Target arcs only affect spotting in so much as they affect facing.  They are fire control orders.  A face command has the same effect on spotting.

The bottlenecks are: a) CPU (single core speed); and 2) OpenGL. I noted load times in CMBN (oldest and slowest title) and using MSI Afterburner - looked at the CPU and GPU loads along with GPU MEM utilization both on the old and new systems. Can't find my notes from that time! 😞
I was satisfied once I realized that no scenario was never going stress the GPU. I have what is now considered a rather pedestrian GTX 1660-6GB card.
I'm a recent NVidia convert and can attest that they provide better support for OpenGL which always annoyed me about AMD. AMD has a knack for providing even worse drivers. Wonderful hardware but their drivers are near useless.
Otherwise, any difference will be attributable to single core clock speed of the CPU.
What are your system specs? I'm sure you can get a few others here to run comparables for you.
Some numbers for you... There are other similar posts in the forums if you wish to search.
 

I'm sure I'm not only one to do this but I copy the S/N to a text file along with a short description. It not only serves as backup but also as a means to better describe the purchase (not using BFC product speak).
Fortunately, and assuming all continues to go well - the future seems to be Steam which should gradually improve things over time as some of us convert over to it.
While I don't see Steam as offering anything over the current process, most value the potential ease of use.
 

You had bad luck then. I find mortars extremely effective against infantry in bocage.