BrotherSurplice

Maybe true in the very broadest sense, but far more blame goes to the Soviets basically throwing the whole country into disarray with their poorly planned and poorly executed invasion.
This is a very spicy accusation. Clearly there can be no middle ground between the Taliban and depopulating whole villages like the Soviets did, right? Those barbarous Afghans need a firm hand and all that. The Soviets were just following the well-known and very successful tactics of another power that stabilized regions, Nazi Germany. Take fire from a village? Erase said village, pacify countries with this one little trick.
We shouldn't be surprised at this level of competence from the Soviet Union, they did after all compromise FDR
I'm curious how you read some of these books, like Afghantsy, and still come to the conclusion that the Soviets knew what they were doing lmao.

Give me your wife's number, I'll call her up and we can hear what she thinks of such takes.

Let me cheer you up with a joke, @Sgt.Squarehead might appreciate this joke as well:
the Russian Navy. 
 
Funny joke right? 

Another thread sent off the rails and burning at the bottom of the valley by our favourite bots. It's good to have consistency in life, it's an anchor.

Really? Wow.
God Bless Ukraine, I'm so glad we live in this timeline. We could have lived in boring times instead.

Have to agree with Rinaldi here. In my experience you can usually get a good idea of visibility just by eyeballing the terrain. It is also helpful if you feed your men carrots beforehand 🥕👀💪

Really disappointed to read that, I really liked Red Storm Rising, though yes of course like most WWIII alternatives it is always 'best case' for one side or the other. A similar criticism can be shared with Red Army, which I equally loved. The only real 'breaks' from reality as the authors knew at the time in both books is (a) the total denuclearization/dechemicallization of the battlefield and (b) the aggressive stance the Soviet Navy took. 
Each his own of course. From a purely literal perspective, Red Army is just a better book, with actual character development and depth.
Anyways, as for the actual hypothetical @kinophile I'm going to be revealing my power levels here, but I always figured the following:
Tensions remain high because the UKR has enclaves in the separatist regions, so it would be plausible that all belligerents have forces 'near ready' on the border with one another. When the balloon goes up following the 'Ambush' incident, things deteriorate rapidly as a result.  By early July the first ABCT units are arriving - based on @George MC's standalone scenarios and the TF 3-69 campaign, the timeline goes in two ways: The Russian spearheads are either cut off and defeated in detail along E-95 (Attacking N-S) and  P-32 (Attacking E-W), which are roughly perpendicular to one another and form an obvious pocket; or The Russians manage to maintain their momentum on the South-North axes and defeat and destroy the NATO counter-offensives. August scenario diverges in a similar manner: If NATO win in July, they 'race to the river' to defeat remaining Russian forces across the Dnieper and push into the southeast, if Russia win they mop up south of Kiev and start banging on the bargaining table.  I think the 'keep it simple' scenario was done deliberately, best not to overthink it beyond the above in my view. It also suggests why the game plays out the way it does, its bang-bang from the word 'go' without all the strategic preponderance everyone else is worrying about. It's a true flashpoint conflict in every sense of the word. Compelling stuff, really, hats off to Battlefront for it.

>when you can't afford a one-bedroom flat but you somehow control what the film industry decides to make
Loving this millennial life

Well it got moved to a different forum, so Sid wins again.
 
 
To quote @Rinaldi, LMAO.
Regards,
Sid.

There's a General Discussion forum down below for this sort of thing. John knows that, but he just continues on posting this sort of tripe here.

lmao

Jesus....mate, I can give it a go in French and Italian if that'll help some.

Others have already commented generally on the differences, or the typical roles. You'll see the recurring theme: XOs, Platoon Sergeants (or Platoon Warrant Officers depending on the nation) tend to have overlap in roles regarding cas evac, combat service support and first echelon supply (e.g.: scooting around with a jeep full of ammo). If you want to get lost in the sauce and split hairs over branches, different countries whatever, then that's your prerogative but I think it's an exercise in futility. The bottom line of all these points is that there's more similarities than differences in how Western countries operate their armies.
Now to confuse you: If you're looking for clarification, let me make something perfectly clear, none of this is perfectly clear.  
Seriously, 'SOPs' are all well and good but the best commander will think on his feet. SOPs are only there for the most general of general situations. Ultimately: the goal of an XO, a 2IC, PSG, PWO or whatever meaningless acronym to say "Number 2" you wish to use, is to help ease the burden of command on his Number 1. This can, and often is, done through the aforementioned means of policing up the rear of a unit or helping evac losses, etc. Now as @Combatintman has already mentioned some limitations in the game (especially regarding platoon NCOs), as well as the fact that CM's mission-oriented scale means you rarely have to deal with Combat Service Support I'll use another example of how a 2IC/XO/Yadda yadda can help ease command.
What CM does get right is the information aspect of battles. A commander, as you said, needs to be up front and aware of the situation to effectively command. The flipside of this is he is only seeing a small slice of the pie. Use your Number 2 to help paint a complete picture rapidly. Lets say this: If the Company leader is with say, Platoons 2 and 3, which is making the main effort, keep the XO with Platoon 1 and its attachments. You accomplish several of your desired goals at once: You are putting your XO to use and not putting your entire command network in the same place to die at once. It also means the XO can keep the Commander 'in the loop' about happenings elsewhere on the tactical battlefield, and exert some authority. 
You're looking for clear answers where there are none, is the gist of what I'm saying. Exert a bit of common sense and do not let an asset as useful as a second in command go to waste sitting on its thumbs.
Again you're asking for clear answers where there are none. For the sake of brevity I'll just tell you to look at @Howler's posts again because all I'd do is repeat what he had to say.
There is no cut-out answer you can simply paste on to a situation. Identify the problem you need to solve and plan accordingly. If I am absolutely forced to give you a few spitball examples, I might make the best/best lead platoon the main effort in a situation where C2 is likely to be dodgy, such as in built-up terrain. I may be less picky if I'm attacking in open terrain and the virtual CO can exert his influence with greater ease. I'm not even going to address the minutiae of 'which weapon goes into which hands' because it is, to me, trite. Such decisions like that rarely make a meaningful impact past the smallest of unit scenarios, a coherent plan is much more important than which nineteen year old has the HAT. 
Otherwise, if you are still starving for a general rule you want that is most applicable, refer to @Combatintman 's post: Put your best foot forward for the toughest issues. 

Yes all officers are useless and the Specialist can run the Army, if only someone gave him the chance 🙄

Y I K E S.
I'm not exactly sure you know what that acronym means. XOs are usually tasked with dealing with casualty clearance and policing up straggling units. Also, how is an Executive Officer going to exert command or aid his CO if he is 'safe in the rear.' "Hey Joe, can you take x platoon (+) and help ease burden of command?" "Tosh sah, I'll be sitting here waiting in the wings in case you buy the farm."
For someone who wants to use real standard operating procedures, you show a remarkable aversion to them. 

Have a like - I couldn't have put it better myself.

*sigh*
Another thread, derailed by the same old clowns, spouting the same wrong opinions, beating the same dead horses. These forums can certainly be quite the test of patience sometimes. 
@Chibot Mk IX The good news is I think that there are some good nuggets of information here. Unfortunately you'll have to sift through all the refuse, but its better than nothing. My main takeaway would be to treat the javelin like any other effective anti-tank weapon. Maneuver in a way that does not expose yourself to fire, use direct and indirect fires, and make sure units that are moving are being covered/supported by other units.
Quick note on the word "tactics." Tactics are a set of rules that can be applied to any situation. For example, a tactic is 'find the enemy, fix him with fire, flank/close with the enemy, then kill him.' The nuance of accomplishing the find, fix, destroy is exactly that, nuance. Its very easy to get lost in the sauce (as this thread is a great example of) over small things like this. Remember that the entire point of tactics is that they are supposed to be extremely simple and applicable to all manner of situations. Don't let weapon systems or savants distract you from the basics. Don't want to get shot? Then don't be seen. And so on and so forth. 

By the recon being done before the battle simply means you know the general location of the enemy force. Recon teams as small and can move around ahead and locate the DETAIL of the enemy positions, many times preventing a whole squad from walking into a buzz saw, or giving you a better idea of dispositions so that you can plan where you want to go.
When I don't have actual recon teams, I usually break out scout teams from squads to do the same thing. Better for 2 or 3 guys to find the bad guys the hard way than a squad or platoon.

The essence of warfare is friction. You're the commander so you want to reduce friction so go and look at the map, work out where you want to look to support your scheme of manoeuvre and assign assets accordingly. Read my planning tutorial or Bil Hardenberger's blog or any of his AARs.

You’re assuming the enemy is static when you assault. Recon continues to be useful in identifying enemy positions and assets as they get shifted around. Just not using recon units would be a waste. They can move to the flanks, do more recon, etc. 

The clue's in their job description.

Rule 1: Never keep recon assets in reserve.

Being sent to heaven does give your scouts a better view of the battlefield, so maybe you're onto something here 😂 @Erwin

I have read the thread @Erwin, and scouting is scouting. The bulk of it is dismount work unless the situation is utterly fluid. Having been a recce man myself back in Canada, I say this with some authority.
I have a humble request: stop spouting nonsense. 

Scouting before you move is something you think doesn't occur in real life?
No they're not.