Mishrae

Actually there is one area where CMBS  might be overmodelling the Russians in a way that players can't do much about: ERA and active defense systems. The t-90s and upgraded t-72s in CMBS tend to come fully stocked with ERA packs and Shtora. On the evidence of what we've seen in Ukraine so far, they are significantly lacking in ERA coverage, particularly on the hull sides. Tanks in Ukraine seem rather more vulnerable to infantry AT weapons (aside from the Javelin) than the in-game counterparts. At least when it's my guys committing suicide by using their AT-4s to achieve nothing but drawing fire.
On the other hand, it's hard to say how much of that is selection bias. By definition, the ones we see photos and videos of are the ones that have been successfully knocked out, not the ones where someone missed, where a hit didn't penetrate, or where ERA was present and worked,

Relax. The words "I disagree" aren't vitriol, and saying you've been looking at 8-10 hours of OSINT and think tank feedback is impressive, but pretty much what everyone else on these forums is doing (or attempting to) - not to disparage. Nothing I have said is hyperbolic, like you, it's based precisely on what I've been seeing, beamed directly into my skull 8-10 hours a day like everyone else. Perhaps I've reached a less cautious conclusion, but what I'm saying isn't without historical precedent.
I will cede that separating poor logistical planning from endemic, open corruption is going to need a post-mortem, likely more than a decade from now. However, given the very real historic precedents for shameless supply corruption and the active black market the Russian forces (and late-Soviet) partake in, is it really hyperbolic to ask if these issues we see are more reflective of the Russian forces as a whole than some wing-dinged plan?
So, yeah, an example of "it's going to require a post mortem on whether this is a result of poor planning or something far more endemic" - the ammo we've already discussed, how about active countermeasures for the RuAF? Chaff/Flares appear to be extremely limited - operational or systemic? If we could have a 200 page thread based on fever-dreams about how Russia is under-represented in BS, I think its fair game to have a 4-5 page thread on how the Russians may, in fact, be a paper tiger and not just having a bad war. 
I'm not demanding you ask how high when I say jump, just being tongue-in-cheek  

Yes, I foresee their morale slightly improving - for about a nanosecond.

But they also have poor quality armour and manufacturing failures modelled. Much more in the vein of "provide the Russians with poor/previous gen sabots" than your example, I would think. 

I disagree. Evidence is beginning to emerge that these systemic issues are creating real issues in the minutiae; T72B3s and T90s entering battles with six or seven ammo types, many of them wildly outdated, etc. In CMBS, if modelled, that would translate into a real degradation of Russia's ability to kill hard threats. This is just one example, they're coming so hard and fast that it's dizzying. 
Ultimately, to declare all these issues as "operational" is hand-waving away real criticism. Having a ****ty plan conducted hastily doesn't ultimately speak to things like "do Russians have peer equipment" or "can a Russian motor rifleman actually conduct a reaction to fire and have faith in his NCO." These are systemic issues, as I said, and that does ultimately have visible knock-on effects in the tactical plane. 
At this rate, the SF2s Syrian OPFOR is better - and again, you can indeed help it. Crank those numbers down in future battlepacks - still time to change the incoming campaigns and standalones ;).

Hello,
In light of recent events (I do hope this thread remains as non-political as possible) and also given that Steve has expressed interest in expanding Black Sea to cover the current conflict, I think it is worth having a discussion about whether Russia might be over modeled in CM. Just a few suggestions to kick off the thread:
1) Steve has said before that in WW2 CM titles things like inefficient slave labour is modeled by having German armoured vehicles suffer catastrophic failures, I think you could bring this to Black Sea by having a chance for Russian tanks to have no ERA or Russian vehicles having low supplies.
2) High-end Russian vehicles such as the T90 may need to be made rarer to represent Russia's reliance on older vehicle models.
3) Typical Russian soldiers should have severe morale and leadership penalties. I think your average Russian unit needs to be set to green and negative leadership. Then more "elite" units like the VDV can be set to Regular (but they should clearly still maintain the leadership issues).
Just want this to be a friendly thread where we discuss ways to improve the simulation 😁.

There's an anecdote out of Hunnicutt's book 'Pershing' where 11th Armored was treated to a demonstration of the new tank. Three new Pershing crews were given ten rounds per tank to test the gun's accuracy. They were plinking German helmets at 625 yards range with the big gun on the far side of a small lake. Opinions of how much dispersion we should see on targets at various ranges is just that, opinions. No more or less valid than anyone else's.

anyway if you can't grasp the basic tactical principles of how to fight tanks and the reasons why tanks engage from hull down in the first place I'm not sure how to get that across when several other people have also tried and failed to explain that

but to reiterate: the advantage of a hull down BP engagement is in being harder to spot and then range in on (and subsequently hit), while still being able to engage your enemy unhindered, and to be able to retreat back into cover and pop up back again in another position

if you sit in a position long enough to start taking hits and count on your armor to save you, you are failing at the very fundamentals of armored combat and deserve everything about to happen - and trying to cheese the hits by going up into the open (instead of retreating and re-positioning to avoid getting hit in the first place) so you can take hits on your stronger glacis is both an incredibly gamey thing to do, and indicates a failure to understand what the actual mistake is here to begin with

your armor is your last, not your first, line of defense - this is such a fundamental tactical principle that I am not sure how to put it any simpler

and as I am not in any real mood to bash my head against this particular wall any more, peace out

I think Saint_Fuller’s post shows a major problem in this thread, which is certain people just refusing to give due consideration to  @Bulletpoint and @RobZ’s arguments. The strawmanning legitimate criticisms of the game results in bad counter arguments that don’t address actual points made.

You'll have to excuse the double post here, but I feel compelled to share this.
I think some of the misconception about what is happening in the game is coming from the fact that the TacAI always aims for center mass. The real world is not like World of Tanks or War Thunder, where shot placement on specific 2in by 2in spots on a tank has been developed into some kind of gamer science. In reality, all gunnery (small arms, AT, tank, autocannon, missile, etc) is based on the principle of always aiming for center mass. This is as true today as it was back in 1944/42/insert warfare date here. The modern training doctrine, ie standard gunnery in an Abrams tank, it to ALWAYS laze a target at center mass, and then immediately fire. This is called 'lase and blaze' by gunners. There are many reasons to do it this way, but the most important two are 1) if you do not lase the center mass of the target, you can get a bad laser return, which gives you an incorrect range to target, meaning your shot will miss. And 2) because even in an M1A2 SEP Abrams tank, which has a gunner and tank commander sight that is 1080p resolution with a x50 zoom, it is still hard to pick out individual parts on a tank in combat conditions. 
To illustrate this, here is a video of an actual Abrams on a training range. You can see the thermal sights they are using, the targets and everything. The gunner does not look for a specific part of the target to shoot at, he fires center mass after a quick and successful lase:
 (Btw the comments on this video are pretty hilarious)
This second video shows an actual battle position (BP) engagement on a training range. Note that the tank pulls up into the firing position, scans for and engages targets (fires twice) and then reverses. All in the span of 20 seconds. This is irregardless of return fire in a real life combat situation. Tanks train to constantly reverse out of and advance into firing positions to reduce the chance of them being shot at at all:
In summary: tanks always fire at center mass. Even in good hulldown, tanks still reverse out of line of sight to prevent themselves being shot at at all, and to greatly reduce the chances of them being ranged in on/hit if they are engaged. 
Edit: Ninja'd again, by @Saint_Fuller who makes an excellent point which my post helps to illustrate as well.