Josey Wales

Just a quick suggestion - if you have not read the recent book "Battle Hardened" by Craig Chapman, you really should.  I have read a lot of WW2 histories over the last 55 or so years and I cannot recall a book that gave me so much "real life" information regarding front line infantry tactics and weapons use.
The author's father served in the U.S. 4th Infantry Division and was on the front lines (except for the two periods when he was recovering from wounds) from D Day thru VE Day.  He was an officer who first commanded a mortar section, then a heavy machine gun platoon and finally served as commander of an infantry company.  The son has reconstructed the details of his father's service through summaries of his father's recollections, battle reports, letters home, interviews, review of Field Manuals etc.  In the process, he describes in detail the manner in which the squads and platoons used mortars, machine guns, artillery, tanks, etc. at the squad, platoon and company level.  He describes German tactics as seen by the US infantryman and the learning curve which brought increased use by the US companies of combined arms tactics and provides, anecdotally, a whole range of information on the methods and methodology of WW2 infantry combat.  In addition, the author provides an excellent description of his father's experiences and great examples of the sacrifices and dedication of the WW2 infantryman.  A very, very worthwhile read.
As I read it, I consistently had the reaction of ------ "Interesting how that reflects on how I should be playing scenarios in Combat Mission."
 

The comparative ancientness of that movie is relative to that of the viewer. 

And his video editing is top notch. He frames each shot to make the most of the game.

Yes, I agree wholehearted with that. One of the best commentating styles around.

I like Josey Wales' calm and mature approach. Also, he has a nice diction and doesn't try to appear like a tough cookie. To the contrary, he always signs off with "war is hell", which I find reflects the realism of these games very well.

AI usually plays better on defence.

Thanks, and I can respond in kind that I enjoyed your AAR and other CM videos - excellent work.

I think the Hapless Stavelot AAR's do a nice job of showing Combat Mission game mechanics and processes.  While I like his Air Support, Indirect Fires, and Armor parts, I do not think he shows effective infantry tactics.  His whole approach to securing his right flank was too lackadaisical for my tastes.  I suppose that helps show how overwhelming this game can be in Huge battles at Battalion level.  However, I think its a mistake for any player to underestimate or neglect the importance of closely managing your infantry in taking and holding ground or using it to deny ground to the enemy.  
Call me "Posh" (or any other "P" word which suits you ), but I agree with the comment which observed that it is unfortunate when the number of expletives constantly exceeds the number of casualties.  Hapless's AAR shows a lot of time and effort.  Kudos for that.  I just wish it were more suitable for a younger and general audience.  The Josey Wales vid's are exceptional.

I agree and I should have included that in my comments. The parameter I measure is not a complete picture of firepower because it does not include suppression. Suppression could be also measured with my method but it would be incredibly time-consuming. Sniper rifle is exactly the example where suppression is completely out of match with the ability to hit and kill. Maybe "killing power" or something like that would be a better term.

Rate of fire
Not that much to see here, bolt-action rifles have the lowest rate of fire (including the scoped Lee-Enfield), semi-auto rifles have a higher one. You can see the difference between the Bren and B.A.R. as a result of magazine capacity (30 vs 20 rounds). MG42 has about 2-6 times higher RoF than everything else.

Accuracy
I want to highlight again that we are talking about kills per round, not about hits per round.
The green line on the top is the scoped Lee-Enfield. It's accuracy is super-high but does not increase that much with decreasing distance, so there is little advantage in getting close. Bolt-action rifles are more accurate than semi-auto rifles, although this cannot be confirmed at long distances (sample size issue, I believe). Bren and B.A.R. achieve more kills per round than over 240 m. The SMGs are at the bottom but as you can see, their accuracy is flat or even rises with distance above 120 m!

Excel file link (individual data is on hidden sheets if you need to see them): https://www.dropbox.com/s/qeltpvi732w91bt/CMBN weapons effects.xlsx?dl=0

First of all, some more notes:
there is no discernible difference in MP44 and Sten effectiveness whether it is fired by a Leader or a Soldier. I am showing Leader data only. similarly, there is no conclusive evidence that Sten Mk II and Mk IV are any different. I am showing Sten Mk II data only. MP44, Bren and B.A.R. switch from full auto to semi-auto fire above 150 meters, so there is a step change in the results between 120 and 160 meters where I ran the tests the statistics may still not be good enough for weapons achieving few kills at long distances, so the results for rifles at the edge of their range are indicative rather than accurate. Firepower
First note: the vertical axis is in log scale, otherwise the drop in firepower with distance would drown out all detail. I'll post the excel file so you can make any graphs you want.
Bolt-action rifles are at the bottom, Lee-Enfield appears to be superior to Kar 98K. Semi-auto rifles are better, both M1 Garand and Gewehr 43 are on the same level together with the MP44 (when fired in semi-auto mode). All SMGs are better than all rifles over their entire range up to 200 m. MP40 and Sten have very similar performance, Thompson is the most powerful SMG. MP44 is less powerful than SMGs but is in the same league with them until the 150 m mark. Bren and B.A.R. are generally in the league with SMGs as well but, of course, keep going beyond 200 m. The B.A.R. is inferior to the Bren, apparently due to its smaller magazine, and therefore lower average rate of fire. MG42 beats everything by a wide margin except the sniper rifle. The scoped rifle benefits much less from closing the range than the other weapons.

The only problem from my perspective is that SMGs keep their high performance out to 200 m. Their firepower does not fall much with distance in the outer part of their range, and as we will see, their accuracy (on "bodies per round" basis) is constant or even rises between 120 and 200 m.

[more to come]

Over the past few weeks I've been extensively testing the firepower of different American, British and German rifles, SMGs and LMGs in CMBN 4.0. I originally wanted to make a complete series of tests before 'publishing' the results, but I understand that there is an update in the making that will, as a minimum, adjust the rate of fire of some weapons, so for my work to have any impact, I should show them now rather than later. I am posting in general CM discussion. Although the tests were CMBN-specific, I believe that the same patterns in weapons effectiveness will be found in other titles as well.
Method
13 lanes, target troops in foxholes (4-man U.S. medium mortar ammo bearer teams, regular, fanatic, no ammo). Walls are used to separate the lanes over the last 40 meters only, to prevent ricochets from affecting the results. In each lane, one firing team (regular, normal motivation, no leadership modifier) engages the target troop unit using a target arc order. The firing team is so set up that there is only one man in the team with the tested weapon, and he is the only one firing. Ample ammo is provided from supply trucks so the firing unit does not run out of ammunition during the test. There always is a leader in the team with binoculars to aid with spotting at long distances. 13 firing teams with the same weapon are tested in parallel at distances from 40 to 600 meters. The test runs for 10 minutes or until all target troops are eliminated, whichever comes earlier. The total time in action for the 13 teams (between 0 and 7800 seconds) and the total casualties (between 0 and 52) is evaluated. Each test is repeated 26 times, therefore each weapon is tested 338 times at each distance.
An example of the test file is found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d5b7qoex6cmigm0/Weapons effects BAR (Gunner) 400m.bts?dl=0
In total, there are 106 files like that one, each run 26 times for up to 10 minutes. About 10,250,000 rounds were fired by the firing teams and 72,530 casualties taken by the target troops.
Distance to target is the average distance of the 13 firing teams to the target action spot (as the firing team's action spot is 8 m wide, this needs to be adjusted for)
Firepower is here defined as the average number of casualties suffered per unit time by the target troops. Minor wounds do not count. The unit is bpm, "bodies per minute".
Rate of fire is taken from ammo consumption during the test, averaged from 26 instances. The unit is rpm, rounds per minute.
Accuracy is the number of casualties per round fired. It may not fully correspond to the number of hits per round fired as one casualty may receive multiple hits, especially with automatic fire. The unit is bpr, "bodies per round", multiplied by 1000 to make the numbers easier to interpret.
Tested weapons
MP40 (Leader), Sten Mk II (Leader), Sten Mk IV (Leader, Soldier), M1A1 Thompson (Leader) - distances 40-192 m MP44 (Leader), MP44 (Soldier) - distances 40-320 m Karabiner 98K, Gewehr 43, Lee Enfield No 4, M1 Garand (all Soldier) - distances 40-320 m Lee Enfield w/scope (Marksman) - distances 40-600 m MG42 LMG, Bren, B.A.R. (all Gunner) - distances 40-600 m [I am going to break up this post here, results come next]

I was generally using US infantry in the WWII titles but recently have started to use Armored Infantry. I like the idea of having the tracks with additional ammo for resupply.  It kind of adds a logistics element to battles. 
However I was accustom to the platoon HQ as a separate team in the straight leg infantry platoons.  In CMFI the 44A Armored Infantry platoon HQ is part of 1st Squad.  Same for Armored Infantry in CMBN & CMFB.  I have been experimenting around with the best way to administratively split the HQ teams in a US Armored Infantry Platoon. I found a way, using the administrative commands that ends up with the Platoon Leader (the Lt.) in one team and the platoon sergeant (SFC) in a different team.  There is also C team with three riflemen.  The interesting thing is both the Lt. and the SFC have arty/mortar calling ability.  It is easiest to make all these administrative splits during the Setup phase.   So with the below administrative split there are two separate teams in an Armored Infantry platoon that can call for fire.
 Split Assault Team from base and then Scout Team from base.  (If you stop here this scout team has the radio which might prove useful. Or disastrous.)  
Place Assault Team and the Scout Team in the same action square and allow them to recombine.
Then take the now combined Assault Team and Scout Team and use Split Teams.
You will end up with three teams two of which can call for fire support.  

Following the above administrative splits you end up with the following. 




And C Team

Any other suggestions /ideas for administratively splitting teams?  Please share any tips you may have.  

Here's my commentary...
Panthers were a problem. For everyone. Great flotation, excellent gunnery platform and optics and a killer gun. It seems like the point of this comment is that anti-tank guns should have a better chance against Panthers and, supposedly, other tanks. The comment seems to think that a fast setup time is the tactical key to anti-tank gun effectiveness.
If your anti-tank gun is being setup in view of the enemy tank, you're doing it wrong. They will die. As they should. It doesn't matter if they go in circles. No limbered anti-tank gun being moved across the ground in view of an enemy tank should survive. If they were a threat, then nations would build fleets of mobile anti-tank guns. Wait: they did. They're called "tanks".
Next...
Ahh...setup time based on film. Well, a lot of German WWII footage was filled by PK units. "Propaganda Kompanie" is not really something I'd place my tactical faith upon. Does it look cool to see the guys fly off a kubelwagen and snappily spin the towed 3.7cm gun around, push it past the cobblestones, and crouch behind it with a shell in hand? Great. Now, dig a fighting hole for it. Measure the ranges to fixed objects and create a range card. Dig shelters for the men. Stockpile ammo. Lay wire. Camouflage the entire thing. Not good.
Doing a hasty setup? Again, there's more to it than just spinning a shooting. 
Unnoticed? Well, that depends on LOS. CM1 did not use individual units. It was a fudge. 
More...
A couple things. CM2 allows slight asymmetry in LOS. If a unit has trees nearby, those closest to the unit are ignored. This simulates the tank moving slightly to get a better LOS. The player cannot do this (nudge a tank 30cm to the left). So, the immediate trees don't exist for outgoing fire. They do exist for incoming. Now, seeing through 2km of woods? I've seen some oddities, but nothing like this. I think I have some experience with this game. For certain long-range LOS, the oddity is explained by the "fudge". The game allows a chance of seeing through foliage. This simulates some of the shifting and movement of leaves. Otherwise, we'd have to model each leaf. That would not work.
Sigh. Another....
I have not seen this. Did it happen to you? If so, does it happen ALL THE TIME? I have lost track of the number of pixeltruppen who I have sent to their deaths when entering a dwelling in which there were hidden enemy. (To be honest, my pixeltruppen's little lives are of such small consequence, I never count the fallen. Only the brave.) City fights are brutal. If you've really repeated this 20 times, send me the savegame. I'll look at it.
City fights are brutally bloody and, properly done, go through mountains of ammunition. 
The LOS and communications are done very well in CM2. Did you find a loophole? I don't know. Pix and/or savegame would tell. Hidden units stay hidden...if their morale stays up. If the enemy is shooting at their location, it may affect their morale and cause movement.
No game is perfect. But, I have yet to see any game come close to the level of CM2. Can it be improved? Sure. I can't wait for engine 5.
I just don't see anything in the questions/commentary you posted as being an issue. I haven't experienced them the way you've posted.

In the UK and Australia better-educated (or snobby) folk pronounce it 'aitch', and the less-educated say 'haitch'. Online research suggests the divide goes back centuries, and the only reason 'aitch' is considered correct is that posh people use it. 
Regarding the Stavelot AAR: It's interesting from a technical POV, but personally I prefer AARs that consist mostly of close-up action. Combat Mission can be a beautiful-looking game, and it pains me to see AARs in which coloured objective  squares and landmark names are left on. Some of the best video AARs are done by Josey Whales. To me, the game's great strength is the ability to follow multi-unit strategy as well as the 'adventures' of individual soldiers and vehicles. And the only way to properly appreciate both aspects is to use WEGO, so you can go back and immerse yourself in interesting incidents on a micro scale!

There was a lot of upgrading of the CM games over the years to get us to where we are now.  The below list is some of the improvements that the up to date titles have.  There is actually more but below is what I could remember or looked up.  This must be a massive undertaking to add even some of the below to CMSF.  So in theory the below is some of the stuff that BFC might add.  I say in theory because it is so much stuff that it is kind of hard to believe they would do all this work and think about offering it to preexisting CMSF1 customers at a discount.  
 
* HULLDOWN COMMAND: This command allows a vehicle to move forward until only the turret is exposed to a specified target, and then the vehicle stops moving.
* IMPROVED INFANTRY SPACING: While moving, squad and team members will maintain a few meters of distance between each other. Soldiers will spread out laterally on the move when possible.
* PEEKING AROUND BUILDING CORNERS: Infantry units positioned adjacent to building and tall wall corners will now automatically post some soldiers at the corners to observe and fire around the obstacle. Machine guns and anti-tank weapons have priority for positioning at the corner. 
* COMBINE SQUAD COMMAND: When a squad is given the Combine Squad command, the squad will reorganize itself into two teams (if it originally had three teams). The Combine Squad command can only be given to Squads that are un-split.
* EXPANDED WAYPOINT DESCRIPTIVE TEXT: More special unit commands (such as Hide and Deploy Weapon) will now be marked with white floating text above the waypoint they are assigned to.
* CAMPAIGN BRIEFING: The overall campaign briefing is now viewable during any campaign mission by going to the Menu Options Panel and selecting "Campaign".
* FORWARD OBSERVER KILL CREDITS: F/O’s now get credit on the AAR for any casualties caused by off-map fire missions called in by them.
* SCREEN EDGE PAN TOGGLE: Using the hotkey ALT-E you can disable camera panning by touching the screen edge with the mouse cursor.
* AI AREA FIRE ORDERS: The AI can now be scripted to use Area Fire! Each AI Order can have a target zone designated. The AI will attack the target zone with suppressive area fire if it doesn't have any spotted enemy units to engage or other important tasks to do.
* AI FACING ORDERS: Each AI Order can be given a location for it to Face towards. When the AI Group reaches its destination, it will pivot or rotate towards the designated point.
* AI WITHDRAW ORDERS: AI Groups can be ordered to Withdraw. Vehicles will move in Reverse to the destination, while infantry will leapfrog back while turning around to face behind them.
* CAMPAIGN RESUPPLY: Personnel replacements and ammunition levels are now more uniformly resupplied across all core units between campaign missions.
* 3D FLAVOR OBJECT CLONE TOOL: While in the 3D Editor, a flavor object can be cloned. A duplicate of the flavor object will appear a short distance away.
* 32 ORDER AI PLANS: Each AI Group can now have up to 32 Orders, increased from 16.
* Stream terrain: Small streams can now be placed on battle maps.
* New tracer and muzzle flash effects.
  Quick Battle TO&E options have been improved
- Mouse text for targeting: too close or out of range
- Improved TacAI logic for placing teams along walls
- Very heavily-laden soldiers cannot use Fast or sometimes even Quick moves
- Ground units are now able to fire at attacking aircraft
- Ammo Dumps allow platoons to have reserve ammo stored separately on map (automatically distributed for certain Skill Levels)
- Three different sets of camera controls; Standard (traditional), First Person Shooter, and Real Time Strategy
- Optional graphical Command and Control link tracing
- KIAs are shown in the Soldier/Crew Panels to track soldiers lost during the game
- Ability to create AI Triggers that execute actions based on other units or interaction with Objectives
- Maximum map size increased
- Customized "Mod Tags" for most graphics.
- Ability to specify specific mods be used for a specific Scenario.
- Hit impacts to vehicles and bunkers now shown graphically ("hit decals")
- Water animates for fording units
* Map editor elevation changes can be "sharp" by holding the control key when clicking tile elevations.  This allows the creation of realistic ditch contours.
* Computer player may use "Ambush Armor" plans.
- Waypoint dragging. A waypoint can be clicked on and moved by dragging it to a new location.
- Hotkey Unit Groups. Select units and assign them to number keys for quick navigation during gameplay. To change the camera's location press Alt and the number of the group you want to navigate to. The camera relocates and the highest level unit of that group is automatically selected. In Iron Mode, only HQs can be assigned to hotkey unit groups.
- Grouped Spacebar Command system. Instead of getting all of the commands in a big list when the Spacebar is used, instead you get four groups of commands: Movement, Combat, Special, and Administrative.
- New Load New Game dialog screen. The list of scenarios can now be sorted by size, length, or alphabetically. Details are presented in text form instead of icons.
- New Saved Game dialog screen. The list of scenarios can now be sorted by newest file, oldest file, or alphabetically. You can also filter between single player saves and PBEM saves. Save games can be deleted from this screen instead of having to flip back and forth between the game and your desktop.
- Visual Hotkey binding. A new dialog allows you to specify and view key assignments. Players can still manually edit and exchange Hotkey.txt files as before.
- Special Equipment icons enlarged for better readability. The enlargement reduces the number of icons from 12 to 6. Multiple items of a single type of equipment are now represented by a single icon with a number specifying how many of that item the unit has.
- Auto-Assemble linear terrain tool. Roads, walls, fences, and hedges can now be automagically drawn across the map instead of placing them one tile at a time. The old manual selection interface still exists to allow tweaking specific Action Spots.
- BMP map overlay. Instead of having to create game maps by freehand you can now trace over a real world map within the Editor. Four different levels of transparency make the process easier by adjusting for different needs as work progresses.
- More AI Groups. The number of AI Groups available has been increased from 8 to 16. This allows for greater fidelity of AI Plans and their assigned units.
- Copy and paste AI Plans. Create a solid AI Plan, copy it, and paste it into an unused AI Plan slot. Once done the copied Plan can be modified to make a unique variant without having to build the Plan up from scratch.
- Improved terrain elevation/contours, smoother and more intuitive.
- Target Armor Arc Command. Instructs units to engage only armored units within the specified arc. As with nearly every Command, outcome varies greatly depending on unit quality and battlefield conditions.
- Target Briefly Command. Tells a unit to fire all it's guns on a designated spot for 15 seconds, then cease fire. Conserves ammo and reduces the need for player management when short suppressive fire is the desired outcome.
  

Believe me, it feels like a completely different game.  So many things have changed that you can't even begin to go through them all - stupid little things like walls with gaps that weren't in CMSF.  Map development will be a whole lot different with all the new capabilities.  Moving flavor items with alt-click.  Moving way points after you've placed them.  Then you get into things like target briefly which didn't exist.  BF reworked almost everything so yeah you have to buy it again at a discount.  You thought it should be free?  Damn I need you to come over and work in my yard digging trenches if you think labor should be free.  Let me know when to expect you.
The big items are ToEs, models etc and ALL the CMSF content that is available.  However don't be fooled. the small things are what will catch you probably more than the big items.  Try building a map with the same level of detail as the later titles and you'll quickly find yourself frustrated by what you can't do that you take for granted now.  Ooh did someone say overlays?
I get that everybody has their favorites and we all want our favorites at the top of the list, but those that revel in CMSF have waited the longest for an update over any other title.  You've been waiting 3 years since CMBS release for a module?  4 Years since Gustav line for CMFI?  It's been over 7 years since the NATO module and NONE of the version improvements have been applied to the BEST CM game.  So get the hell back in line and wait your turn.  If CMSF isn't your fav then so be it, but don't crap on those of us who have waited all this time as the LAST title to get 4.0. 
You know what the title will have.  4.0 and all the stuff that made CMSF what it is.  Not to your liking?  No one is making you buy it.  However if like me you find CMSF as the most appealing game of the CM titles, then you really really want CMSF2.  Even at full price it would be a deal.

Tactical lifehack.
I think that it is important for us to share some tactical lifehacks related to this wonderful game.
Please attach screenshot of your knowhow and some description of it.  
I think if we will organize our answers that would work better.
So please share your ideas supported by screenshots and detailed description of what it does or what it serves for. Thank you.
Since I’ve started this topic I will provide first lifehack. As you can see on a picture there are some barbered wire around mixed mines. This thing is useful when it is located on the opposite side from your enemy across some river. It should be specifically placed in areas where crossing the river is the most comfortable for your enemy. Simple at first look it turns out very effective in slowing down your enemy. Enemy infantry forces will need to go around or will be forced to use some sappers to go through it. If enemy forces will use armored vehicles to run over that wired thing they will be damaged by mines almost immediately. Even you facing smart opponent who will use engineers this thing can became a mass grave in no time. All you have to do is to place your BMP, or any other armored vehicle on a solid distance from this trap. Your vehicle should have good visual of that area and should be able to fire through it. When your enemy will try to organize some breakthrough it will be forced to slow down, its infantry will need to go around or break through under fire, its vehicles will not be able to advance fast. The main goal of this thing is to slow down your opponent. Furthermore I’ve also checked this thing on human factor.  One of the people I’ve played with faced this trap, he was almost sure that I’m simply wasting my fortifications shaping them in awkward manner. He decided to go through it by using 3 of his BTR’s 82A without even unloading his infantry. The result was dramatic, I had a BMP-2 sitting in ambush around 450 meters away from that spot. I gave certain target arc to my BMP, and in terms of two minutes an entire platoon was smoked out. Then he decided to go through it with bigger forces and that took some time. By the moment he finally passed that thing my arty was already preparing to shell some area in front of him. Conclusion: this thing can be a trap for AI, it can be a trap for a real player, and it is a great way to slow down your opponent. It is also a great way to redirect your opponents plans because most of the people are getting excited when they see some barricades, they really wanna go through them.
Counter act hint: if you want to counter this thing you need to shoot through barricades, deploy smoke, use your engineers and then move on. You can also call an artillery strike on it but that is a waste. If you see this thing I would recommend to cross that river in a different place because price of crossing can be way higher than you think.

For sources, FM 3-90.1 is the field manual for the Armor-Mechanized Team, which is to say how the US Army plans to fight at the Company level in a mixed force of tanks and mechanized infantry, so there's a lot of "how to" for IFV forces.  

Just a few quick notes:

1. In the world war two context, an IFV without troops is basically a cross between a light tank, and a tank destroyer.  It cannot trade blows with anything reliably (the ERA or APS models can resist infantry anti-tank weapons, but not especially reliably, all of them will resist autocannon fire for only a short time, and virtually every single one of them is ultra dead if a tank is shooting at them), but has a lot of firepower.  Autocannons parallel what you'd expect a 37 or 50 MM gun to do in the 1944 context, kill light vehicles easily, damage tanks from favorable angles, and do quite well against infantry.  The ATGM is pretty hit or miss, against anything with an APS it's pretty much a waste, but your mileage varies against anything else (TOW-2B is pretty amazing against anything that is not APS equipped, a lot of the Russian stuff struggles against any sort of ERA etc).

2. When loaded with troops though, it's best to view the IFV as a half track.  It's simply way too easy to lose entire squads if you're aggressive with a fully loaded IFV.  You can get close to the battle, but generally, you want the infantry and IFV attacking and assaulting the objective as a unit vs the IFVs assaulting with full troop bays.

3. In terms of spotting, the US IFVs are practically super-natural at range, and are great tools to find the enemy.  You'll still want to lead with infantry, but there's a good chance the Bradley will be shooting at targets your infantry hasn't found yet, especially at range.  The Russian/Ukrainian IFVs are not good for this, and will rarely spot anything before its infantry does.  

4. On the offensive, the best world war two analog I can think of would be playing CMBN with a platoon of armored infantry and a platoon of M5 Stuarts.  You have a lot of firepower on hand, but you must be careful when you present the vehicles, it doesn't take much to kill them.  Often it's best to let the infantry get into the fight a bit, and once the enemy is more known, then you flex the armor onto the enemy.  Often you'll have to use area fire with the non-US IFVs, but the effects can still be decisive.

5. On the defense, think of them like AT guns that can move if they have to.  You want to set them on good fields of fire, tied in with the infantry they transported.  Seek out good well protected positions, as if the enemy starts shooting back, the IFV will not survive for long.  It's often best to plan for a follow on position for once the first position is exposed, or comes under effective fire.  It's important at this point to consider how you want to deal with this follow on position, is it simply an alternate from which the IFV can continue to support the infantry, or is it a totally new position you might want to move the infantry to too?

6. The IFV should virtually always be accompanied by tanks on the offensive or in open terrain.  It should always be accompanied by infantry in the defensive or in urban/woodland terrain.  He gets lonely and sad and may explode if you keep him away from his friends.

7. All IFVs rely on ATGMs for anti-tank operations.  Where this gets weird for gamey reasons is sometimes the TAC AI decides the chaingun is the best choice for anti-armor work, so it'll splat a bunch of 25 MM AP against the frontal slope of a tank, and then get murdered.  Also It's possible if tank and IFV spot each other at the same time, the engagement speed of the tank's gun is just so much faster that it'll kill the IFV before the missile is able to strike home.  

Because I'm bored, some short impressions of the tracked IFVs in game:

Bradley: Fear this thing.  It spots well, can kill anything that's not a tank with its chaingun, and with the ERA, is able to take some hits and still plug along. On the downside it's pretty spendy if you're going by QB points, and has almost no real AT capability against anything with APS.  

BMP-2: Rubbish.  It doesn't spot well, rifle grenades will knock it out, and it takes somewhere around 10-15 seconds it seems to launch ATGMs (and they're not especially good ATGMs).  On the plus side, getting more than a few of them is easy in QB, they're pretty zippy, and if you're using it to support infantry, it's quite handy as 30 MM fire ruins anyone's day.

BMP-2M: Much of the above, although there's some issues in game with getting it to fire ATGMs I believe.   I don't know, I haven't used them much.

BMP-3/3M: Tricky.  Decisive if used well, positively terrible if used anything less than well.  On the plus side an astounding amount of firepower, the 100 MM is great at knocking out enemy strongpoints.  It also has a great airburst capability if you're facing trenches.   Reasonable ATGM.  On the negative side it only has armor in the sales brochure, and given the amount of ammunition contained within, it explodes when knocked out.  And not like, oh, drat I have lost a IFV explodes, like kills everyone within the vehicle, takes out the squad next to it, and mobility kills the T-90 nearby level explodes.  More than anything else you have to make sure it's "safe" to employ.  If you can get it into position, it'll be the king of murder mountain.  If the enemy can hit it with literally anything bigger than 7.62, it's going to die loudly.

A bit more chart below. Not an exhaustive (har har) test, but still helpful.
With a combination of using Target to measure approximate distances, and rough numbers like in the chart, I can fairly well synchronize unit movement, and have an idea of when to expect fatigue, etc.

This is sburke's wife.  He ran screaming from the room with some bizarre high pitched scream I have never heard from him before and is now whimpering in the closet.  BUT were he a real male with a few drops of testosterone that I keep telling him to get from his email spam, he'd say c3k... is.....  hmm how do I say this, I think I saw something similar recently about just saying it real fast
Iagreewithc3k.  There.  Damn that was difficult.  There are two aspects to wego that are somewhat flip sides of the same coin.  One is the loss of control once you have issued commands.  For me that loss of control is the bit of realism about the limits of command.  I can tell a unit what I want it to do, but what happens after the big red button is hit is out of my hands for a minute.  I like that.  On the other hand there are certain situations that RT is more realistic in that as c3k noted, if I want team B to head out and join team A when they reach cover across the field I can do that.  In wego I have to guess and if I decide I'd rather not guess I have to wait the 60 second cycle. 
What I have learned is to be patient. Well that is what Steve has learned.  What I have learned is he is a pathetic coward afraid of action, but we can discuss that another time.  I think he is about to emerge from his hiding spot.  
Use the whole dang 60 seconds.  Slowing down the game is usually a good thing for a player.  The time compression we invoke based on our god's eye view of the battlefield frequently causes us to make really bad decisions.  Waiting allows your team to have more situational awareness.  They spot better and you may find they identify enemy units better especially if team A receives a couple rounds of incoming fire.  You now have a more informed position to make a decision on the next turn.  I have this perception from posts that players are still trying to perform this complex synchronized ballet of movement.  That isn't combat.  That is god's eye gaming.  Slow down.  Observe.  Move from cover to cover with over watch and if you have to cross terrain that you are not sure is clear of enemy, for god's sake use smoke.
 
 
 
 

The game is so dynamic a chart would not be practical.  With experience playing and reading these forums you will be able to understand some general rules for what works, when it works and then adopt those rules for the specific tactical problem you're looking at. 
In March of 2017 I did a test where infantry on Hunt traveled faster than they did on Move when in open terrain but slower than Move in light woods. (One example of why a chart might not be practical.)
Something I found interesting when I discovered it: A lightly wounded troop (yellow base) will often lag behind the rest of his fire team when moving causing the entire team to wait on the yellow based troops arrival at a waypoint before continuing to the next waypoint.      
In addition, below is something @c3k posted in June 2015 that I found helpful.  I paraphrased it and saved it in my notes. 
Each waypoint creates a game-mandated Pause until all the troops are present, then the unit goes to the next waypoint. Fewer waypoints mean fewer delays. Fewer sub-units mean shorter delays. For the shortest possible delay use one team, one waypoint. This means the most heavily loaded troop may be some distance behind. (Every item is allocated to a specific troop and weight carries a penalty.) An un-split three-team squad waits for all 3 teams to arrive/congregate at each waypoint before moving again. I split my squads and use Quick as my default move order.     
Below is a chart @axxe created in March of 2017 that you might find interesting as a general point of reference. I'm to lazy to look for the link but there is an entire thread associated with the below chart. 

 
 

CMBN produced one of the greatest emotional impacts of any game I've played.
Testing a pre-release battle as US vs German AI. I knew there were some Germans in some heavy woods. This was a bocage fight at close range. I split a squad. Team A area fired on the German location for 30 seconds. Meanwhile, Team B split around and approached from the back side to nail the Germans.
Team A, area fire done, advanced as ordered. They spotted the Germans. There was a brief exchange of fire. One German survived. He knelt there, arms raised, surrendering to Team A. But, behind him, Team B saw a "?". They let loose a volley...and shot the German in the back, killing him.
Total kick in the guts.
I only saw it because of WeGo. It was because of WeGo that I figured out what happened.
That was 6 months before the public release of CMBN and it is still a clear memory. Damn. That's the hallmark of a great game.

I found a comprehensive chart of German arty stats in my old CMBN files dated November 2011. 
 
 
 
 
 
GERMAN LIGHT/MEDIUM ARTILLERY
81mm Mortar
120mm Mortar
75mm Inf Gun
150mm Inf Gun
75mm Howitzer
105mm Howitzer
150mm Howitzer
Barrels
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
HE Rounds
100
60
70
50
140
140
120
Smoke Rounds
8
0
20
10
40
40
40
FAO Response Time (mins)
Normal
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
TRP
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
HQ Response Time (mins)
Normal
8
8
13
13
13
13
13
TRP
4
4
8
8
9
9
9
Mission
Harassrnds/min
p/Barrel
3.3
2.1
1.8
0.9
1.8
1.3
0.9
p/Unit
6.7
4.1
3.6
1.8
7.2
5.4
3.6
Max
15min
15min
20min
18min
20min
26min
34min
Shortrnds/min
p/Barrel
10.0
4.0
2.7
1.4
2.7
2.0
1.3
p/Unit
20.0
8.0
5.4
2.7
10.8
8.1
5.4
Max
5min
8min
13min
19min
13min
17min
22min
Mediumrnds/min
p/Barrel
20.0
5.0
4.4
2.2
4.4
3.2
2.1
p/Unit
40.0
10.0
8.8
4.3
17.5
12.7
8.4
Max
2.5mins
5mins
8min
12min
8min
11min
14min
Heavyrnds/min
p/Barrel
25.0
5.0
4.4
2.2
4.4
3.2
2.1
p/Unit
50.0
10.0
8.8
4.3
17.5
12.7
8.4
Max
2min
5min
8min
12min
8min
11min
14min
Duration
Quick
p/barrel
4-7
3-4
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
Short
p/barrel
11-16
8-11
5-10
5-8
5-10
5-10
5-8
Medium
p/barrel
27-32
14-17
11-16
8-11
11-16
9-14
8-11
Long
p/barrel
41-53
23-30
20-28
15-18
22-28
19-24
15-18
Maximum
p/barrel
100
60
70
50
140
140
120
                    GERMAN HEAVY ARTILLERY
210mm Howitzer
170mm Gun
159mm Nbwfr
215mm Nbwfr
280mm Nbwfr
301mm Nbwfr
88mm Flak
Barrels
4
4
6x6
6x5
6x5
6x5
4
HE Rounds
80
100
180
150
108
108
80
Smoke Rounds
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
FAO Response Time (mins)
Normal
21
12
12
12
12
12
12
TRP
17
9
9
9
9
9
9
HQ Response Time (mins)
Normal
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TRP
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mission
Harassrnds/min
p/Barrel
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
p/Unit
0.9
1.6
5.8
4.5
3.6
3.6
4.2
Max
89min
62min
31min
33min
30min
30min
19min
Shortrnds/min
p/Barrel
0.3
0.6
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.6
p/Unit
1.4
2.4
8.8
6.8
5.4
5.4
6.3
Max
59min
41min
21min
22min
20min
20min
13min
Mediumrnds/min
p/Barrel
0.6
1.3
4.4
3.4
2.7
2.7
3.0
p/Unit
2.5
5.1
26.3
20.5
16.2
16.2
11.9
Max
32min
20min
7min
7min
7min
7min
7min
Heavyrnds/min
p/Barrel
0.6
1.3
4.4
3.4
2.7
2.7
3.0
p/Unit
2.5
5.1
26.3
20.5
16.2
16.2
11.9
Max
32min
20min
7min
7min
7min
7min
7min
Duration
Quick
p/barrel
1
1
6
6
6
6
2
Short
p/barrel
    36
        Medium
p/barrel
    36-72
        Long
p/barrel
    72
        Maximum
p/barrel
80
100
180
150
108
108
80
NOTES:
MISSION = RATE OF FIRE
· p/barrel = rounds fired per min per single barrel at selected rate of fire i.e. Harass
· p/unit = rounds fired per complete unit i.e. all barrels in action
· Max = time to expend all rounds when firing all barrels at selected rate of fire
· Apart from 81mm Mortar then all other weapons appear to have the same rate of fire for Medium and Heavy... Maybe further testing needed
DURATION = TOTAL ROUNDS PER MISSION
· p/barrel = rounds fired per barrel over duration of mission. Nebelwerfers fire by multiples of its salvo.
 
Here is a much briefer US Arty chart dated the same:
CMBN US Artillery Characteristics
Rate of fire is 1 round per x seconds.
Duration is in rounds, or minutes if m suffix.
 
US 60mm M2 mortar onmap
Mission:             Harass     |     Light      |     Medium     |     Heavy
Rate of fire:          18       |       6        |       3        |       2
Duration:         Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M  
Rounds:           6    7    7m  |  3    20   30  |  3    19   24  |  3    16
 
US 81mm M1 mortar onmap
Mission:             Harass     |     Light      |     Medium     |     Heavy
Rate of fire:          18       |       6        |       3        |       2
Duration:         Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M  
Rounds:           5    10   15  |  6    10   28  |  3    10   25  |  6    12   22+
 
US 105mm M2A1 Howitzer
Mission:             Harass     |     Light      |     Medium     |     Heavy
Rate of fire:        46-48      |     28-32      |     16-19      |     10-12
Duration:         Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M   |  Q    S    M  
Rounds:           3    6    14  |  2    7    12  |  3    6    12  |  2    6    12

The below was not produced very rigorously, but it's been helpful for me to balance intensity and duration of fire vs. ammo consumption.
It's US only.  Wouldn't expect a huge variation for other armies, but who knows.