DerKommissar

You'll also find a few of us, pansysnack salarymen, that are overly enthusiastic about military history and yet never held a gun in their life!
Welcome! Come one, come all!

Sitrep @ 8:08
...Or maybe I should not do a vehicle recon. The enemy has ATGMs. Lead humvee got hit. Enemy sniper team on Hill 41 also opened up. A firefight started. Second humvee fired upon a sniper, killing the guy with SVD and suppressing his buddy. Second ATGM was fired. Both humvees will be down in a few seconds, I'm afraid.
Marine Scout Snipers are the only ones within a clear LOS on ATGM. 60mm mortars fire mission is called on ATGM. 4-5 minutes ETA. The enemy will be gone by that time, I bet, but that's the best thing I can do right this moment. Sending more vehicles there would be a wrong move. And massed infantry on that ridge will be seriously exposed. Hmm...
Okay, now is the time to come up with something.

Failed bombing run against a Panther Turret bunker and the AA gun protecting it.

T-72B3 obr.2016  production ≈ 150 per year.

68th Tank Regiment 150th Motorized Rifle Division.

5th Tank Brigade.

1st Tank Regiment 2nd Motorized Rifle Division.

6th Tank Brigade.
T-72B3M ≈ 20 in 2nd Motorized Rifle Division.
T-80BVM* 10 (2017)

61st Naval Infantry Brigade.
*Tanks for Naval Infantry don't have additional side armor.
Contracts for T-80BVM/T-90M:
T-80BVM  62 (2018-2019).
T-90M ≈ 60 (2018-2019).
 

Was Murphy a grunt? Or was he actually an engineer?
- Number 43 has some rather wild implications about a lot of new designs.
- Number 35, especially, seems inspired by the F-35 program (PAK FA, etc.).
- Number 37 is pretty much a real life axiom.
- Number 10 can be applied to polarized capacitors, as they are tiny grenades.
- Number 26 is a good way to treat overcurrent fuses.
- Number 20 seems to hold up, historically wise. Fully consistent with 43 and 35.

The B3 (obr. 2010) is the one in game. The most modern T-72 variant is B3M (obr. 2014) with new engine, commander thermals, new gun and optional Relikt armour. Most pictures I've seen have the Kontakt-5 -- I presume they are older pictures.The B3 (obr. 2016) is one with partial Relikt ERA (most notably on the sides).
ACE mod is probably one of the most popular mods on A3's workshop. ACE 3 has official support for RHS, too. To me, ACE3 + RHS = A2 ACE. I was an SLX fan, myself -- yet, it has no successor in A3.

I started with RTS-mode, because I was more familiar with it in the genre. I liked it well enough, when I started out. I generally find that games take less with RTS-mode and I mostly played macro. Currently, I play with WEGO, I think it's the definitive way to play the game. Tactics games are usually either turn based or real-time pausable -- WEGO is fairly rare. Really giving you time to make elaborate plans and keep track of many units, while still boasting lively action during replay.

I started with RTS-mode, because I was more familiar with it in the genre. I liked it well enough, when I started out. I generally find that games take less with RTS-mode and I mostly played macro. Currently, I play with WEGO, I think it's the definitive way to play the game. Tactics games are usually either turn based or real-time pausable -- WEGO is fairly rare. Really giving you time to make elaborate plans and keep track of many units, while still boasting lively action during replay.

So, 3.0 had yellow and green tracers? I wonder which weapons got which one.
I think with 4.0, tracers have become much more authentic. I think they could still be more "mixed" into the ammunition. With different weapons having different frequencies of tracer, maybe some get tracers at the end of a mag/belt. I think that's already partially implemented, isn't it?
Aye, I shed a tear for the Commonwealth infantry. I found that BARs kinda fulfill their intended purpose -- they weren't really designed as LMGs. Ha! When I saw those white tracers, I was stupefied. At first, I thought something GODLY was producing those white bolts towards my foxholed GIs. Turns out it was one of the crappiest LMGs in the war-- but, hey, at least it had style.

With the G3s and galils, I'm pretty sure it's Estonia. Kinda cool to see those legendary rifles still being issued.
As for tank fighting robots:
I found this concept to be very attractive. From videos in Syria, it seems that the only defense ATGM teams have is concealment. Any vehicle, especially one with thermals, could suppress them.
Put one of these things on a roof, and get the operators somewhere safe. While they may not safely reload, they could potentially set up multiples, at different angles.
Mount one of these things on an unmanned vehicle... I think this is the future of ATGMs.

How do you zero in indirect fires support without radio feedback? I think for the Soviets, for the most part, the answer was "you don't". Their doctrine had evolved dependent on the various tools you mentioned.
From what I understand, they would scout out, mark and triangulate reference points/lines as part of initial planning for offensive/defensive plans. Soviets LOVED plans. They also loved the mortar, and after 41, they began shifting an insane proportion of their production to them. Funny enough, heavy infantry weapons were found more critical than tank production. After 41, they tried to centralize the organic fire support assets -- so, often decisions regarding mortars would be made at the divisional level (plans, plans, plans).
The doctrine of "artillery preparation" relied on LOTS of HEAVY mortars to make up for potential inaccuracy. A hammer would be applied, where the Allies would use a scalpel. Area denial and even psychological warfare were expected effects, rather than destruction of specific fortifications. You can see why they adopted mass rocket artillery as early as they did. They generally treated mortars, even the 82mm, as general purpose artillery.
All the while, direct fire capable guns were very emphasized in their doctrine. Divisional guns, especially. These would be put close to the front, and quickly wired via telephone to observers. The wire was extensively used, and almost exclusively, in 1941. You often see photos of guys lugging those big rollers of the stuff around. Soviets were damn sneaky. Prepared observation posts would be camouflaged right under the German's noses. They'd even sneak horse drawn artillery up to the line.
As the fighting on the eastern front became more mobile in '44. Those radios, including observation vehicles, which the soviets loved, came into heavy exploitation.
My general source has been: TACTICS & FIRE CONTROL OF RUSSIAN ARTILLERY IN ATTACK AND DEFENSE DURING 1941, 1942, and 1944 AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN RECENT TIMES BY OBERST (I.G) HANS-GEORG RICHERT
The source covers infinitely more on the topic than my overly-enthusiastic rant has -- got plenty of real life examples to boot. Highly suggest checking it out.

Right after they release CMA 4.0 upgrade on Steam -- with visible aircraft models.

Same vehicle, they just bolted all the bits on:

Nice. I on the other hand am looking at making my first CM2 game purchase and this thread has all but confirmed CM:FI as my choice.
Not to derail the thread but a quick question regarding Quick Battle AI. I'm currently watching some of ChrisND's excellent YT uploads and have been impressed by the AI in CM:BS Quick Battles. Have the older titles like CM:FI and CM:BN benefited from improvements in Quick Battle AI over the years with updates?
 

Right after they release CMA 4.0 upgrade on Steam -- with visible aircraft models.

All the games are sold in Game Engine 4 nowadays, so there's no need to buy separate upgrades.
But yes, it's mostly down to the preferred setting. Newer games do take advantage of engine features not originally present in the older games, so theoretically the new titles should have a better single-player experience, but I haven't noticed a tangible difference. Personal recommendation from me goes to the CMFI+GL bundle, which is the one I started out with. It's a bit more expensive than just a base game but the content keeps you busy for a long while.

1 - I play in 1440p, myself. What you need to do is set the resolution to "Desktop" and it will scale accordingly.
2 - Half a year ago, Engine Upgrade 4.0 came out. It brings most titles to the same level of modernity (mechanics, performance and visuals). These titles are Black Sea, Final Blitzkrieg, Battle for Normandy, Fortress Italy, and Red Thunder. Shock Force is being updated to bring it up to par, currently. Afghanistan will probably only be updated in my dreams. If you don't want to buy the upgrade, the most recent games would have the most recent features (Red Thunder, Black Sea and Final Blitzkrieg started at Engine 3.0).
What game should you get? Well, that's a very frequent subject of discussion on these forums. The short version of it is get the one that has a setting that appeals to you, the most. Each base game roughly has the same amount of content, yet each one's DLC selection varies. Aside from Shock Force and Afghanistan, the looks and game-play quality is consistent.
Oh -- and welcome to the forums!
 

I play a lot of wargames, but just discovered this series existed a couple months ago. I downloaded the demo and think it is the right game for me, but I have a couple questions.
1 - How do I change the resolution? I downloaded CM Fortress Italy and was not able to raise the resolution in the settings to even 1080p, much less the 1440 of my monitor. Can the resolution in any of the CM's be raised to 1440 full screen? 
2 - Which one should I buy? The games aren't cheap, so I'm probably only buying one base game for now. I'm pretty sure I want a WW2 game as my first one, even though I am intrigued by the Black Sea CM. Do all the of the CM's running on 2.0 essentially look and play the same? Does Final Blitzkrieg look and play better than Battle for Normandy or Red Thunder because it is newer, or is there essentially no difference in performance and capability since they're all on the same engine? 
Past that, I guess I'm looking for the base game with the greatest variety of units, scenarios, and maps. But if one of them looks and plays noticeably better than the others, that would probably trump variety for me. 
Thanks!

On the topic
I saw this and found it very interesting
New Russian anti IED mine vehicle
Listva
Operational with Russian nuclear convoys
 
 

Work and computer power permitting, I am going to resume work on this long shelved BN base game campaign, which includes a 2 x 3 km master map of the east bank of the Vire River above Pont Hebert, from la Meauffe to the German fortified heights at le Carillon.... 
Below are a few key snips from the old thread... 
 
La Meauffe had been the front line since mid June, when 175th Infantry occupied it, then withdrew (under fire) to higher ground further north.
 
So I did some more research online and was gratified to find a French chronology of La Meauffe's war. And it turns out the elusive "Gestapo château" which anchored "Purple Heart Corner" is the Chateau Fors, commanding the key T junction and railway crossing at the south end of La Meauffe. Many historians place it wrongly at St Gilles, which was the LXXXIV Corps HQ, rocketed by Typhoons on D-Day and also heavily fortified.
So at long last I have confidence in the start lines and the July 11th objectives for 1/137.

I know if BF ever made a WWII CMx2 Platoon Level Game System (like the one that was in development for CMBB back in the CMx1 days), then I would be on the Band Wagon.

Really happy about Brazilians in-game.
Hope they don't preform like they did in the 2014 semi-finals, against Germany!

Really happy about Brazilians in-game.
Hope they don't preform like they did in the 2014 semi-finals, against Germany!

looks so gooooood

 

As long as you keep them out of the whipped cream.
 
Mord.
 
P.S. Now he's just trolling us.