Grey_Fox

Like a lot of things in Cold War, the answer tends to be Mass.

The AT platoons of the AT battery have three BRDM/Shturms, with an HQ in a BRDM. In general you want to be treating this more like a WW2 AT Gun platoon. Rather than treating ATGMs as an anti-tank sniper rifle, which you can do in the (more) modern games, they need to be sited so that you can gain an advantage by having multiple rolls of the dice - if all three of them are playing ambush predator and watching the incoming Tank platoon, then you only need one of them to spot to start the enagement in a favourable way.

BRDMs unbutton in an interesting way - rather than sticking their head out, the cover of the front window opens. That tends to give them good visibility, but the vantage point is low to the ground, which affects what ground you can best fight from.

Obvious stuff can help too, like using the HQ BRDM to spot with, and rely spotting contacts, since that's mostly what he's for.

In general, ATGM *duels* are something that's pretty unique to Cold War, and almost always a bad idea. Long range fires, one-hit-kills, with a fairly large chance of missing means that trying to fight ATGMs with ATGMs is more or less a coin flip. TOW and AT-5 are more or less equivalent in practical terms - even if TOW is the superior weapon by any number of characteristics, there's a large chance of it missing, and if it misses, the M150 will probably be toast.

This scenario really disappointed me.
We just abandoned a PBEM after about five turns. The map is fantastic. The tactical problem from the Soviet side (aggressive recon and attacking through a chokepoint) is superb, but the forces given and arrayed against you really hurt this - the briefing tells you you're a second line force, running into other second line forces.
From the situation, it's clear this will involve marching into TOWs. The bridge is the key terrain, and the situation (a small cavalry force defending a chokepoint) is plausible and should give them a similarly difficult problem to solve.
Instead, the US start with three Bradleys and four TTS M60, so a ton of thermal optics, with the Bradleys sited well forward and in hull down positions against a line of advance.
The end result is that the Soviets have three possible lines of advance, and all three are covered by fires - either from the TOWs down the valley, or from the flanking Bradleys. The only element that the Soviets can have is the T-62 platoon, which cant get angles on the Bradleys without coming under fire from the TOWs. 
Further, the TOWs in the town can shoot into the Russian deployment zone, so not only are all three possible lines of advance covered from turn zero, they also cant stay where they are. If they did, they'd have no chance of winning a duel against TOW launchers at a multi-kilometer range, since they're only T-62.
Then you have the Russian forces themselves. Zero TRP, artillery is limited to 120mm mortars, and a tiny force - two companies is not sufficent for this size of target, and I'm not sure why the ATGM assets arent alongside the main force. I'm also not sure where the BRDM scout teams are, and I have some issues with the formations chosen, which will hurt their c2. This is also a scenario where you could legitimately have T-72, so there's that.
It's such a shame. This is halfway to being a *fantastic* scenario. The map is incredible, and the tactical problem the soviets have to solve is very thorny. It's just that the US forces dont have a similar problem to solve, and the combination of forces and placement really wipes out any interesting decisions to make.
I'm very tempted to do an alternate version of this scenario. I'm expecting the US to have a much smaller force - perhaps an armoured cavalry platoon (or two), in 1979, with maybe M60A1 or M48. I'd need to do something about the sight lines.
The aim would be to give the US a similarly difficult tactical problem - how a small, mobile force can use terrain to constrict and defeat a larger one.
I wouldn't be upset about this if it was so nearly brilliant - this map could easily be the basis for one of the best scenarios in the game, but currently it feels like a passive tower defence.

Gotcha. The ATGMs show up after 25 minutes, during which the US can hit the entire Soviet deployment area with TOWs.

They start with three Bradleys, along with 4x TTS M60 - that's a lot of thermals for the T-62s to deal with in long-ranged, wooded map.

Advancing into TOWs is an interesting problem, and working out how to take the bridge against this defensive position is potentially really interesting... but the end result is that you can't actually move in any direction without being sniped. If you go forward, the forward-deployed Bradleys, hull down and in the woods can get you. If you go left and over the river, the TOWs can snipe you. If you go right to get fire on the Bradleys, you're exposed to TOWs. If you stay where you are, you're exposed to TOWs.

Now, perhaps this is mostly as it was a PBEM, and the setup position allowed for this? The scenario is not listed as being vs AI only.

I'm interested to see if there's something I'm missing here, but I can't really see how a scenario where you're losing vehicles in spawn from the first turn is something I'm doing wrong.

Yeah, that was my approach. My read of the map and briefing was that of second-rate forces clashing. The key terrain was clearly the bridge, since the Soviet power is in the tank company, and so getting across the bridge was the logical thing to do.

I therefore sent the BRDMs and a BTR platoons to cross the river to the left, and sent a BTR platoon to the right, with mind to get eyes on both ends of the bridge and the town (and potentially deal with any picket forces on the way). My tanks stayed back, because there was nowhere useful for them to go right now - and they were to act as a reserve-by-fire for any forward picket/recon elements the infantry ran into.

The BRDMs and BTRs started exploding on turn one before they reached the river - they got perhaps two action spots out of the deployment zone. The other platoon was wiped out by a Bradley through the trees. Then the tanks in spawn started exploding. That was about turn five, and we called it quits.

 

I find this peculiar too.....I know there are at least one set of fixed scenarios out there, but for some reason they aren't being uploaded.
@BFCElvis.....Mate, enough is enough, this is paid product and it's properly f**ked. 

Still persistent issues as this thread has already stated. Not to be a Debbie downer, but this is so far probably the worst "official" campaign across any CM game I've played. I'm shocked this is in the final product, much less an add-on. How do you not even fix the basic stuff like correcting the stated equipment? The campaign in general has a distinct vibe of not even being playtested at all.

I've posted it before, but it's worth another watch.
 

I think the late variant Shermans still had the edge, but much less of one than vs. the T-34/76. Having a two-man turret eliminates the earlier T-34s from being considered in the running IMO.
Over the years I've gone from thinking the Germans had the best tanks, to the T-34, to the realization that the much-maligned Sherman was the best tank by a pretty wide margin. By "best" I mean operationally and strategically. Ease of production, reliability, parts standardization and supply, ease of transport (could and did go anywhere by whatever), adaptability and ability to upgrade, crew situational awareness and comm equipment, ergonomics and crew fatigue, ease of bail-out and ability to survive (astonishingly low fatality rates compared to the other tanks of the war across the board), etc. The T-34 K/D ratios were appallingly bad and, unlike the Sherman where on average four guys survived to apply lessons learned, you had just one for the T-34.
The Sherman was truly a war-winning tank in every sense of the term. Sure, it might be in trouble in certain tactical situations vs. certain opponents, but those don't outweigh its strengths and performance in macro.

Test results
Tests done in a more "natural" map instead of flat ground. Shermans are at 900,1030 and 1050m. All shermans are placed in light forest with trees. Shermans are of variant M4A3(76)W. Panther is of variant Panther G mid.
20 tests done with panther hull down, 20 tests with panther open ground. At test start the panther will drive to its correct position so it is not exposed at the start, all shermans stationary. Disregard the forward observers, they are behind terrain and does not see anything. At this range and angle the shermans can penetrate the lower glacis and the front turret, only the upper hull plate is immune.
Skill: regular, normal, 0 for all tanks

The map.

Panther hull down/open from sherman's perspective (one of them).

Panthers perspective.
 
Results:
Panther in hull down position:
4/20 times success; 20% win rate
failures:
12 times by main gun destroyed: 4 times muzzle hit, 2 times barrel hit, rest are mantlet/weapon mount hits. Rest of failures is crew dismount and tank destroyed.
Panther on open ground:
11/20 times success; 55% win rate
1 success had the panther immobilized by lower glacis penetration, engine destroyed
failures:
4 times by main gun destroyed: 1 time muzzle hit, rest mantlet/weapon mount.
1 time destroyed after +50 hits, crew panicked earlier, but the tank was still operational
rest is lower glacis or weapon mount tank destroyed
 
So after all that i did another 10 tests in each position with shermans all beeing elite crew to see what happend
Panther in hull down position vs 3 elite shermans: 0% win rate
Panther on open ground vs 3 elite shermans: 40% win rate
 
I got many pictures from the different successes and failures, but i dont want to clutter the post, but in general this is why the panther wins open ground scenarios:

The AI will always aim for the upper hull plate, which is the only place they can't penetrate. This is the aiming issue im talking about, the AI aims for the exact same location every single shot and will never deviate at all unless terrain forces them to. Once they are zeroed in, there is almost no hits to the turret or lower glacis at all, these lower glacis hits was two of the first shots fired. The panther won in the scenario that picture is taken from.

Why does the UK need to 'remedy enforcing VAT on domestic products'? That is not the case!

But anyway... from the linked article:
A government spokesperson said: "The new VAT model ensures goods from EU and non-EU countries are treated in the same way and that UK businesses are not disadvantaged by competition from VAT-free imports.
The net effect of the new VAT model is that the UK consumer will be discouraged from making purchases outside the UK. Do you agree?

The word protectionism is not so narrowly defined as merely imposition of a tariff or charge levied at imported goods, it can take many different forms including simple policy decisions - anything in fact that serves to restrict imports. Do you agree (because it's not apparent this is your understanding from your statement at all.)

Regardless, on this basis the new VAT model serves that end and is clearly intended as such. Therefore to describe the action as a 'protectionist' move is not misplaced or a misunderstanding given the context and present circumstances (as pointed out by another member). 

British consumers were getting tax-free purchases on imports up to a certain value, at which point tax was applied.
The part you've left out is that British **exports** received the same benefits, so now customers of British companies face this new tax on all goods they purchase. So British consumers are paying more, and customers of British companies are paying more.
It's a double whammy to both imports (people are now having to spend more for the same goods, which means they are poorer) and exports (which means companies have to find ways to cut back, and the easiest way to do that is to shed jobs).

Further evidence of "taking back control"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55734277
Seems like there will be lots of goods being returned. Of course the liars in charge are saying these are all just teething problems. 
Project Reality...
 

It's actually worse than that. The increased tax means that British citizens have lower purchasing power - they have to spend more to buy the same stuff. So now people are poorer because of the increased taxes. Not only that, local businesses are also affected as their imports are now more expensive, or they have to purchase more expensive locally-produced substitutes. This means they too have to either increase prices or else cut costs (payroll...) in order to stay profitable. And this doesn't even include the probable loss of business they'll face when customers abroad find that they now have to pay additional taxes.
I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to a net decrease in tax revenue.
It's insane that people would voluntarily do this.
  
Thanks for the confirmation.

It's actually worse than that. The increased tax means that British citizens have lower purchasing power - they have to spend more to buy the same stuff. So now people are poorer because of the increased taxes. Not only that, local businesses are also affected as their imports are now more expensive, or they have to purchase more expensive locally-produced substitutes. This means they too have to either increase prices or else cut costs (payroll...) in order to stay profitable. And this doesn't even include the probable loss of business they'll face when customers abroad find that they now have to pay additional taxes.
I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to a net decrease in tax revenue.
It's insane that people would voluntarily do this.
  
Thanks for the confirmation.

$95 (for CMFI, GL and RV)
Hang on!
Update: Just checked the price in the store and it's now $114 (reduced from $156).
Don't tell me I purchased it just in time! 😲
Bought it on Monday. While that's a good thing, it's slightly annoying as I'd have got everything I don't have had I realised it was about to attract tax.

So in your hypothetical scenario it's acceptable to kill even unarmed surrendering enemies?
Nice how you ignore the eyewitness accounts given by fellow members of these units of executions carried out as part of initiation rituals.
It does seem like the "videographer" (in reality a helmet cam) did nothing because the unit has normalized the execution of civilians.
 

When there's video footage of an unarmed civilian lying on his back being shot multiple times in cold blood, I have difficulty not calling that what it is.
When members of the unit give eyewitness accounts to the inquiry of prisoners being executed as part of initiation rituals, I have trouble not calling that what it is.

For what it's worth, all other factors being equal, I've found it rare for one 75mm M4 to win a shootout with one PzIV at typical combat ranges.
Up close (which is abnormal for tank combat), the Sherman has an edge, but at normal range >500m, the PzIV spots first, shoots first and hits first, and usually kills - and even if the hits don't always kill at long range, they will mess up the M4 so badly it's out of the fight.
At long range, an M4 with a 'typical' crew will take multiple ranging shots before it can hit anything. Only an Allied 76mm (or a well up-armoured Sherman) is really an equal match for the PzIV at normal range for tank combat.

I'd agree, this says a lot more about poor A2AD capabilities on Armenia's part than it does about tanks.

I think that peoples' opinions of tanks as undefeatable monsters which should never die has been skewed by NATO's use of mass armoured formations in one-sided fights against third world armies which had already been shattered or heavily attrited by ground attack aircraft which enjoyed complete air supremacy. 
In peer conflicts, tanks formations were taking 50+% casualties for every week of serious combat in WW2, and the 1967 and Yom Kippur Wars. Recent NATO experience is an aberration.
Sustaining armoured warfare against peer forces revolves around one thing - the ability to get the crews into replacement vehicles and back into the fight. The tank is not obsolete.

Why would you leave a negative review of a game you regularly play? If the game frustrates you so much that you recommend others not buy it, why keep playing it?
The fact is, the game is good enough for you to play it, but has some limitation which aren't enough to make you stop playing it.
I never understand negative steam reviews saying "DO NOT PLAY THIS PIECE OF TRASH" by people who have amassed significant play time. They obviously got their money's worth, so it's good enough for them, but not good enough for anyone else?

Why would you leave a negative review of a game you regularly play? If the game frustrates you so much that you recommend others not buy it, why keep playing it?
The fact is, the game is good enough for you to play it, but has some limitation which aren't enough to make you stop playing it.
I never understand negative steam reviews saying "DO NOT PLAY THIS PIECE OF TRASH" by people who have amassed significant play time. They obviously got their money's worth, so it's good enough for them, but not good enough for anyone else?

Why would you leave a negative review of a game you regularly play? If the game frustrates you so much that you recommend others not buy it, why keep playing it?
The fact is, the game is good enough for you to play it, but has some limitation which aren't enough to make you stop playing it.
I never understand negative steam reviews saying "DO NOT PLAY THIS PIECE OF TRASH" by people who have amassed significant play time. They obviously got their money's worth, so it's good enough for them, but not good enough for anyone else?

I encourage you to ask all the questions you have.  This is generally a friendly forum group.  Questions make veteran players think about the topic when replying, encourages discussions about the topic and helps to keep the forum active. For every question you ask there are probably several lurkers who have a similar question.  You assist other players by starting CM game play related topics.   Below are what I have in my notes that I update as I learn new information.      
Below is my drill for a same turn infantry dismount and then the vehicle moves. 
1. Order infantry to Dismount.1 
2. Give infantry appropriate movement order2 away from the dismount location.
3. Give vehicle appropriate movement order.
4. After Dismount is completed vehicle & infantry will go their separate ways.For
1) Dismount cannot be cancelled and must be given before any movement order or the troops will remain on the vehicle. Troops can’t Dismount from Paused vehicle but may mount. 2) After dismounting infantry will begin movement order.
 
Below is my drill for a same turn infantry mount and then the vehicle moves. 
1. Pause vehicle appropriate time. (5sec. per A/S Inf. must travel in open terrain)  
2. Give vehicle appropriate movement order.1
3. Fast Inf. into vehicle using one waypoint.2 (Inf. create the boarding waypoint)  
Notes: 1) Tanks with riders use Move speed regardless of movement order given. 2) Once boarding begins vehicle will wait.  If the Pause expires before boarding begins the vehicle will leave without the infantry.

Well to me realism means vaguely like the real thing, hence me asking what your definition of realistic is.  Your first response was another game and your latest response indicates that you actually don't know whereas I have actually seen it first hand.  That's the thrust of it my friend.  I certainly agree that the game's graphics aren't as good as others and there is room for improvement but what we get in terms of wagons brewing up is not overly far off the mark.  If you're citing War Thunder as a source then before we know it people will be asking for 'realistic' hand grenade explosions based on what they've seen in films.  As I have thrown a grenade or two in my time I know that their depiction in Combat Mission is closer to those that I see in films.