Centurian52

Oh, and I very nearly forgot. Another factor in the Soviet preference for no dismounting, or dismounting as late as possible, is that they expected a nuclear battlefield. Vehicles are NBC protected (at least the ones designed during the Cold War). And while individual infantrymen also have NBC gear, it's still best for them to spend as little time as possible outside. In fact this might be a bigger factor in the "don't dismount unless you have to" attitude than the desire to maintain a high operational tempo.
We often forget about the nuclear aspect because nukes aren't represented in Combat Mission (they are obviously a bit outside the scope of a tactical sim, since even tactical nukes are probably more operational than tactical assets (though it's possible that the effects of a tactical nuke could fit in a CMCW scenario (especially given that CMCW scenarios tend to be larger by map size than other CM games), and still leave some scenario to play (infantry hiding in buildings, forests, and trenches would be able to survive much closer to the blast center than infantry standing in the open, and armored vehicles would be able to survive even closer) so perhaps it would make some sense to include the occasional tactical nuke in our indirect fire assets (you don't even need to account for radiation effects, because those don't manifest until well past the scope of a CM scenario))). But of course they played a big role in the assumptions that Cold War doctrine was designed around.
I don't know if this was part of the consideration for choosing the timeframe of the base game. But the game's timeframe of 1979-1982 is probably the period that had the best chance of seeing both sides just use conventional arms. Any earlier than this and the US lacked confidence in the ability of its conventional forces to stop the Soviets, and viewed them more as a tripwire for destroying the Soviets with tactical nukes. Much later than this timeframe and the Soviets lose confidence in their ability to overrun NATO defenses with conventional forces alone, and start depending far more heavily on the use of tactical nukes in their attack plans.

Oh, and I very nearly forgot. Another factor in the Soviet preference for no dismounting, or dismounting as late as possible, is that they expected a nuclear battlefield. Vehicles are NBC protected (at least the ones designed during the Cold War). And while individual infantrymen also have NBC gear, it's still best for them to spend as little time as possible outside. In fact this might be a bigger factor in the "don't dismount unless you have to" attitude than the desire to maintain a high operational tempo.
We often forget about the nuclear aspect because nukes aren't represented in Combat Mission (they are obviously a bit outside the scope of a tactical sim, since even tactical nukes are probably more operational than tactical assets (though it's possible that the effects of a tactical nuke could fit in a CMCW scenario (especially given that CMCW scenarios tend to be larger by map size than other CM games), and still leave some scenario to play (infantry hiding in buildings, forests, and trenches would be able to survive much closer to the blast center than infantry standing in the open, and armored vehicles would be able to survive even closer) so perhaps it would make some sense to include the occasional tactical nuke in our indirect fire assets (you don't even need to account for radiation effects, because those don't manifest until well past the scope of a CM scenario))). But of course they played a big role in the assumptions that Cold War doctrine was designed around.
I don't know if this was part of the consideration for choosing the timeframe of the base game. But the game's timeframe of 1979-1982 is probably the period that had the best chance of seeing both sides just use conventional arms. Any earlier than this and the US lacked confidence in the ability of its conventional forces to stop the Soviets, and viewed them more as a tripwire for destroying the Soviets with tactical nukes. Much later than this timeframe and the Soviets lose confidence in their ability to overrun NATO defenses with conventional forces alone, and start depending far more heavily on the use of tactical nukes in their attack plans.

I looked it up, and found this bit.
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/469733-mkpz-t-34-85-all-variants-old-tank-new-state/
Quoting from there:
"more T-34-85s were imported, which reached peak numbers in 1958 with a total of 1146 units .... Nevertheless, most of these tanks were still in service in 1975, when 710 of the aging medium tanks were still serving in second-line and training roles, and even in the very last days of the USSR and DDR, there were still mothballed T-34-85s waiting in warehouses in case a need for them should arise. In 1988, 35 tanks were still listed in the inventory, by which point they might have been in DDR service for up to 35 years depending on when they were acquired."
My Typenkompass book "Panzer der NVA" mentions a modernization program to T-34/85m standard, with the last mentioned year of that program being 1965.
Edit: That is all East Germany specifically. NVA is not Vietnam related either, meaning Nationale Volksarmee here.

I know it's hard to keep this thread running while the module is still early in development and there aren't any screenshots or details yet. But I'm just too hyped to leave it be. Expanding our NATO tanks to include the Chieftain, Centurion, and the Leopard, and getting our first FN FALoid rifles, plus whatever @The_Capt is hiding from us about their plans for the red forces (speculation time! a WP nation? perhaps VDV? or just new vehicles and equipment available in the earlier timeframe?). Does anyone else have any more details on the British or Canadian armies in this period? More training videos or details on platoon/company organization/tactics? What variant of the Centurion did the Canadians have before they replaced it with the Leopard?
We've gone over squad organization and tactics. I find it interesting that the Canadians are using a variant of their standard service rifle to be their squad automatic weapons (the C2 rifle is a C1 with a bipod and a thicker barrel to withstand sustained automatic fire). I think the US was trying to do the same concept with the M14 and M16 in the light infantry, designating one rifleman in the squad to be an automatic rifleman who would fire their weapon on full auto, but they didn't give them a modified variant that was more suited to automatic fire than the basic version of the rifle, so the Canadian approach is probably better, and in practice the American automatic rifleman in the light infantry is just another rifleman (thank goodness the American mechanized infantry have the M60 machine gun at the squad level). That might result in the Canadians having more anemic squad firepower than the armies that have GPMGs on the squad, although that will probably be mitigated by the fact that they do have medium machine guns at the platoon level (I think it is correct to classify the M2 .30 cal as a medium machine gun, rather than as a GPMG, since the defining feature of a GPMG is that it will work well in either the light machine gun role or the medium machine gun role).
Let's also not forget that The_Capt hinted that they have plans for the red side as well, though is holding that information back for now so that there are still details to drop later. VDV might be easy enough to do, since the 1980s VDV are already developed for Afghanistan, and apparently for Black Sea as well (although that module is still waiting on the war to end). Polish forces might also make sense, since I remember someone saying that they would have had an important role to play in the BAOR sector way back when CMCW first launched. My guess is that if a WP country is added it will not be East Germany, since I think it makes more sense to hold them back until West Germany is added, so that there can be a general German forces module. If we get a WP country that should mean we'll see a lot more T-55s. Perhaps earlier vehicles. Does anyone know how late the T-34-85M was still in service with WP countries like Poland and East Germany? At the very least I assume we'll be getting some new Soviet vehicles (whatever was still in service as early as 1976, but wasn't in service by the 1979 start date of the base game). Thoughts?

I love a good kit intro question.  The US are far easier as they have archived all their senate arms appropriation meetings.  Soviets are a little tougher.  So a good source is the Freedom of Information stuff from the CIA back in the day.  Then you have to kinda bracket the thing in:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp81m00980r001200150003-0
"We understand that last year U.S. military leaders mistook deployment. of the Soviet T64 tank for the T72, especially in East. Germany. Please discuss this matter and state whether the T72 is now being deployed. 22. Please provide an historical table showing Soviet military manpower levels for each of the past ten years, and deployments in East Europe." 
So the letter was from 1978, so 1977 seem to be a lock.  Now were the observed in 1976?

I think we need this damn war to end so BFC can publish CMSU "Combat Mission Slava Ukraini"
and sell 100,000+ copies.
THENNNNNNNN Steve comes back to bust out some early war. No, not early war as early last year 2022 for Ukraine War!
I mean early in the last century 1939/1940/1941. 

I appreciate your assumption that we'll get another timeline expansion back to 1972 when the German forces come out
A little extension to the timeline with every module would be pretty nice. For my part I would like to see some oscillation, with it expanding backwards every other module and forwards every other module. So for this first module we are going back to 1976, perhaps for the next one we can go forwards to 1985, and then back to 1972, then forwards to 1989, then back to the 1967. I am eager to see both earlier and later stuff. From 84mm armed Centurions, the Conqueror, and M48A3 to the M1A1, Leo2A4 and T80U. Although that many modules may be a bit optimistic.
Yes people are complaining that late 80s would be a repeat of CMSF. But for one thing I'm not sure that's the worst thing in the world (first, because it would be balanced by earlier content in which the Soviets have more of an edge (and you can always play as the Soviets in the later period if you think things are getting too easy (I know I enjoy taking a bit of a beating from time to time)), second because CMSF is my second favorite title after CMCW), and for another I'm not really sure it would be so one-sided. Sure the Americans have the M1A1 Abrams, which is a lot tougher than the M1 Abrams we got in 1982, but the Soviets have the T80U, and the Americans don't have the Javelin yet (still have to make do with the Dragon). And ultimately, just how CMSFy the late 80s would be is one of the things I'm very curious to find out.

If I won the billion dollar powerball I'd definitely contact Steve about funding a Korean War Combat Mission game.

Horses for courses mate - if that's your thing then fine but there's a whole bunch of other folks who play this game because of its attention to detail and accuracy and complain volubly when those standards aren't met.  C2 is one of those important game mechanics that works better and more realistically when you've got the TO&E right.

Sagger vs and M-48, M-60 IDF took a beating at first then figured it out. Still would be cool to play around with. As I have said before Centurian Vs T-62 on the Golan, Valley of Tears, IDF out numbered and on the edge of loosing it all. Certainty not fictional. Again, would be cool to play around with for sure.

Not to beat a dead horse (I know deep down that CMGW will never happen, so at this point this is just about correcting historical misconceptions), but while life on the front may be boring and monotonous, I doubt actual battles in any period of warfare have ever been that homogeneous (in the pages of history you can probably find two battles somewhere that were practically twins, but I expect that is the exception). There would be considerably more variety than that, even just in the static warfare phase on the Western Front (so not even considering static warfare on the Italian front, Gallipoli, the somewhat more mobile warfare of the Eastern Front, or the mobile phases of the Western Front (and of course different armies with different TO&Es on the Western Front)). So far Hapless has done four videos on WW1 engagements, three of them in the static warfare phase of the Western Front, and each of them has been dramatically different from the others. The simple fact is that a trench is not a trench (well..it is a trench, but it's not the same trench). There is considerable room for variation in the shape of the front line, the distance between the lines, the relative elevation (is the opposing trench on flat ground, the top of a hill, base of a hill, on a reverse slope, is the second line elevated enough to support the first line). Some trenches could be caved in from bombardments, have more or less barbed wire or mines in front of them, they may be parapets instead of trenches (in some places the ground was too hard to dig deep trenches), the placement of bunkers and other hardpoints along the line would vary, there may be defenses in shell holes in front of, behind (in support), or instead of a contiguous trench line. And there are evolving weapons and tactics. Bayonets in 1914/15 give way to grenades as your primary close-combat weapon in 1916, with increasing numbers of rifle-grenades and light machineguns to provide support in the attack. Companies and platoons give way to squads/sections as the primary maneuver element as command responsibilities are filtered down to lower levels, etc...
Remember that trenches were still in use in WW2, it's just that there were new and better ways to break through those trenches. And I don't recall anyone ever complaining that any two attacks on fortified positions in WW2 were all that similar (I personally found CMFI Gustav Line pretty interesting, even though it is specifically focusing on a period of several months of almost WW1 style static warfare in Italy).
Is my point that Battlefront should make a WW1 game? No. I already know that will never happen. My point, as a military history enthusiast first and gamer second, is only that pretty much any period in military history is far more interesting and varied on closer inspection than it may first have appeared, and that includes the periods that have a reputation for being monotonous.

Yeah...where's all the friendly rich guys when you need them. Some are willing to spend 5-10 billion dollars on a soccerteam....How about throwing BFC their fair share ? 😊

I was wondering about that one, it looked like a Warrior but too early of course. What's the BV?
Those are really cool. As for burning wrecks, recon assets tend to do poorly in games but their tiny size should help them. I think they show up as fake Soviets here (along with more moustaches):
The tone is a bit darker, with one squad tragically lost as their APC gets stuck on a fallen tree.

Chieftains, moustaches, squaddies with SLRs… it’s all there: 
 
 

My own feeling is that the low point for the US as far as balance of conventional forces with the Soviet Union was in the mid to late 50s. That's when you have the Pentatomic Army doctrine. Conventional ground forces were viewed as having little importance, so US ground forces were neglected. The Pentatomic doctrine left US forces too dispersed to either attack or defend effectively, at a time when the US Army was not yet mechanized enough to concentrate quickly (I've heard it described as an overreliance on assets which did not yet exist). The lack of German forces in the early 50s to add to NATO's strength also probably hurt the overall NATO vs WP balance. As far as equipment is concerned the M14 probably does not stack up as well against the AK-47 as the M16 stacks up against the AK-74, and my guess is that the M47 and M48(A3 or earlier (the ones with the old 90mm gun)) Pattons probably don't stack up as well against the T-55 as the M60 stacks up against the T-62 (although I would love to test this, so an early 60s expansion to CMCW would be welcome). Mid 60s to mid 70s are also a contender since the Soviets have the T-64 at a time when the Americans don't even have significant upgrades to the M60 to help close the gap. I definitely think that by the mid 60s some sanity had returned to US Army doctrine and there was a realization that conventional ground forces would still be important even in the nuclear age. But obviously it took some time to catch up.

I've never developed a game. But I've learned some programming (C++ and Java, covering material from basic flow control up through data structures). Even with the relatively small projects I worked on (I think at most my code was in the hundreds, not the thousands, of lines (class projects and hobby/practice projects, never got up to making anything useful)) it seemed there were always bugs to squash. I could never predict when I would solve a particularly tough problem. I would be tempted to add features, which would often be big improvements but which would often require a dozen other changes which would introduce new bugs. I know that time and energy are resources, and that you need to be disciplined about what you focus on and flexible in how long you expect it to take.
So yeah, I get you. That experience is one of the main reasons that I'm not one of the ones demanding new features and updates on short timelines (not that there is any shortage of things I'd like to see (whatever performance improvements you can squeeze out of engine 5 will be highly appreciated)).

I suppose they figured that was worthwhile because most of the work was already done. And in any case, I'm not the one calling the shots at BFC. While I do think CMSF2 is a clear improvement, I thought CMSF1 was perfectly serviceable (and I still enjoy CMA, even though it hasn't got an engine update). 
In an ideal world we would have every single theater of every single war (both historical and what-if) all in the latest and greatest engine. But we don't live in an ideal world. BFC has finite time and resources, and there are so many theaters in so many wars to cover. I'd rather they spent their time providing us new theaters, rather than just updating the ones they've already given us. I would absolutely be in favor of a Combat Mission game covering Poland 1939, Norway 1940, and France 1940, since those theaters haven't been covered yet. But CMBB and CMAK both do an excellent job of covering the Eastern Front and North Africa respectively. Yes, the CM1 engine is not as good as the CM2 engine. But CM1 is still the second best engine in the world after CM2.

I suppose they figured that was worthwhile because most of the work was already done. And in any case, I'm not the one calling the shots at BFC. While I do think CMSF2 is a clear improvement, I thought CMSF1 was perfectly serviceable (and I still enjoy CMA, even though it hasn't got an engine update). 
In an ideal world we would have every single theater of every single war (both historical and what-if) all in the latest and greatest engine. But we don't live in an ideal world. BFC has finite time and resources, and there are so many theaters in so many wars to cover. I'd rather they spent their time providing us new theaters, rather than just updating the ones they've already given us. I would absolutely be in favor of a Combat Mission game covering Poland 1939, Norway 1940, and France 1940, since those theaters haven't been covered yet. But CMBB and CMAK both do an excellent job of covering the Eastern Front and North Africa respectively. Yes, the CM1 engine is not as good as the CM2 engine. But CM1 is still the second best engine in the world after CM2.

So my read on that is that my chances of selling you on Combat Mission: Great War are somewhere between "not a chance" and "not a chance in hell" (too much stuff that isn't already on hand (I believe between Rome to Victory and Fire and Rubble we have most of the rifles we'd need, but there are all of all of those early tanks in the late war, direct fire artillery that would need to be modeled in 1914, and lots of new uniforms), company sized "squads" in the early war would stress the hell out of the engine, etc...). Oh well. Maybe someday a dev somewhere will deliver a realistic tactical level WW1 game. In the meantime CMCW has gone a long way towards reducing the number of itches that need scratching (and I'm excited to be getting the BAOR and Canadians, plus an extension back to 1976!).

16th/5th Queen's Royal Lancers were there during the time frame of the draft British campaign which is set in the era of the very brief experiment to get rid of brigades and substitute them for four armoured divisions with two task forces under command plus a couple of Germany and UK-based field forces vice the three divisions that were previously fielded.  It also explains why, as@The_Capthas explained, that we have a whole bunch of British TO&Es for potential inclusion as this was an era of chopping and changing - or to put it another way ... something that worked was changed for something that didn't and was (mostly) changed back to the thing that worked in the first place.  To say it was challenging to research is an understatement as almost nothing of substance on 1 (BR) Corps task forces in the late 70s is readily available on the internet.  Most Cold War stuff that is readily available covers the period from 1985 until the end of the Cold War.

I decided to browse through Battle Order's videos to see what we've got to look forward to. This is the British rifle section we'll have through this timeframe (saved the video URL at the timestamp for the late 60s-mid 80s section): 
 
So it looks like an 8 man rifle section consisting of a four man rifle group (plus the section leader) and a three man GPMG group (including the 2IC). That'll be five L1A1 rifles in the rifle group, with two of the riflemen being equipped with L1A1 rockets (M72 LAWs) by default, with a possibility of equipping more of them with L1A1 rockets. And two L1A1 rifles and an L7A1 GPMG in the GPMG group. As we get into the 80s it looks like one of the L1A1 rockets is replaced by the L14A1 MAW recoilless rifle (Carl Gustav) with the MAW gunner's rifle being replaced by the Sterling SMG.
Should be interesting.
 

I appreciate your assumption that we'll get another timeline expansion back to 1972 when the German forces come out
A little extension to the timeline with every module would be pretty nice. For my part I would like to see some oscillation, with it expanding backwards every other module and forwards every other module. So for this first module we are going back to 1976, perhaps for the next one we can go forwards to 1985, and then back to 1972, then forwards to 1989, then back to the 1967. I am eager to see both earlier and later stuff. From 84mm armed Centurions, the Conqueror, and M48A3 to the M1A1, Leo2A4 and T80U. Although that many modules may be a bit optimistic.
Yes people are complaining that late 80s would be a repeat of CMSF. But for one thing I'm not sure that's the worst thing in the world (first, because it would be balanced by earlier content in which the Soviets have more of an edge (and you can always play as the Soviets in the later period if you think things are getting too easy (I know I enjoy taking a bit of a beating from time to time)), second because CMSF is my second favorite title after CMCW), and for another I'm not really sure it would be so one-sided. Sure the Americans have the M1A1 Abrams, which is a lot tougher than the M1 Abrams we got in 1982, but the Soviets have the T80U, and the Americans don't have the Javelin yet (still have to make do with the Dragon). And ultimately, just how CMSFy the late 80s would be is one of the things I'm very curious to find out.

I decided to browse through Battle Order's videos to see what we've got to look forward to. This is the British rifle section we'll have through this timeframe (saved the video URL at the timestamp for the late 60s-mid 80s section): 
 
So it looks like an 8 man rifle section consisting of a four man rifle group (plus the section leader) and a three man GPMG group (including the 2IC). That'll be five L1A1 rifles in the rifle group, with two of the riflemen being equipped with L1A1 rockets (M72 LAWs) by default, with a possibility of equipping more of them with L1A1 rockets. And two L1A1 rifles and an L7A1 GPMG in the GPMG group. As we get into the 80s it looks like one of the L1A1 rockets is replaced by the L14A1 MAW recoilless rifle (Carl Gustav) with the MAW gunner's rifle being replaced by the Sterling SMG.
Should be interesting.
 

I decided to browse through Battle Order's videos to see what we've got to look forward to. This is the British rifle section we'll have through this timeframe (saved the video URL at the timestamp for the late 60s-mid 80s section): 
 
So it looks like an 8 man rifle section consisting of a four man rifle group (plus the section leader) and a three man GPMG group (including the 2IC). That'll be five L1A1 rifles in the rifle group, with two of the riflemen being equipped with L1A1 rockets (M72 LAWs) by default, with a possibility of equipping more of them with L1A1 rockets. And two L1A1 rifles and an L7A1 GPMG in the GPMG group. As we get into the 80s it looks like one of the L1A1 rockets is replaced by the L14A1 MAW recoilless rifle (Carl Gustav) with the MAW gunner's rifle being replaced by the Sterling SMG.
Should be interesting.
 

I decided to browse through Battle Order's videos to see what we've got to look forward to. This is the British rifle section we'll have through this timeframe (saved the video URL at the timestamp for the late 60s-mid 80s section): 
 
So it looks like an 8 man rifle section consisting of a four man rifle group (plus the section leader) and a three man GPMG group (including the 2IC). That'll be five L1A1 rifles in the rifle group, with two of the riflemen being equipped with L1A1 rockets (M72 LAWs) by default, with a possibility of equipping more of them with L1A1 rockets. And two L1A1 rifles and an L7A1 GPMG in the GPMG group. As we get into the 80s it looks like one of the L1A1 rockets is replaced by the L14A1 MAW recoilless rifle (Carl Gustav) with the MAW gunner's rifle being replaced by the Sterling SMG.
Should be interesting.