Centurian52

I refer the gentleman to this, please repeat:
This, you can already thanks to Kohl:
And this, particularly my last sentence:
😉

My photos are not as pretty as Lucky's,
I haven't changed anything of what @kohlenklau did
I just tested if it improved the defense and if shooting was still possible under all circumstances.
I found that the soldiers were better protected, the parapet stopping the projectiles and the men did not emerge up to the waist, only the top of the shoulders and the head, but I think @Lucky_Strike  made that even better.
Among the disadvantages, the machine guns which as in reality cannot fire from the bottom of the trench.
Where it becomes great is that if you make angles, the trench returns to the original. You just have to place the HMGs in these adapted positions to be able to benefit from them.
here we see a shooter!
and in the dedicated positions the machine guns

So, I spent an evening in the trenches to answer my question about :
And the results are interesting ... this is the Blender model ...


... following kohlenklau's lead, I worked on the trench 1.mdr but used textures from Aris's CMRT mod; what I did was raise the trench up by what I guess is a metre or so, then dropped the base of the model back to it's original underground level, the floor of the trench was then adjusted down. The wooden walls are not yet adjusted, easiest way would be to repeat the wall texture/model to avoid texture smearing with consequent need to redo the texture UV maps. Speaking of which, the trench earth parapets are seriously smearing because of all the model distortions, so they need to be redone, 😩 more learning to do to get that right! Anyway, after a few goes, and to see if it fits better into the ground, I decided to try to squeeze in the bottom underground edges plus front and rear faces to create a narrower, pinched in model, think V-shape with the bottom chopped off, I also extending the top of the front and rear faces to create a kind of ledge. Biggest issues initially were getting the trench ground level right, solved by trial and error, and getting the sandbags to reappear, they kept disappearing inside the earth revetments; this was solved by using a trick posted by @Aquila-SmartWargames - in Object mode selecting all the model hierarchy and then Object > Apply > Rotation & Scale before export.
In game the trench is set into a 2 metre deep ditch using the ditchlock method. On level ground this gives the occupants about a 100metre field of view, not great but with the trench on a slight rise in the land things improve massively, in the map I used they can easily command a few hundred metres in front when placed behind a hedge; at ground level from the enemy perspective, nothing is visible at all; the downside is that the terrain is deformed so it's obvious something is there from above before full spotting reveals a trench. The troops still disappear into the ground when wounded or dead, just their feet sticking out, and sometimes, as they move in the trench, their feet disappear as if in mud; but they stand and don't clamber up onto the parapet for a better view, which is what happens if one sticks a normal trench into a two metre deep ditch ...



... our boys have those fields covered ...

... what trench? The enemy's perspective.
Thanks @kohlenklau for showing the way! Sorry for all the greenery in your desert thread.
At the moment I don't have time to do much more on this as doing all the trenches would be quite a big job, so if anyone fancies a crack at it you're welcome to my reworked model which I'll happily upload somewhere for you to grab. Otherwise I may get to it after more bocage and trees and steppe and ...

I love this image and am saving it for future use under the title "Grumpy Ivan"

I serve the Soviet Union!

First I want to say I fully support Battlefront's and the Cold War designers decision not to simulate chemical weapons use in Cold War.
I'm not qualified enough to critique the linked essay, but the author argues, despite all the major players training to defend against chemical attack, their use would probably not have occurred in our Cold War gone hot Germany setting.
 
Collections: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore? – A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry (acoup.blog)

Somewhat relevant and another point for the arty vs tanks argument (4:45 if the timestamp doesn't work):
TLDR: an airburst round went through all the way through the barrel and through the front glacis plate and into a track adjustment mechanism... which would not necessarily disable the main gun in the sense that you couldn't fire it, but it would not be a good idea.
 

OMG, you mean there's MORE after CW & F&R??????

This sounds about right. There is no composite armor in the lower front hull, so rounds should slice through it pretty easily. The composite armor in the upper front hull is pretty much immune to the M774, but there is a hole in the composite armor for the driver's optics. So I would expect the vast majority of hits to the upper front hull to fail to get through, with the occasional lucky round finding the weak point (I would have expected more than one round in 68 to find the weak point, but I suppose that's random chance for you). I would have expected some penetrations on the turret. The composite armor in the turret is also immune to the M774, but it doesn't have perfect coverage (rounds hitting high on the turret might make it over the composite armor, and only have normal steel to contend with).

In my estimation the T-64A/B is better protected and more capable in CMCW than in any board wargame, computer game or simulation I have played, developed or play tested in 30+ years of wargaming. This includes modern armored warfare board games like Assault, MBT (original), MBT 2 (GMT), Lock n' Load, Mech War (SPI) and others. PC games ranging from Tanks, Steel Panthers, Flashpoint Germany & Campaigns, HPS Simulations and Armored Brigade. The only Sim I have used is Steelbeasts.
I am currently running tests and while the data on the armor of the T-64A and penetration of the M735/744 may vary, in my tests there is a few interesting points to examine. 
 
I set up a test range that is approximately 2000m long and flat. It is June 1st, 1982, at 0000 hours and the conditions are hazy, cool and dry. I placed 1x M60A3TTS behind a berm hull down with armored arcs set to 1500m. At the opposite end of the map approached 4x T-64A(4x tank platoon). The scenario is set for two player hot seat and the Soviet tanks are given a move order to move toward the M60A3TTS’s. All crews are regular, normal and fit. I played the scenario enough times to get 100 hits of M774 APFSDS rounds at an engagement range of 1500m to 200m. At only no time during the engagements was a T-64A able to engage a M60A3TTS, this is due to the conditions and the thermal sight of the M60A3TTS. BUT I suspect the T-64Amay be underperforming in IR optics.
Here is a summary of my findings:
The distribution of M774 hits which were all from the frontal arc on the T-64A and are as follows:
1.       The turret (top turret, front turret, weapon mount and weapon) was hit a combined 10.0% of the time. I believe this is too low
2.       The lower front hull (Lower, right, left) was hit a combined 21.0 % of the time
3.       The upper front hull (front, right, left) was hit 69.0 % of the time. I believe this is too high
4.       There were no track hits
The M774 hit 100 out of a 104 shots for 96.2% accuracy.
Overall,  the M774  penetrated the whole of the T-64A, 22.0 % of the time. The only areas to be penetrated on the T-64A was the upper front hull and lower front hull.
1.       The upper front hull  was hit struck 68  times and was partially penetrated once for a penetration rate of 1.4%.
2.       The lower front hull was struck 21 times and penetrated 21 times for 100% penetration.

It appears that any US M735 or M744 round will penetrate the lower hull of any Soviet T-type. This is the only location that will be penetrated reliably in my tests. So the question I ask is, is this a proper distribution of hit locations based on historical data and other sources?
I have graphs and historical research that indicate results much different then what I have achieved above, discussion?
Pete

That's true. In fact, they couldn't even afford to enjoy limited success and save some fuel, because they were constantly under Soviet counterattacks. If you read German officer's diaries it strikes you how they acknowledged that Barbarossa has failed already in August-September. There were a lot of arguments that "Yugoslavia" delay or "Turn to Kiev" were fatal mistakes, but if the whole picture is taken into account any changes on German side couldn't save the day. 
Japanese occupied China and kept the so-called Kwantung Army of 1 mln people there. The Russian-Japanese relations were tense, to say at least. In 1938 and 1938 Japan undertook 2 attempts to invade Soviet and Mongolian territory that led to large scale conflicts which were tantamount to undeclared war with employments of tanks and planes that resulted in Japanese defeat and about 20 thousands dead on their side. Japan together with Germany and Italy was the member of anti-comintern pact. The threat from the East was one of the major factors contributed to the signing of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (in fact Soviet and Japanese troops were engaged in large scale fighting during the visit of Ribbentrop to Moscow).
In 1941 when Reich invaded USSR Russia and Japan were already bound by the neutrality treaty. But as soon as German army crossed the Soviet border Japanese foreign minister Matsuoka, who personally signed the treaty, rushed to persuade Privy Council to seize the opportunity and invade USSR. There were heated debates that - to make long story short - resulted in decision to turn South to European colonies and eventually to the war with USA. 
Little known but very important  fact is that during the whole war USSR kept about 20% of its army in the East in case Japan would attack. That severely reduced the strength of armies fighting Nazis. 
 

I think they were always going to run out of steam before Barbarossa could "succeed". I'm not convinced that starting earlier would have helped (they still would have taken heavy casualties and started running low on fuel after a few months). And I'm not sure prioritizing the south would have changed anything in their favor (prioritizing the center was quite helpful in outflanking the Soviet forces that were expecting them to concentrate in the south). And treating the local populace better certainly would have helped, but that's essentially asking the Nazis to not be Nazis (ethnic cleansing was kindof the whole point).
If they made a serious mistake in Operation Barbarossa it was in thinking they could defeat a country as large as the Soviet Union in a single stroke. If they should have changed anything at all then perhaps they should have halted their advance a month or two earlier, be happy with more limited successes, save some fuel and some casualties. Save some energy for Fall Blau, where they really did make some serious mistakes that might have cost them the war (or maybe the whole operation was logistically unfeasible from the beginning).

Back in 2007-9 I absolutely detested CMSF as it was so buggy, and gave up playing it.  However, after it was patched I started to enjoy it and, as it's the most mature and completed of all the CM2 titles, it became my favorite. 
Thanks to the massive user enthusiasm in those dark ages, CMSF and now CMSF2 has a huge number of excellent scenarios, campaigns and mods compared to all the other titles.  And where else can one enjoy the desert sun and sand?

Please do make scenarios for all of the battles!  This one was fun, though a slaughter.  The book was great and it would be awesome if someone did a campaign of all of Team Yankee's battles. 
Thanks for this one!

Hi all...I see that some people had the early version map of the Team Yankee scenario. The updated version can be found here... https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-cold-war/cm-cold-war-scenarios/cmcw-team-yankees-first-battle/

I'd wish for the ability to play back an RT saved game. I don't like to play RT, mostly because I miss too much of the spectacle, the pretty lights, the thing that blew up over there or the awesome firefight my platoon won while I was looking elsewhere. I would like to play RT but be able to play back a saved game file.

Or even just a way to package the finished game into a file I can play back and rewind, whether it's RT or turn-based. I really enjoy seeing it all play out from different angles. Big part of the fun for me.

There is a bulk renaming utility that can change pre and postfixes for multiple files at the same time. I have used it on a couple of occasions: https://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk/
I am seriously considering installing Ubuntu on my next computer though, since Linux lets you do exactly this sort of thing natively through the console without having to install any additional utilities.

+1.   IMO it would be very useful to have mine roller vehicles in game for both NATO and Warsaw Pact.  Breaching obstacle belts were often trained and planned for.  Many real world NTC rotations featured obstacle belts.  Maybe a similar game mechanic as already exits in CMBN with the flail tank could be used.  But with rollers or plows or whatever would work best instead of the flail.  @Geoff-Ludumpress It would also be cool to have some type of mine clearing vehicle in CMRT.
To a certain extent obstacle belts and FASCAM can be made to work now with creative use of the scenario editor.  However mine clearing vehicles would make these scenarios much better.  The four CMCW Kriegsburg scenarios feature FASCAM minefields and obstacle belts.  The FASCAM and obstacle belts appear in different locations depending on which AI plan loads.  This is accomplished by assigning the mines and wire to AI groups.           
Paraphrased from the CMCW Kriegsburg BluFor briefing:
FASCAM MINEFIELDS:  The Soviets have deployed an artillery deliverable FASCAM type minefield.  The mines are generally deployed in high traffic areas and choke points.  The minefields are both anti-tank and anti-personnel.  3rd Battalion Intelligence advise there are four possible locations where the Soviets deployed FASCAM minefields.  The locations are marked on the map (the location of an active FASCAM will vary with the AI plan).
Paraphrased from the CMCW Kriegsburg RedFor briefing:      
OBSTACLE BELTS:  The US will often employ obstacle belts to slow or channel attacking Soviet units.  The obstacles belts generally consist of wire and mines.  They are approximately 50 meters deep with four rows of mines and two rows of wire.  They may be up to 600 meters long with the ends tied into restricted terrain.  The obstacle belts are covered by both direct and indirect fire.  Often a lane is left through the mines to be used by US scouts conducting reconnaissance.  The wire is closed but the lane through the mines is still open.  Engineers can locate the lanes allowing friendly vehicles and personnel to breach (cross) the obstacle belt.  Location of obstacle belts will change with the AI plan.         
In the scenario breaching an obstacle belt is simulated by breaching the two rows of wire (or crushing with tracks) and then finding a cleared lane through the mines.   This is as close as we can get without mine clearing vehicles.   
Below Soviet scouts locate a US obstacle belt blocking a Soviet Avenue of Advance (this was on scenario author test mode so the mines are all visible).  Now the Soviet commander must decide to breach (find the open lane) or take a different Avenue of Advance to the objective.  So recon also matters in the Kriegsburg scenarios.    


The flail tank mechanic (below) but with rollers or plows would make the breaching of obstacles much more realistic and interesting.   

I know I would very much like to see a Combat Mission: Great War one of these days. To which end we may need some additional engine features in order to give the best simulation of the period.
-the addition of horses may be useful (I think I saw this suggestion somewhere on the first couple of pages)
-some representation of bayonet/melee combat would be nice.
-a field telephone fortification type which permits calling in or adjusting off-map fire missions to a spotter in the same action square.
-more options for detailed preplanned artillery, on the assumption that you will not be able to adjust any fire missions or call in any new ones for the entirety of the scenario due to a lack of radios, unless you have a spotter in direct voice communication with a mortar team or intact field telephone. As a specific example I imagine calling in a creeping barrage in the following manner: Select creeping barrage, select a linear target, set the 5-15 minute delay time (possibly go up to 5-30 minutes, since you are now planning your barrages for the entire scenario), select a second linear target, set a second 5-15 minute (5-30 minute) time for how long it will take the barrage to creep from the first target to the second target.
-The ability to scroll up and down the UI list of soldiers in a selected squad is a must, since early war "squads" may be company sized elements up to ~250 men spread across a few dozen action squares
-Better trenches would be nice, but I don't really have any suggestions for exactly how to do that. This may be a CMx3 issue rather than a CMx2 Engine 5 issue. Perhaps some dugout fortification type (basically a bunker, but with no fire opening) to allow soldiers to hunker down during barrages, although I'm not sure how you'd get the AI to use them properly.

I saw something very rare so I made a short video of it. A bullet ricocheted twice and then still ended up hitting someone. A bullet fired from a Thompson ricocheted off a building, then ricocheted again off the back of a Panther turret 65 meters away, then flew high up in the air and then plunged down right into the backside of a tank radio operator hiding in the bottom of a ditch another 30 meters away. It gave him a light wound. What are the chances of that?
I included the view from the US soldier with the Thompson as well. If only he knew he ended up accidentally hitting someone completely out of view and way off to the left of what he was aiming at. Seems he was probably killed shortly after firing though.
 
Posted in the general forum since this kind of thing is not unique to CMBN. Being able to track individual bullets and see where they go is one of the interesting things about CM. Anyone else see rare stuff like this? Could be any CM game. It's always amusing seeing things like a stray bullet falling out of the sky and landing at someone's feet from a completely unrelated firefight on the other side of the map 1000 meters away or whatever.

Precedent shows the day after a release players will have already forgotten that there was any delay in its arrival. Getting the CMRT Fire and Rubble module out the door was torture - like trying to roll a boulder up a mountain. It took soooooo looooong. But the day after it was released everyone was like 'Wheeee! this is fun!' 

Stemming the Tide
 

Nato had several mine laying devices to delay a Soviet attack and deny an area. The Scoprion Mine Laying Vehicle of the Bundeswehr for example, with 300 vehicles taken into service in 1981/82. But minefields can also be prepared by artillery or helicopter. None of it is part of the scope of a Combat Mission scenario, but the mines which would have been in the area are, and we have them available in the game.

Which we don't have is Soviet counter equipment, Tanks with mine rollers to deal with those mines, and prepare a still dangerous, but somewhat safer route through a minefield for the following vehicles and infantry. Can we get tanks with mine rollers later on to fill this gap?

Ah... Am so nostalgic for CMAK and the desert campaign.  Tempted to start CMAK up again.
One thing I recall from CM1 days is that at longer ranges (over 1Km), the accuracy of all units like the 88mm which was supposed to be 100% accurate up to 1Km is badly degraded.
I vaguely recall designing a CMAK campaign and deciding that the 88mm and any other weapon system that was accurate at long range in RL had to be Elite with an HQ with max capabilities just to try and simulate the desired accuracy.  So, it's hard to use the German tactic of keeping the enemy at range and relying on superior optics and accuracy.  
Actually, am wondering if the same problem is still in CM2.  Playing a CMBN game right now where Vet Panthers are having a hard time hitting anything if the range goes much over 1Km.