Halmbarte

Not that I have been able to discover running CM on Mac, but I'd love to be able to do this. H

Translated Sov AK manual says each rifle is issued with 6 magazines. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B09fZpC9S7gDMmYyMGI2Y2MtMzQ3MC00MDU3LTk0Y2ItYjBlZTNiNDc5NWE0/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-aA95cgoT5SK0Cvqs44GOhQ Snip below is from page 55. H

Right, you do what you need to to accomplish the mission. But given somewhat open terrain, I'll lead with tanks 1st then infantry. The tanks might be able to take a hit and still be mission capable but the BMP or BTRs will not. A burning APC with a dead squad inside isn't helping accomplish the mission. A burning APC with 9 pairs of eyeballs outside to see where that TOW or ATGM came from is still being useful. H

The Sov APCs and IFVs are part of the squad and aren't intended to be separated. Although I still tend to dismount Sov troops before I expect to make contact and move the infantry forward with the tanks or at least in front of the BMP/BTRs. I really hate losing a whole squad and neither the BMP or BTR will keep out much more than a pointy stick. H

Great summary and to build on that point about AT assets. Sov platoons have different AT assets than an American platoon, although in a lot of ways the RPG-7 is better than a 66mm LAW and you have more HEAT ammo than the US has. BMPs bring their organic ATGMs and BTR companies have the frequently under rated AT-7 and they bring a lot of them. The thing that is frequently missing is scale. The Sov should never be sending a infantry platoon off by themselves, devoid of long range AT weapons. If it's an important objective then send a company and support them adequately with FOs or other assets. H

He died defiant, with his pistol in his hand while facing down a squad of Soviet dismounts... H https://imgur.com/a/s4JcPXq

What kind of area was that battalion stuffed into? A normal Sov battalion would have a frontage of ~1-2km and should be much better dispersed to prevent exactly the kind of concentrated air/artillery attack from being do effective. My normal SOP when playing the Sov is to assume that the US has observers everywhere and unlimited air/artillery with cluster bombs & ICM. I try to stay under tree cover when've I can, disperse vehicles by at least 50m, and move frequently. I can't always adhere to those norms but trying to decreases vulnerability. H

Yes, this. The early period Sov has a large advantages of having mass and better tanks and actual IFVs. The US is stuck with tanks with RHA, tanks cannons that aren't really up to the task of defeating T64/T72 armor, and facing a whole lot of Sov ATGMs. And even if you manage to defeat the forces that attacked you the 2nd echelon will be coming. H

I don't know that that is true. I've had a BTR knocked out (and I think set on fire) by an artillery airbursting directly over it. H

General as opposed to VT? I usually use VT as it should have more effect than ground bursts against unarmored targets like ATGM crews. Since Sov infantry ATGM teams have a good supply I've used them to snipe US ATGM teams. No kill like overkill. H

Exactly this. The real life fight should be the Sov battalion attacking a seam in enemy forces where there are few if any troops or an overwhelming force attacking enemy positions. But those aren't fun games, for either side. So scenarios tend to focus on the meeting engagement and times when the upper HQs have failed and you're in a roughly even match. I do agree that artillery doesn't seem to damage AFVs as much as I'd expect although I've lost BTRs, BMPs and M113s to close artillery hits, including VT fused airbursts. H

Air controllers can call in strikes on TRPs w/o having eyes on. H

USMC trucks have Javelins but no launchers if I remember correctly. H

Does the Mac version work? H

I'm actually playing the Sov with this one. I reconfigured Czechmate with '79 equipment and so far I've lost a T62 and a loaded BTR (dang window in the trees I thought was providing cover). The T62s have had a couple of close calls if trees hadn't intercepted 2 TOWs I'd be down 2 more T62s. AT4s and AT7s are deadly when you get them into good firing positions w/o them being detected before they shoot. Much better than the Dragon and TOW in many aspects, such as man portability thru dense trees and the carrying BTRs actually have a reasonable number of reloads. Plus the hit rate seems higher than my Dragon teams normally manage. Although that one drunk AT4 team has dumped at least 2 missiles in the dirt. Maybe the run back to the BTR for more AT4s and back to a firing position will sober them up. H

Just who thought the little turret on top of the big turret on the M60 was a good idea? Don't worry about long term emotional impact on the surviving crew. The tank didn't survive the rest of the turn. H

When a 120mm mortar shell drops into the open turret of the Vulcan you know the crew are experiencing an emotionally significant event. H

The real eggshell armed with a hammer. H

I recall from playing Tacops that Sov formations frequently included a 6 gun unit of howitzers intended for direct fire (although they could do indirect also). Were these really not in the TO&E or...?

Which scenario is that? For me it was Hornet’s Nest. That was… intense. H

I've had plenty of IEDs used against me by the AI playing wego. H

It's actually worse than that. The Army intended for the M14 to replace the BAR, M1 carbine, the M1 Garand, and the various SMGs the Army had been using. In the end the M14 didn't replace any of them and was itself replaced after being the US Army's shortest in service rifle since the Krag, I think. What the M14 did was force the adoption of a overly powerful cartridge by NATO and kill other promising designs. The US Army could have had the FAL/SLR in a decent intermediate cartridge in ~6.5-7mm in the 1950s, A rifle that would have been able to compete with the AK on even or better terms in the various CW conflicts. The US Army had a almost fatal case of NIH syndrome in the time frame where the M48/M60 was being designed and adopted. H

Air is tough. Do I use them to area target places I can't see or wait until the schwerpunkt is developed and use air power (hopefully) decisively? I tend to go for the 2nd approach. That also gives me a chance to target AA assets to clear the way for any attached air. I also always assume that the enemy is bringing air assets. Vehicles and troops get parked under trees and in the lee of buildings whenever I can. I try to minimize exposure and move frequently when troops have to be out in the open. H

Every 1st world army that had 7.62 battle rifles has gone on to adopt rifles chambered in 556 NATO as their primary arm. My main point is that we (NATO) could have had a SLR chambered in an intermediate cartridge in 1950 if the US Army had been making more rational decisions. Imagine an SLR that was actually able to be issued with full auto functionality, in the mid '50s... H

The US jammed the cartridge that became 7.62 NATO down the other NATO members throats*. NATO could have standardized on a ~6.5 or 7mm high velocity cartridge in 1950 instead of the last gasp of full bore .30cal that was 7.62 NATO. The M14 was so outclassed by the AK47 that the US Army did a rush job of adopting the M16 before it was ready. The US Army made a series of really bad decisions between the end of WWII and the '70s. The end result was an Army that wasn't equipped with the best weapons. H *We bullied the British (and therefore NATO) out of a very promising cartridge they were developing for the Enfield bullpup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle