Halmbarte

I thought the M113 was better because more guys can sleep on the open ramp and stay off the ground...
Realistically, the BTRs & M113 are both about as viable in a high threat environment as a yellow school bus. The armor is better than nothing but if you're depending on the armor to save you something has gone seriously wrong with the plan. 
Now, would I rather ride in a APC across 500m of ground that's covered by MGs & artillery or would I rather run, yeah, I'll ride any day. 
H

I thought the M113 was better because more guys can sleep on the open ramp and stay off the ground...
Realistically, the BTRs & M113 are both about as viable in a high threat environment as a yellow school bus. The armor is better than nothing but if you're depending on the armor to save you something has gone seriously wrong with the plan. 
Now, would I rather ride in a APC across 500m of ground that's covered by MGs & artillery or would I rather run, yeah, I'll ride any day. 
H

What was the objective? Did your mission require you take on the panzers? Was infiltration by covered routes an option? 
H

They (like all the half tracks) are hideously vulnerable to everything bigger than a rifle caliber MG.  
Hapless has a video on the 251: 
H

That's Part 3 up and live.

Not WWII, but I just had a BTR do a drive by on some American troops in Cold War. I had the BTR opened up since we're advancing to contact and I wanted the extra eyeballs out. The crunches in the back not only spotted the Americans, they opened up on them. 

After getting one of the guys in the back sniped & taking a hit from what was probably a 40mm HEDP grenade, the troops in the reversing BTR opened up from inside through the firing ports. 

No firing orders were given. I didn't have spots when the turn started and wanted to leave them open to whatever they found.
H

I am guessing you haven't done a large map as I have done several large master maps for CMBN and CMFB and your technique absolutely does not work.  In fact, I have no idea why you would even think it would work.  When exactly is that you did a map on this scale?

you do realize the sheer scale of that posted map and the number of buildings right?  it is comments like this that make me reticent to provide any material I work on to the community.

Really good talk about how Active Defense came to be & why it was replaced with Air Land Battle. 
H

Weekly Perun video has just dropped.  
 

Upon taking damage to the BV crew moral is 'shaken'.
H

The German way of war is the audacious attack, even when it doesn't make the most sense. 
It works sometimes, especially when an opponent isn't expecting speed & ferocity (France, initial attack into Russia, Kasserine Pass). It fails when the enemy had time to prepare (Kursk) or when the Germans didn't have the logistics to support exploitation (Bulge, failure to reach Moscow).
H

My notes on playing the SOV in RT & CW:
 
Using Sov tactics to beat the Germans/NATO in RT/CW:
Time spent on recon is never wasted.
Time and resources spent killing enemy recon is never wasted. 
Have a plan and execute it. 
The artillery fire plan dictates the maneuver plan. The maneuver plan dictates the fire plan. These must be mutually supportive. 
A company of Sov tanks spots better than any single German/NATO tank. 
Take away the better spotting offered by the German/NATO habit of fighting unbuttoned. Get them heads down to decrease their situational awareness. 
When you attack, attack! Don't poke him with one finger at a time. Make a fist and crush the enemy with overwhelming force. 
Use a platoon to crush a squad > use a company to crush a platoon >> use a battalion to crush a squad. Fair fights are for suckers.
Keep pressing attacks until they aren't feasible anymore, but don't reinforce failure. The Germans/Americans never have enough troops/tanks. 
Just because you have mass doesn't mean the only way forwards is a frontal assault. There are other ways to win that don't involve sticking your dick into the meat grinder until it jams. Recon routes that bypass the enemy, the Germans/NATO never have enough troops/tanks to cover every avenue of approach. Infantry infiltration is a thing.
If you're playing the Sov: Your man portable ATGMs (>AT3s) are scary. Use infiltration tactics to get the ATGMs forward into range to support attacks. Make sure to protect the carriers since they are stuffed with reloads and make big boom if hit. 
Take you time, don't be in a rush to die. You'll probably run out of people, tanks, and/or ammo before you run out of time. 
 
Urban warfare: 
Don't move in the streets. Mouseholing is optimum, then back gardens, then alleyways. Stay out of the streets. Use supporting weapons to create mouseholes and gaps in walls. 
Don't go in through the front door. If you can arrange it start at the top and clear down. 
Suppress every building that has line of sight to your maneuvering force. If you can't suppress or smoke it don't move that way.  
 

Brit tank goodness. 
 
And thank the Maker that WoT has quit playing that garbage music over the narration. 
H

Well, the module timeframe is from 1976-1982, and the Canadians only started replacing their Centurions with Leopards in 1978 or 79. So I think it's a safe bet that Centurions are going to make it into the game for those early (1976-1977) Canadian forces.
But yeah, expect Leopards for most Canadian scenarios

Brit tank goodness. 
 
And thank the Maker that WoT has quit playing that garbage music over the narration. 
H

Relevant (if blatant) self-promotion, but if anyone wants 4 hours of my take on where modern warfare came from: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYvL90uFbwhO_2-ULfOsTR8EIz7VxbA27
Obviously this is a big topic and there's a lot to unpick, but it's always worth bearing in mind that the militaries of the time were big chunky organisations with plenty of variation in thought. The Cult of the Offensive was absolutely not a myth... but that doesn't mean that there were no officers or factions in the mix pushing for armies to adapt to (supposed) lessons of the Boer War, Russo-Japanese War and Balkan Wars. 'Tactical fashion' ebbed and flowed over time, with attempts to adapt waxing in the aftermath of certain conflicts and waning as naturally conservative military establishments reasserted themselves. If WW1 had kicked off in 1917 and the lessons of the Balkan Wars had had more time to bed in, the opening phase could have been very different.
It's also worth noting that the historical record is not exactly crystal clear: the British might have struggled at first in 1899, but once they deployed a more 'continental' level of force they crushed the Boers. Grant beat Lee because he was the first Union General to go up against him and just keep coming, no matter how many casualties he suffered from battle to battle. The French lost the Franco-Prussian War because the Prussians went faster and harder. And there are, of course, massive game changing technological developments in firepower over the same period that may- or may not- be changing the dynamics... but the victors in all those wars arguably won because they were able to sustain heavy losses.

Not to mention the obvious fact that no-one ever won a war without attacking.

RE: Close order massacres/ the offensive-defensive balance... Bussaco and Waterloo anyone? Column vs Line? If we really want to pull the thread we could maybe argue for Crecy and Agincourt, all the way back to the Thebans getting pelted with roof tiles in the streets of Plataea. I think the issue isn't simply one of firepower vs mass, but the ease with which one side can create the tactical conditions necessary for the other's failure.

Wellington was famously a master of exploiting reverse slopes- using the terrain to mask his force, manoeuvre to block incoming French columns and then break them with the shock action of massed firepower at close range. Fast forward a century and while those factors are still important, all it takes is one machinegun team in the right place at the right time to achieve the same thing.

Another century later and... we're looking at WW1 pumped up on steroids stood around wondering whether it's still relevant while a 100km deep, satellite, EW and drone enabled corrosive warfare campaign rages on overhead.

Brit AT weapons: 
 
H 

Gills so the tank can breathe while crossing rivers. 
H

☝️
To give a rl example of an incident that happened early this year in a simulator exercise.
a company of l2a6 is defending. the far left platoon starts getting targets at 3500m and engages. suddenly one tank turns its turret and puts five rounds into a tank of the center platoon only barely being stopped before also shooting the company commanders tank.
The tc had seen a thermal signature and immediately brought the gun over without checking what he was looking at and the gunner didnt realize he was looking at a leo2 and fired even though he knew there were friendlies there, the tank was pointing and engaging in the wrong direction, only 1000m away and was in the open easily identifiable.
If this happened to anyone in cm theyd riot yet it happened irl.
So while cm has issues with the spotting model rl can be much weirder.

If you're playing the Sov and you put your tanks in a situation where they are getting into 1:1 duels with the Americans you're doing something wrong. 
Bring a platoon or a company of tanks along instead. Or, even better, infiltrate infantry ATGM teams forward and kill them the way. The Sov has very competent infantry luggable ATGMs that will absolutely wreck pre-M1 armor. 
H

If you're playing the Sov and you put your tanks in a situation where they are getting into 1:1 duels with the Americans you're doing something wrong. 
Bring a platoon or a company of tanks along instead. Or, even better, infiltrate infantry ATGM teams forward and kill them the way. The Sov has very competent infantry luggable ATGMs that will absolutely wreck pre-M1 armor. 
H

If you're playing the Sov and you put your tanks in a situation where they are getting into 1:1 duels with the Americans you're doing something wrong. 
Bring a platoon or a company of tanks along instead. Or, even better, infiltrate infantry ATGM teams forward and kill them the way. The Sov has very competent infantry luggable ATGMs that will absolutely wreck pre-M1 armor. 
H

From my notes on fighting like the Soviets:
1) Time spent on recon is never wasted.
2) Time and resources spent killing enemy recon is never wasted. 
3) Have a plan and execute it. 
4) The artillery fire plan dictates the maneuver plan. The maneuver plan dictates the fire plan. These must be mutually supportive. 
5) A company of Sov tanks spots better than any single German/American tank. 
6) Take away the better spotting offered by the NATO habit of fighting unbuttoned. Get them heads down to decrease their situational awareness. 
7) When you attack, attack! Don't poke him with one finger at a time. Make a fist and crush the enemy with overwhelming force. 
10) Use a platoon to crush a squad > use a company to crush a platoon >> use a battalion to crush a squad. Fair fights are for suckers.
9) Keep pressing attacks until they aren't feasible anymore, but don't reinforce failure. The Germans/Americans never have enough troops/tanks. 
10) Just because you have mass doesn't mean the only way forwards is a frontal assault. There are other ways to win that don't involve sticking your dick into the meat grinder until it jams. Recon routes that bypass the enemy, the Germans/Americans never have enough troops/tanks to cover every avenue of approach. Infantry infiltration is a thing.
11) Take you time, don't be in a rush to die. You'll probably run out of people, tanks, and/or ammo before you run out of time. 
H

Brit AT weapons: 
 
H