Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

FYI it seems that the AN/PAS 13 does have the range and is not a "...fairly large 2-handed camera type of thing..."

http://www.nitevis.com/ANPAS-13E.htm

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

"Range" from manufacturer claims (like everything else) needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.

While the maximum range of a 5.56mm Nato round is 2,860m the "effective" range is around 4-500m, depending mostly on the specific type/model of rifle firing it.

I suspect the "effective" range of the AN/PAS 13 is something Airborne Rifles could tell us.

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

Yep - those things would qualify I'd say - the fire brigade scanner I recall seeing 3 or 5 years back, and it was quite big. Tech moves on rather fast!.

(They wont get the claimed figures in normal use though - sales brochures usually show the most favourable case. Like MPG figures:rolleyes:)

cheers
Andy

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

Well, I'm embarrassed to say I can't really intelligently talk specifically about max ranges for the thermal sights. We just used them so seldom and I had bigger things to worry about as a commander, but I can say they have good range. We mount them on M2 and M240 MGs most frequently, and those are our long guns in an infantry platoon or company. Rarely if ever would we mount them on a rifle since that would mean removing the daytime optic and messing up the sight's zero.

Maybe a good solution would be to give TI to MG teams but not rifle squads? Based on U.S. Army MTOE you could technically have whole squads using PAS-13s, but I never saw it.

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

Makes perfect sense to me.......done

I *assume* in the event the rifles needed to be added to the firestorm in RL they would use the MG tracer as the aimpoint

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

I agree with Airborne Rifles MG's would be a good compromise I've seen them mounted on xxx's and others by the USMC and that would include within squads so equipped. That's all I can give.
From the people who make them. And it's always about what's quite "not said" that matters here.
http://www.cerdec.army.mil/news_and_...ght_lethality/

A tanks system is not so large that it can't be miniaturized the system for instance on the SEP V2 can and positively identify a target out to 4600yds+ (This the Army ref.) and if you remember from one of the USA sources I used the OIC of the SEP V2 Program indicated they finally had the capability to see the target/identify it to match the kill range of the ammo being used at that time. The direct quote can be found in the submission of that MBT.
An easier example of the technology is something I'm looking into right now in the GPU world dealing with the MAXWELL technology that appeared about two years ago in this area. The ability of decreasing energy consumption has had dramatic effects upon increasing the GPU capabilities above predicted levels. So the first GPU to have this tech in benchmark testing is still more energy efficient now and almost as capable as some of the newest GPU's out there right now in the simplest of terms.

The lesson here is the control of energy efficiency/heat allows for greater miniaturization a more efficient or improved use of current technology with modification as noted with MAXWELL.

Distance has never really been an issue issue with NVG's as early as 1984 @ 16,000 dollars a piece it wasn't a matter of how far as much how clearly we could see a target out to
26,000yds/or 13NM+. It was more a matter of comfort, optics and HOE/or LOS (If you like to a much lesser extent.). For the last roughly 15 years now lasers have played a major role in the capabilities and efficiency in night vision. Cost is not a factor (The cost of some ammo is much worse in the medium to long term.) and if you could listen to some of the "Good Ole Boys" down here when they go hunting these "off the rack" systems work really well. When they use the term "infinity" for distance in the product description as some did in an earlier ref provided, you are only limited to the above noted factors. Infinity in military terms is what some would call seen... or just "the visible horizon". There are basically three methods of determining HOE we taught if anyone wants them let me know.

I've said I wasn't much on programing and some of the more technical issues concerning software but I never said I had a problem with hardware or system security. ;)

Regards,
Pat

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

The current OOB includes MGs and AGLs with TI as x1 (meaning the AI may buy them rarely) and x3 (meaning the AI will never buy them) items and I'm going to recommend the removal of TI equipped squads and fire teams and the addition of real MARSOC units with a unique unit class.

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

I would respectfully disagree and suggest instead that the AI should have these made available to them. In the following long campaigns (Of at least 21 battles or longer.) I've played or are playing currently against Russia the result has been the same w/Ukraine, Sweden, Norway, Finland, U.S. and currently France the T-72B3 has fought in EVERY battle of those campaigns. This notion that the AI will unlikely pick a piece of equipment due to cost or any other reason is just a bunch of, well to put it nicely...crap. Even in choice of air assets I've seen some of the more advanced fighter bombers appear to my displeasure. I've always and will continue to advocate for as strong an AI as can be made possible within the limitations of Andy and Dons time and the games engine. To get a true result of your abilities is why I play the longer campaigns because it seems every once in a while it shows me something different I have to adjust to. I would love to play a PBEM game out here but it doesn't fit my life style, schedule or my personal commitment I've put on myself concerning this game. So I say please don't hinder the capabilities of the AI and do what can be done to make it better. Better too fight a "Tiger" than a "Paper Tiger".

Thank You!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

Don't know exactly when your campaign is being run, but given the AI is using the T-72B3 it has to be sometime after Oct. 2013.

V9.0 OOBs
Unit#044 T-80UM - 01/2005-12/2020, Cost=488, Radio=x0
Unit#051 T-90A - 01/2005-12/2020, Cost=478, Radio=x0
Unit#052 T-90A - 01/2005-12/2020, Cost=480, Radio=x0
Unit#057 T-72B2 Rogatka - 01/2008-12/2020, Cost=468, Radio=x2
Unit#059 T-90AM - 01/2015-12/2020, Cost=480, Radio=x1
Unit#618 T-72BM - 01/2000-12/2020, Cost=377, Radio=x0
Unit#619 T-72BM - 01/2005-12/2020, Cost=370, Radio=x0
Unit#624 T-80UM-1 Bars - 01/2005-12/2020, Cost=442, Radio=x1
Unit#625 T-80UM-1 Bars - 01/2005-12/2020, Cost=440, Radio=x1
Unit#697 T-72B3 - 10/2013-12/2020, Cost=460, Radio=x0

When the AI is buying units it should theoretically select about:
50% T-72B2 Rogatka
40% All others
10% T-90AM or T-80UM-1 Bars

So yeah, I'd expect to see the T-72B3 in just about every battle.

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

In the future: Bluetooth TI
http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/04/n...=rss_truncated

Here is the main link
http://www.baesystems.com/product/BA...3D1aec2ikv02_4