Thermal imaging
 

I've noticed a very strange thing in the game - vehicles with thermal imagers are indifferent to smoke.
Here is the example - year 1981. We have 2 lines of smoke across the map, dividing two tanks with thermal imagers. So they see through smoke (the range of sight is not even slightly reduced) and can shoot with same accuracy as if there were no smoke at all.
I can understand if it is year 2005 or + (maybe some radars or something like that:) ). But not 80's or 90's. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif
But moreover, all modern tanks have laser range finders. I doubt that they can function throuhg smoke - so the accuracy should be severely reduced.
I guess this affects all laser-guided atgm's, bombs and so on.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Thermal sights can see throught a large variety of battlefield oscurants including conventional smoke, sandstorms etc.This is true now as it was in the 90's and the 80's. It was one of the most important advantages western tanks had over their eastern couterparts during the late Cold War and its importance was shown in several egagements during the Gulf War.
I suppose that in theory thick smoke should block LRFs but in practice I never heard it to be mentioned as an issue during GW1.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

TI (vision 40) has been able to see through smoke since the original SP2 came out. And if you puff enough hexes with smoke, even TI can´t see through it anymore. All vehicles, regardless of weaponry can shoot through smoke, if it has a TI sight. Also AAA with radar (FC 100+) will target aircraft through smoke or bad visibilty, even without an TI sight. However radar doesn´t help shooting at land targets, as you may have guessed already. And indeed laser beam is so coherent, that it´ll pierce smoke easily. Try it home with a laserpointer-pen and some smoke from, say, a smoke generator, that everyone has under their bed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Thermal imaging
 

"And indeed laser beam is so coherent, that it´ll pierce smoke easily. Try it home with a laserpointer-pen and some smoke from, say, a smoke generator, that everyone has under their bed."

Just because the laser does not dissipate after three meters this does not mean it won't be an issue at 3000. AFAIK bad weather is considered a problem for LGBs. But perhaps it was not an issue at engagement ranges.

"However radar doesn´t help shooting at land targets, as you may have guessed already."

I might be wrong but IIRC the soviets had deployed radar sights for the MT-12 antitank guns. Take this information with a pinch of salt though.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

As things stand, remember that in-game vision above 40 can stand for either TI or radar (typically GSR for Ground Surveillance Radar). Both are considered identical for game purposes, and behave the same way with obscurants.
Generally units with radar within the game scope are recon/surveillance units, like the newly added PRP-4M and SNAR-10.

Few combat units use radar vision, Marcello mentioned the MT-12R (I think), there should be the Khrisantema launcher, and of course some combat helos like the AH-64D and Mi-28N.
I repeat, that these units have a ground-targeting radar or TI doesn't change a thing in the way they handle smoke.
For modeling purposes, I guess you could consider that for equal technology levels, a GSR would have 150% the range of a TI sight (e.g. 60 against 40 for most units), but that's a wild guess from me only.

I agree, there is no proper way to model bad TI, like some 70s sensors that could certainly see through smoke but couldn't pick out a tank clearly beyond 1km, the same way that you can't model bad laser rangefinders (the kind that are easier to use but less accurate than coincidence ones).
For now, I can live without them as far as I'm concerned.

Regrding lasers and smoke, bear in mind that most (all?) battlefield lasers are IR bandwidth, and I'd say most modern LRFs (used jointly with TI sights) use the same bandwidth as thermal imagers, so if thermals see through smoke, the laser penetrates smoke as well. So to simplify, the laser rangefinding ability gets the same limit as the vision.
QED or nearly so http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Read what everyone else wrote then go back and do the same test with more smoke and you will find they are not "indifferent to smoke" when there is enough smoke. Take some off map arty and drop smoke in the middle of the map then have a look at what your TI tanks can see

Don

Re: Thermal imaging
 

I should´ve written: Game AAA radars do not help targeting ground units (smoke or no smoke). However I didn´t know the ruskies have such a gun. Well the question is what they haven´t developed or tried.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Tkanks for the information - I'm glad that my post has attracted such an attention http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

But as for Laser Range Finders. I'm sure that modern LRF's are capable of operating in LIGHT smoke, but what about HEAVY smoke - for example a hex of smoke (as far as I remember hex=50 metres).
Here what was found in the net on the subject
http://members.tripod.com/dbunger/docs/laser.htm

2 Don

I've tried 5 (five!) lines of smoke. '81 M1 Abrams is able to see small targets such as APC's at 3500m! (3500m was set by me as the maximum view range for the map - 70 hexes) No changes for visibility or accuracy, just like there were no smoke at all.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Personally I have experienced partial blocking of TI sights when something burning was present, just like happens in real life. According to the Army field manual FM 17-15 (Tank Platoon operations) it seems that normal amounts of conventional smoke are practically a non issue for the Abrams. Rangefinder blocking is not mentioned either.
I will see if I can find something in the other manuals dealing with smoke operations.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

What's "5 (five!) lines of smoke" ?? Infantry smoke, mortar smoke, heavy artillery smoke ? "5 (five!) lines of smoke" tells me nothing and proves nothing. I told you to drop some arty smoke on the map and check LOS. When you do you will see something like this
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...cked%20LOS.png

Don

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Just as your attached image - I don't see the vehicle itself. It may be the up-to-date Lecrerc or Chiorniy Oriol.
Or is it '81 Abrams that I was talking about? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif
As for smoke - I dropped 4 hexes of smoke with the help of tank dischargers and 1 hex with infantry engineer unit.

Meanwhile, I wrote that '81 M1 Abrams is able to see small targets such as APC's at 3500m (the maximum view range for the map - 70 hexes)
Even there is no smoke on the map - why '81 Abrams can identify target as "bmp" at 3500metres? As far as I know even the newest models of MBT can identify the target as "tank" with the help of thermal imager only from ~ 2500metres. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif
Well, may be the tanks of 2007 and + CAN identify target at 3500. But why Abrams of 1981 can?

According to your image the TI can be blocked by ~ 5 hexes of off-map arty smoke (why not by tank discasrgers smoke or infantry engineer unit smoke?) That means that each hex should reduce the TI vision range by 20%?

2 Marcello

Maybe this can help?
http://members.tripod.com/dbunger/docs/laser.htm

...."The M-1 Abrahms tank is equipped with a new laser range finding system, that allows for faster targeting and more accurate firing.
Because the laser's beam is pulsed, it cannot be seen in adverse conditions such as fog, rain, or smoke."....

So the smoke is insuperable for M1 Abrams LRF - accuracy IMHO should be severely reduced.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

There is no reduction in vision range due to smoke. It is an all or nothing principle. Either you can see through it or you can't.
Nor is there a fixed amount of smoked hexes that block vision. That's because not all smoked hexes have the same smoke density in the hex (and it's not just the visible difference between fullsmoke and partial smoke either, there's more to it than that). Just do as DRG has suggested you do. Drop a lot of arty smoke and see for yourself through how many hexes you can see. Now keep checking for a couple of turns, as the smoke thins you'll see the view increase again.

There is no difference between a '81 M1 Abrams or any other unit with regards to identifying a target as a specific unit type as opposed to a more generic 'tank' without details (at over 2500 metres or not). It's how the game system works. Either you see it as it is or you don't see it at all. There's no middle ground there.

narwan

Re: Thermal imaging
 

I have nothing to add to what Narwan wrote. This is how the game works. No two smoke hexes are equal so saying each smoke hex blocks 20% of the TI is just a generality. With New and old smoke mixed on a map anything is possible and there is no hard and fast rule I can point to like "each hex should reduce the TI vision range by 20%?" becasue the game code that calculates smoke density is more complicated than that. However, the game itself identifies targets completely once they are seen. There is no middle ground as Narwan pointed out.

Don

Re: Thermal imaging
 

"So the smoke is insuperable for M1 Abrams LRF - accuracy IMHO should be severely reduced."

It depends on who you listen to.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-grumman01.htm

"The ELRF Main Battle Tank rangefinder has been used successfully by the U.S. Army for a number of years and has proven its accuracy and effectiveness most recently during combat in Iraq,"

"The ELRF is a highly accurate, hardened system for the fire control sight in the Abrams Main Battle Tank. The ELRF gives the tank gunner the ability to determine target ranges in all battlefield conditions including fog, smoke, dust, sand and haze."

As I said being able to see a target with thermals but not being able to lase it is something I have never heard about, neither now nor in 91.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

2 Marcello
Of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
But my example was based on the LRF abilities of '81 Abrams.
Yours - on modern tanks.
Again: I have nothing to say about MODERN tanks - I'm shore that their LRF (ELRF) can function through smoke.
But I'm also shore that 80-90's tanks are unable to use their LRF's through smoke.
I can propose a very unusial way for you to check it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
There is an old M1A1 tank simulator called "Steel Beasts" (they say it was made by very tough tank specialists http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
So there you will see - LRF can't function through smoke.
Also there are several manuals about LRF usage.

2 Don
Is there a way to fix it?
Because it's not right - all game TI's are equal - 80's/90's/2000 and +. It has nothing in common with the real situation http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Dimitry, let's put it this way. I have no problem believing that lower tech LRFs in the 80's, mounted on stuff like the Cascavel or the Type 69 tank, could be blocked by thick smoke. That being said I would not be so sure about those mounted on high end western MBTs of the time. During the Gulf War (1991) there were engagements in such conditions and this issue was never raised anywhere I could find. Nobody ever said "we could see the target on the thermals but we could not lase it due to the sandstorm". Now, I might have missed it but if it actually lowered accuracy by a substantial amount, as you are requesting, I would have expected it to be more publicized. What some guy wrote in 1988 and a videogame are a somewhat shaky ground. For all that we know they might have extrapolated such info from the performances of lower tech LRFs, by assuming they would have had the same limits.
By the way, M1A2s have been around since the early 90's.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

I don't think that this is right.
If my previous arguments are not enough, well, here are more
http://www.edinformatics.com/inventi...itary_tank.htm

«....Some smoke grenades are designed to make a very dense cloud capable of blocking the laser beams of enemy target designators or range finders and of course obscuring vision, reducing probability of a hit from
visually aimed weapons, especially low speed weapons, such as antitank missiles which require the operator to keep the tank in sight for a relatively long period of time....»

Then

http://www.peostri.army.mil/PM-CATT/...appendix_a.pdf

This is a document for VISUAL SYSTEM FOR THE CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER (CCTT)

«....The use of tactical smoke for screening, silhouetting, and blinding shall be simulated. The laser
range finder shall be appropriately degraded due to smoke....»

This document is for the following CCTT modules:
M1A1/M1A2 tank, M2A2/M3A2, M981 Fire Support Team Vehicle, M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV).
and so on...

Maybe nobody ever had a problem with entering range manually? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

May be, but no guy wrote about Abrams LRF ability of that time to function in smoke.
Don't get me wrong, I am not talking that tank with LRF, blocked by smoke, cannot fire at all. I just think that 50%-60% accuracy reduce will be enough.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Not exactly. With TI you still see tank, even it is obscured by smoke. with APFSDS you dont need accurate range, that thing going flat, so there will be no problems to hit a tank.

Modern lasers are strong enough to go through anyway

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Okay. Anybody here in this forum ever used a laser range-finder or target aquisition system in training and through / with smoke? Some first-hand experience anyone?

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Don't take offence, JaM, but the problem of modern lasers already were discussed. I'm talking about 80s-90s, not 2000 and + years.

As for APFSDS flat trajectory (for about 2000 m for Abrams 120mm gun and 2200 m for 125mm russian tank gun), it is not realised in game. Whether the range is 3000m or 600m or even 200m the LRF is used.
If it is blocked - the accuracy should be severely reduced.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

IMHO the answer will be about modern lasers, not about those in 80s-90s http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

Above you will find my link to a document for VISUAL SYSTEM FOR THE CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER (CCTT)
I think this is the answer for your question.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Why ? Do you think everyone on this list is under 25 ?

Don

Re: Thermal imaging
 

"IMHO the answer will be about modern lasers, not about those in 80s-90s"

Well it is not like everybody in the US Army got a
M1A2 SEP with the latest LRF by 31 december 1999.

"Some smoke grenades are designed to make a very dense cloud capable of blocking the laser beams of enemy target designators or range finders and of course obscuring vision, reducing probability of a hit from"

There is smoke and smoke. Bispectral smoke or burning oil will block even the thermals sights. Standard visual smoke or sandstorms can be penetrated by thermals to some extent.
It is unclear what is being talked about in the above passage "Some" might mean not all but only certain types. In the CCTT document the talk is about reducing/degrading, not blocking.
The issue is that this would be probably a rather onerous feature to implement, if possible at all, so the case for it would have to be rather strong.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

No. Not at all.
I think so just because everybody is talking about modern LRF, though the question is about 80s-90s.

My link on this subject is about laser , not about TI. I'm shore that "visual smoke or sandstorms can be penetrated by thermals to some extent", but not by lasers.

The talk is about appropriate degrading - at some moment smoke can be able to block the laser.

60% accuracy reducing for tank, having smoke hex on it's LOS is "a rather onerous feature to implement, if possible at all"? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif Taking into consideration the changes, made in 3.0 patch, I wouldn't say so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Thermal imaging
 

"My link on this subject is about laser , not about TI. I'm shore that "visual smoke or sandstorms can be penetrated by thermals to some extent", but not by lasers."

I apologize, I should have explained my self better. My point was, there are some special types of smoke that will block both the lasers AND the thermals (that is what I meant when I said "will block EVEN the thermals sights"), like the smoke grenades employed by the Shtora system for example. But these are non standard smoke. It was not very clear what was being discussed in that passage, if bispectral (which will block both) or visual.

"60% accuracy reducing for tank, having smoke hex on it's LOS is "a rather onerous feature to implement, if possible at all"? Taking into consideration the changes, made in 3.0 patch, I wouldn't say so."

It would require code changes, which are a pretty tricky things as the people working on it will tell you. We had to wait for years for basic things like barbed wire, vehicles being able to go in reverse and opfire control. Personally I have been waiting for HEAT in antipersonnel mode and guided artillery shells since...well 2002 if I recall correctly. So as I said it has to be an issue.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

If I'm not mistaken the LRF on Abrams tanks in 1991 was the same as on first batch in the beginning of 1980's http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif No problems with smoke encountered.
OTOH more crude LRF's like those North Korean giant boxes maybe may have problems even in clean air http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Thermal imaging
 

It might be worthwhile posting this issue on tanknet and see what the people here have to say. There should be some GW1 veterans and people who used early models of the Abrams who might recall if they did experiece LRF blocking due to dust.

Re: Thermal imaging
 

You have no idea if that is applicable either currently, 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. It's just a guess based on a couple of sources, one being an old game, that this might be an issue but nothing as to how this affects combat because as there appears to be no documentation about this being an issue in real battle conditions.


What you are asking for is a degradation of laser range finding performance based on vague data without any real idea when to draw the line between "older" and "newer" laser targeting systems OR if this effects one nations lasers more or less than any other nations lasers or how this actually affects units in combat conditions and *if* it does how much smoke is required to affect the lasers performance. You are asking for up to a 60% degradation based on your guess of what you suspect it should be based on assumptions and scanty information.

Currently we block the RF when the smoke becomes too dense for the TI system to see through it to the target and that is all based on randoms as to how "thick" the game reads each "smoke cloud" to be and that changes from turn to turn. If a target can be seen with TI then it can be lased and shot at and until some REAL data pops up detailing how smoke affects laser RF's any further discussion is pointless as it is all conjecture. Even IF hard data can be found on this and can be applied it would have to be applied equally for all nations and that is a very serious amount of coding for something that is only hinted at being an issue in written evidence.



Don

Re: Thermal imaging
 

2 Don

So maybe you have? No you don't.
Because I don't just explaining my point of view, I'm veryfying it by links and examples. And you don't. You just make a statement about LRF "a priori".

Again, my guesses are supported by links to appropriate documents. The level of degradation is discussion-free.
And what are your statements supported with?

I have nothing against the idea that this should be be "applied equally for all nations". At least this is fair.
If TI's and LRF's in game are so hard to be modified, so why are they put in game (as far as I know there are no TI's and LRF's in, for example, Steel Panthers Modern Combat) ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

IMHO the "all-seeing" TI's and unblockable LRF's are seriously unbalancing the game. It's just like to make ONE tank gun for all tank types and then say "it is too hard to modify it for EACH tank". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

2 Marcello

Thanks for the advice. I'll try this out.

2 Marec_Tucan

Some links as a proof would be great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Thermal imaging
 

OK Dimitry, how about this. The upgrade to winSPMBTv3 is all the major coding to MBT we are doing this year. The V3.5 patch that will be released next month has a few code changes for issues we discovered and dealt with while working on WinSPww2v2 but that is all and we will not be adding anything further. Most of what makes up V3.5 is OOB corrections and Icon upgrades and originally neither Andy nor I were even going to start THINKING about that until the fall but you and everyone else are getting it early and then we are both taking time off

Andy and I are the ones you have to convince and I'm telling you that even if you did convince us ( you haven't BTW ) we STILL wouldn't be changing the game code any more than we already have. However your "proof"... "veryfying it by links and examples" consists of one link that provides an example of how specialized Bispectral smoke blocks lasers RF and another that ONLY says... "the laser range finder shall be appropriately degraded due to smoke" but nowhere is there ANYTHING to suggest just what "appropriately" is supposed to represent. The only percentages that have been discussed are the ones YOU presented based on assumptions. No hard evidence at all. Just what *you* think might be appropriate. Right now, *WE* think that the thick smoke that blocks LOS with TI and therefore any range finding is "appropriate" for a game of this scale and we don't have to "prove" anything. YOU are the one with the issues with the way it works now. "We" are quite happy with the way it works now

(QUOTE) "I just think that 50%-60% accuracy reduce will be enough."

But then... you also thought at the start that...

(QUOTE) " in the game - vehicles with thermal imagers are indifferent to smoke.

and that was dead wrong. They are not "indifferent" to smoke if you put down enough smoke and if you cannot see it you cannot lase it and that's the way the game works

Don

Re: Thermal imaging
 

Well, I must say that this is not a suprise for me.

As far as I can see 90% of the game units characteristics are based on someone's http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif assumptions.
And I'm not the only person "with the issues" - there are lot more people, most of them just don't show up on this forum.

Anyway, I'll try to find more, as you say, "hard evidences".

Right now here are the links about ".....The standard smoke grenade that contains a phosphors compound that masks thermal signature of the vehicle to the enemy...."

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

then

http://tech.military.com/equipment/v...rams-tank.html

and some more

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ground/m1.htm

So the vehicle with TI, discharging this smoke, should become absolutely blind. No thermal imaging or LRF is possible.
As far as I remember, such grenades are the standart equipment for Abrams, Bradleys and those TOW vehicles, such as M901.