Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

I've been playing with US forces, both US army and USMC, in the 2020 time frame (V9.0). I've noticed that the US Marines will generally have a line infantry option that carries thermal imaging. However, the US Army has thermal imaging mainly limited to scout infantry. I'm just wondering about the reason behind the difference.

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

Because we have a designated USMC nitipicker and we don't have a US Army one and YOU are the first person to notice? USMC 40 thermal units tend to be x3 radio code so the AI doesn't buy them and are therefore Human player only. US Army 20 imagining units tend to be common as grass and the AI has access to them

If someone "in the know" tells me there should be 40 rated vision line infantry units in the US Army I'll put them in


Don

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

I apologize if the difference was common knowledge, I did a search for "TI" and "Thermal Imaging/Imager" and the only threads I could find were about tanks. I guess the option for me now is to either do some research or more likely, just make the modification myself for my own use.

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

Like I said, if someone confirms there should be US Army line units with 40 rated vision I WILL put them in but I'm not in a position or condition for " serious" research ATM so this has got to come from someone with real direct knowledge.

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

I'm the USMC nitpicker.

The TI equipped infantry units are included in the OOB in case someone wants to do a SOCOM (Special Operations Command) scenario. In which case the Marines would be equipped with all the fancy toys in order to support the SEALs, Green Berets, Delta. There is a special MARSOC (USMC Forces Special Operations Command) formation that is tasked with providing any "combat muscle" that might be needed.

They ARE NOT "Special Forces", but they're the next best thing.

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

Yes you are and I don't consider that a bad thing but we don't have one for the US Army which was my point....... the USMC has better info because I get better info about USMC



Don

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

Is the concern about night vision or actual thermal sights? This is dated 1989 but I think night vision was issued starting in the 1970s. I'll keep looking. IIRC each vehicle driver, each crew served weapon, and each infantry team had at least one night vision device. Not TI but definitely increases night range
Scroll down to the lines beginning with the letter N
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/07247F000.htm

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

There is no problem with night vision, most modern stuff has that. USA modern infantry tends to be 20.

Thermal vision has 40 or more hexes range and can see through smoke - and is thus expensive as its a valuable force multiplier. The game only has one range for thermal (or radar) as it was written back in the days when that sort of thing was a vehicle mounted device. So sections given TI have the abilities of an MBT, since there is no "short range thermal" with say a 500 metre max, for modern infantry portable systems. Though in reality thermal systems in the rifle battalion tend to be things like the Javelin sight unit - ie not exactly a replacement for the Image Intensifier goggles stuck on a grunt's helmet. Still requires lugging about like man portable ground surveillance radars.

Fire brigades these days use a man-portable TI unit to locate casualties through smoke - as do Naval damage control parties, but that is a fairly large 2-handed camera type of thing. Its range is only a few yards as well, not 2 kilometres.

So - me I'm not sold on any infantry with "thermal" vision other than forward observers, some surveillance (scout) teams using a "borrowed" Javelin sight unit and so on. Not your average line grunts.

cheers
Andy

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

Hand-held stuff is around http://www.opticsplanet.com/heat-see...l-imagers.html but WAY to expensive for anyone but special forces types to be using, and as Andy said with considerably less then a 2km range.

Re: Thermal Imaging and US Infantry
 

When I was commanding my rifle company my arms room had about enough AN/PAS-13 thermal sights (split between light, medium, and heavy variants) to equip about half my company, and I know that is standard across the army. We usually only mount them on MGs for night missions, but there are plenty to go around if need be. Here's the industry link for the sight: http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/tws/

Not saying it needs to be added in. I think US Infantry are pretty well modeled already, but each US company does have the equipment (with even more at the HHC in each battalion).

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