Thermal imaging

[Marcello]

"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.

[Dimitry]

2 Marcello

It depends on who you listen to.

Of course
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
There is an old M1A1 tank simulator called "Steel Beasts" (they say it was made by very tough tank specialists )
So there you will see - LRF can't function through smoke.
Also there are several manuals about LRF usage.

2 Don

There is no middle ground as Narwan pointed out.

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

[Marcello]

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.

[Dimitry]

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.

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...

Nobody ever said "we could see the target on the thermals but we could not lase it due to the sandstorm".

Maybe nobody ever had a problem with entering range manually?

What some guy wrote in 1988 and a videogame are a somewhat shaky ground.

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.

[JaM]

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

[pdoktar]

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?

[Dimitry]

pdoktar said:
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?

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

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.

[Dimitry]

JaM said:
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

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.