Thermal Imaging and Smoke Dischargers

[lansoar]

thank you.

To elaborate, my question would be, is using smoke dischargers offensively to create a "smoke shield" (which in the game is typically the 3 frontal arc hexes in relation to the unit's front axis), a valid tactic? (aka allow the tank to sit behind the wall of close in smoke and continue plugging away at the enemy until it dissipates while the enemy is unable to reply if they are not equipped with TTS)

My impression as far as the game SP has always been concerned, is that it's a bit of an absolute and thus represents a huge advantage to the side that has TTS. If the depiction is 'accurate' I would assume that such a tactic would be taught/used in real life.

Thx!

[zovs66]

Originally Posted by lansoar

thank you.

To elaborate, my question would be, is using smoke dischargers offensively to create a "smoke shield" (which in the game is typically the 3 frontal arc hexes in relation to the unit's front axis), a valid tactic? (aka allow the tank to sit behind the wall of close in smoke and continue plugging away at the enemy until it dissipates while the enemy is unable to reply if they are not equipped with TTS)

My impression as far as the game SP has always been concerned, is that it's a bit of an absolute and thus represents a huge advantage to the side that has TTS. If the depiction is 'accurate' I would assume that such a tactic would be taught/used in real life.

Thx!

We used it or were trained to use them more for defense purposes against ATGM or a bunch of grunts creeping up or if really out numbered by enemy tanks and running low on ammo. That’s how I remember our training on the M1A1. For offensive purposes we’d call in for battalion smoke screen, to mask our movements and shoot n scoot to the mlr using speed, we only used our thermals in the day if there was a lot of smoke.

[geoff]

I don't have personal experience, but thermal sights can see through smoke, so if you are in a modern AFV up against an enemy without thermal imaging, you could pop smoke and shoot through the smoke. You'd have to be stationary, and every enemy in sight would be lined up on the big cloud of smoke waiting for a glimpse of you as the smoke dissapates.

[lansoar]

awesome. Thank you.

As a contrast to, your real life recounting, I'm currently playing a typical late 80s NATO scenario, only in this case as the Russians vs. AI. (most tend to be Russians are AI). Having a hell of a time. Case in point my current turn. A M3 Bradley has revealed itself by knocking out an AFV with a TOW. I threw some wild shots at it on the move and of course, as described....it popped smoke and created a 3 frontal hex wall of smoke.

It didn't retreat, it just then sat there behind the smoke "shields" and proceeded on the next couple of turns to lob TOW after TOW at my forces as I tried to maneuver around it. (sitting still was not an option). It was completely invulnerable as none of my forces had a TTS between them.....including the attack helicopters, so I couldn't fire at it.

This situation was just one example of many over many scenarios played over the years from SP2 to today. There was a reinforced M1 platoon on the hill.....they all ended up popping their smoke dischargers and sat behind their "shields." Many SP2/MBT scenarios play out this way, esp when NATO is on defense or delay.

[lansoar]

Just to throw emphasis on this. I'm now playing the NATO companion to the same battle. Not only did I pop smoke offensively to give my M1's and M3's a free for all fire-fest, but after the smoke from the dischargers cleared.....I took advantage of several adjacent INF units dug in by my AFV's to pop smoke in from of the AFV's, again providing them with a shield from any return fire.

Just seems to me that it's a bit much. Not sure what can be done about it. Smoke and specifically smoke dischargers on AFV's worked fine in the original SP1 as they do in SP:WW2. That's because no OPFORCE has a means to "see thru the smoke" hence it is a defensive tactic.

But when SP2 came around, and this has carried on to SP:MBT, you get units that have a vision rating of 40 or above (TTS), then for those units smoke simply does not exist, regardless of source or proximity etc. Hence....it's an exploit as I would define it.

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by lansoar

Just to throw emphasis on this. I'm now playing the NATO companion to the same battle. Not only did I pop smoke offensively to give my M1's and M3's a free for all fire-fest, but after the smoke from the dischargers cleared.....I took advantage of several adjacent INF units dug in by my AFV's to pop smoke in from of the AFV's, again providing them with a shield from any return fire.

Just seems to me that it's a bit much. Not sure what can be done about it. Smoke and specifically smoke dischargers on AFV's worked fine in the original SP1 as they do in SP:WW2. That's because no OPFORCE has a means to "see thru the smoke" hence it is a defensive tactic.

But when SP2 came around, and this has carried on to SP:MBT, you get units that have a vision rating of 40 or above (TTS), then for those units smoke simply does not exist, regardless of source or proximity etc. Hence....it's an exploit as I would define it.

Basically, you have to move in bounds from covered position to another...and never hit the end turn button unless you're sure your tanks are not exposed to enemy LOS. Try to force them to pop smoke and be patient until their smoke ammo runs out, or you have a cldar shot
at them (preferably flank/rear one). Works very well vs. the AI but I also won a couple of PBEMs that way (me as WarPact vs. 80s high tier NATO)

[lansoar]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

Basically, you have to move in bounds from covered position to another...and never hit the end turn button unless you're sure your tanks are not exposed to enemy LOS. Try to force them to pop smoke and be patient until their smoke ammo runs out, or you have a cldar shot
at them (preferably flank/rear one). Works very well vs. the AI but I also won a couple of PBEMs that way (me as WarPact vs. 80s high tier NATO)

True. a big improvement in the current MBT are greater scenario lengths for some scenarios. SP1 and 2 always kind of made me laugh when reading the manual where it would be stated. "the game rewards combined arms tactics" ; coupled with movements as you've described. Only problem is that with a scenario length of 15 to 30 turns on average, one often didn't have time to advance in a more textbook fashion and instead had to rush the objective hexes.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

True. a big improvement in the current MBT are greater scenario lengths for some scenarios. SP1 and 2 always kind of made me laugh when reading the manual where it would be stated. "the game rewards combined arms tactics" ; coupled with movements as you've described. Only problem is that with a scenario length of 15 to 30 turns on average, one often didn't have time to advance in a more textbook fashion and instead had to rush the objective hexes.

This is one reason I've made it a point to make all the scenarios I create long. Give the player time to use tactics not zerg.