Thermal imaging

[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.

[DRG]

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

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

Don

[Marcello]

"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.

[Dimitry]

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

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

Bispectral smoke or burning oil will block even the thermals sights. Standard visual smoke or sandstorms can be penetrated by thermals to some extent.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Marcello]

"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.

[Marek_Tucan]

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

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 No problems with smoke encountered.
OTOH more crude LRF's like those North Korean giant boxes maybe may have problems even in clean air

[DRG]

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

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