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.