M1A2sep (aps) vs. 2x T-90am (aps)

[BTR]

A lot of tank equipment is designed for longer ranges, and therefore creates tunnel vision. So crews being oblivious to something 5-10-20m away makes sense to me in that regard. The system is not perfect though, since we never know here is the tank looking really. One thing that could solve a bit of ambiguity with spotting would be animated commander optics. I think it would be an elegant solution to showing us where is main tank spotter looking without creating any disturbing visual effects. 

[Kinophile]

A lot of tank equipment is designed for longer ranges, and therefore creates tunnel vision. So crews being oblivious to something 5-10-20m away makes sense to me in that regard. The system is not perfect though, since we never know here is the tank looking really. One thing that could solve a bit of ambiguity with spotting would be animated commander optics. I think it would be an elegant solution to showing us where is main tank spotter looking without creating any disturbing visual effects. 

Is thus accurate experience for the real life tankers amongst us?

Curious.

[antaress73]

A lot of tank equipment is designed for longer ranges, and therefore creates tunnel vision. So crews being oblivious to something 5-10-20m away makes sense to me in that regard. The system is not perfect though, since we never know here is the tank looking really. One thing that could solve a bit of ambiguity with spotting would be animated commander optics. I think it would be an elegant solution to showing us where is main tank spotter looking without creating any disturbing visual effects. 

True, that'swhy they invented CITV and panoramic sights for the commander. The commander is the main spotter. The gunner secondary because of tunnel vision. Once a round is in the breech the loader spots too (vision blocks). It can help greatly in spotting first against a three-man crew tank  and prevent tanks and infantry from sneaking from the sides and the rear ( it can watch semi-effectively the sides and the rear while the commander and the gunner concentrate on the front) .Remember the T-34/76 with the commander firing the gun and spotting ? It rarely got the drop on an enemy tank on a head-on confrontation. 

Edited October 8, 2015 by antaress73

[VladimirTarasov]

Guys did a test again, The T-90AM pops its smoke longer then it should. It should be deployed in less then 3 seconds, The Abrams doesn't have this issue and I don't think that is fair, I keep getting slaughtered by those M1A2 seps! Really aggravating it is as if my TC is sleeping on the optics instead of trying to spot. I've had better luck playing as Syrians, Atleast my T-72Ms could spot a Abrams from 400 meters away! Until this gets fixed I will be playing RU vs UA even though the UA has the same problem they are almost blind. I've talked with some lads in the army, The T-72B3 has no problem seeing a tank like target up to 2.5KM in flat terrain, I can't confirm with evidence or anything but he stopped serving a year ago and he was a TC on a T-72B3. The armor is well modeled in most cases, It is just the spotting issue that really makes me cringe. Sure the Abrams has a better thermal sight then the Catherine, But still it is not like they can't see each other to 2KM.  And a question while im at it, Does the BMP-3M in game have a thermal system? 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Guys did a test again, The T-90AM pops its smoke longer then it should. It should be deployed in less then 3 seconds, The Abrams doesn't have this issue and I don't think that is fair, 

Known issue. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, a Company of US armor got in a "knife fight" with Iraqi T-72s in an urban area.  The ranges were close enough that the Abrams crew were generally unable to use their optics to really aim, as even at 3 power it was simply too much magnification to reliably lay the gun tube on the target.  As the case is the commander hanging out of the vehicle's hatch was able to basically "kentucky windage" the main gun onto the target, and then let fly.  

The Iraqis were unable to acquire at all.

Not to slap my chest too much, but I was a tanker once.  It's totally reasonable to have all sorts of spotting weirdness, as even with fairly modern optics you're only covering slices of the battlefield at a time, and often a cluttered and confusing space full of thermal hotspots or dangerous looking shrubberies.  

The game tries to simulate this sort of environment to a degree and builds in lags and delays into targeting acquisition to give a reasonable reaction of the spotting crewman from "is that a rock or a tank?" to "TANK!" then to "Gunner sabot tank-identified 1200 meters-UP-FIRE-ON THE WAY."  The issue is when placed into a very unrealistic (or unlikely at least) situation in which tanks are magicked in front of each other, the game is still treating it with some basic assumption of tactical maneuvering/concealment with inherent built in acquisition delays.  

 

As to sensor parity it really depends, but it's not so straight forward.  Thermal nearly always beats daylight handily.  More modern thermal always beats older (or export as it is) thermals because the real differences is "scanning" resolution retained vs stationary resolution (or NATO tanks still produce fairly clear thermal images when moving the camera, while Russian ones generally do not respond as well).  

So to my original point, you're presenting a system designed to include a certain "fudge" factor to ensure realistic delays in spotting, and it doesn't do highly unrealistic gunfight at the OK Corral scenarios well.  

[Nefron]

The game tries to simulate this sort of environment to a degree and builds in lags and delays into targeting acquisition to give a reasonable reaction of the spotting crewman from "is that a rock or a tank?" to "TANK!" then to "Gunner sabot tank-identified 1200 meters-UP-FIRE-ON THE WAY."  The issue is when placed into a very unrealistic (or unlikely at least) situation in which tanks are magicked in front of each other, the game is still treating it with some basic assumption of tactical maneuvering/concealment with inherent built in acquisition delays.  

That is understandable, and I don't know of a better way to do it. It's just that the difference seems too pronounced at short ranges. There is a good reason for Abrams or whatever to consistently spot better at long ranges, but that constantly happening when the vehicles are literally facing each other looks unrealistic. 

I don't think the system is broken, only that it needs some adjustment. 

[Stagler]

 And a question while im at it, Does the BMP-3M in game have a thermal system? 

Yeah it is meant to be equipped with the Vesna-K.

 

There were some at RAE this year with upgraded CITV packages also - plus alot of other upgraded variants, they would be nice to see introduced in the next expansion.

[Thewood1]

I thought this was an interesting comment from Matrixs Games' Command thread regarding the Russian strikes in Syria...

quote:

Additionally with the recent footage of Russian airstrikes being shown from the perspective of the targeting systems as featured in the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_HZJ55w8Qc 

I am surprised and interested by two things. 

1. The FLIR imagery is of a very low quality compared to what is available today on strike aircraft in the West. The scene is completely lost when a hot object is in the field of view, this demonstrates a lack of processing algorithms to adjust gain and contrast to keep the entire scene in view. This effect can be seen on US Flir imagery from the 1991 war for comparison. 

2. The FLIR is running at only about 8FPS, they are intentionally restricted in framerate as this is in accordance with a Western designed FLIR that is following Export regulations to other countries. FLIR systems usually run at 60Hz or more when possible to limit lag and not miss important details of the scene or for tracking moving objects.

end quote.

 

A lot of the guys commenting on that forum are former mil or mil tech people with a deep understanding of sensor tech.

[BTR]

Most if not all the clips we see from Syria are taken from UAV's which are not really used for targeting. Don't know why that decision was taken, but it is what it is. We don't have targeting pods to capture the same video's as US had.  

[Thewood1]

Point still stands though.

[VladimirTarasov]

Yea, We are using our lower tech drones for this one. And we are lagging behind in drone quantity in reality. Drones used in the video are most likely smaller ones and they are flying at a high altitude. Either way it is really effective, We have already over 100 mission sorties this week and everything is going well. Ground troops aren't being deployed but we got advisers all over the place making sure those ISIS dogs are killed. Back onto the drone though, MoD put some new orders in for more drones they are working on them as we speak. Can't comment too much, Not that I'd be breaking OPSEC  but because I have a feeling this will go off topic.

[Euri]

But this may seem a bit too much:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9z2aTq5oxcqN2JhQXZPTTRqWUk/view?usp=sharing

Dont you agree?

[c3k]

3 vs. 4 man tank crews, by a non-tanker. A spotting exposition.

First, eliminate the driver. He's driving, looking for the next location, etc. No one cares about the driver as long as the tank stays mobile. If it cannot drive, he gets the blame. Besides, if he's any good, the tank is hull-down. He's a non-player for spotting. Because I say so and this is my spotting essay.

That leaves 2 men in the turret or 3 men in the turret.

The gunner has tunnel vision. He's looking through his highly magnified, narrow field of view, aiming system. He's not spotting, he's aiming. There, that takes care of him.

Now, you either have 1 man spotting or 2 men spotting. One will always be the tank commander. The other will be the loader, if present.

Having a loader in ADDITION to the tank commander represents a 100% increase in the number of eyeballs scanning the terrain. (Loader scans through vision blocks when not actively loading.)

100% increase? I'll take it. Non-magnified, wide-field-of-view, easy to spot moving targets and close-in infantry. Yeah.

(That may help... Or not.) (If you don't like me eliminating the gunner from the spotting calculations, then having the loader is only a 50% increase in the number of eyeballs.)

Ken

[BTR]

If we count the loader spotting (and we should right?), then we should have is M1's ability to spot actually drop during engagement. 

[Thewood1]

Maybe it does...for the time to load...anyone check?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Loader 

He's actually the least useful for physically spotting targets.  His optics are (if fitted) a single vision block in a swiveling mount that effectively lets him survey the area behind the loader's armor to make sure the snacks he left up there are still secure.  His machine gun has the mounts for a PAS-13 type thermal optic but it is not especially often mounted* but generally he stays in the tank

What he is useful for though is letting the commander and gunner focus on looking out though.  He usually manages the radios, does most of the in-turret trouble shooting etc etc.  This is a lot more useful than you'd think (or rather, think of how many people crash their cars texting/changing radio stations etc etc.  He's there to make those things happen without the TC or gunner taking their eyes off the road).

Re: Driver

Actually very useful for spotting so long as you're not hull down.  He's doing nothing but looking forward (the hatch being closed makes surfing facebook on the phone next to impossible) and on the current generation of tanks his thermal optics are actually pretty good at letting him see if something tanklike is in front of him, and then if he's not a terrible driver** cuing the turret crew onto it.  The fact he's always watching the frontal arc is pretty helpful.

Re: Gunner

He's an essential link in the spotting system.  If you watch tanks on the range (or anywhere fairly open there's targets to hit), you'll see the turret is constantly swinging left to right***.  In terms of "narrow" vision on the Abrams, and most tanks, the wFOV is usually only 3x, which at all but abjectly knife fighty ranges is actually pretty good for a thermal optic.  You scan in wFOV and drop into nFOV once you find something worth shooting.  

The main limitations on the Russian crew is that again, you've got additional in-turret things they have to do that on a US tank the loader would manage which takes them off of spotting, and most of the Russian thermal optics we know of have okay detection (in the sense of finding a hotspot) but poor discrimination (hot rock or hot tank?).

*For the following OT reasons:
1. It's tricky to boresight and generally no time is allocated during training to do so.
2. The real utility of the loader's MG is that it serves as a spare for the much more effective coaxial mount.  The PAS-13 is one more thing you have to mess with to swap out those guns.
3. The PAS-13 is a very effective infantry machine gun optic.  It doesn't keep resolution well on the move.

As a result most loader MGs are aimed simply by walking the target on, and I've heard of them getting a tracer heavy load in some units.

**Drivers are generally either the most junior soldiers in the unit, and occasionally just the ones too dumb to let into the turret.  Bad drivers generally exist only as an interface between the TC and the vehicle though so generally their inexperience isn't a liability as much as it just means the essential functions of not crashing the tank will be accomplished and nothing more.  Good drivers will totally help with spotting, or be able to do what the tank driver wants by intent vs explicit instruction though.

***In a defensive BP, it's usually a slow, deliberate scan, while on the move it's an aggressive rapid scan.  The CITV maintains bearing independently of the turret so long as the pressure switch on the commander's controls is engaged.  Generally the way you get the most out of this two optic arrangement is splitting the frontal arc at the driver's hatch, with the gunner scanning with the turret over one side, while the commander scans the other with the CITV.  This can however work a little different within a platoon or company fire plan if the tank was given a different sector to cover, but even then it's usually a matter of splitting the sector in the middle. 

[sburke]

Re: Loader 

He's actually the least useful for physically spotting targets.  His optics are (if fitted) a single vision block in a swiveling mount that effectively lets him survey the area behind the loader's armor to make sure the snacks he left up there are still secure.

Quote of the day- that one earned an actual snort.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Well on the old M1-M1A1 the vision block reasonably could give some spotting from around the 12-4 o'clock positions.  However on the M1A2 you lose about the 11-10 because the CITV is parked in front of the loader's hatch, and most modern M1A2s also mount the loader's armor kit which just all and all makes it not at all useful.  It remains a useful induction point for monsoon rain* to get into the tank however, and many crews choose to apply trashbags or other improvised waterproofing measures to the vision block's mount in especially wet operating environments.

*It should be noted that most AFVs in monsoon/that epic down pour that the American Southeast does sometimes conditions look like a "Das Boot" reenactment party.

Edited October 11, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[c3k]

All good counterpoints to my (mostly) tongue-in-cheek exposition.