Jump to content

In-game spotting system: are you kidding me?


zhivago

Recommended Posts

TEST: 
 
T-90am (elite, undisturbed, standing still in a tree line, clear weather, day)
vs 
M1A2 (veteran, moving in open field, 2.5-3 km away)
 
(number of tries: 10. Map: Death Valley).
 
---------------------------
 
Well, despite of all conditions above and CLEAR LOS, T-90 almost never discovers M1A2 first!
Even more, in plenty of times the T-90 does not see the damn muzzle flash after m1 starts shooting!
 
Logically thinking, even with only binoculars you cannot miss an incoming and shooting tank in 
open field, not speaking about more sophisticated tank optics.
 
 
Moreover,
 
 
Tank destroyer 9p157-2 Krizantema-S with millimeter-wave external RADAR built especially to 
detect armored objects(!!) in all weather and smoke, is blind just like T-90. Always getting 
killed by (?) signs from open field 3 km away. 
 
9p157-2-4_0.jpg
 
Same for recon vehilce BRM-3K which has radar as well.
Not mentioning various BMPs that somehow manages to detect enemy infantry in woods better than 
detecting IFV  in open 100 meters ahead.
 
 
CMBO was great long time ago. CMBB was good. CMSF is **** 
 
But CM Black Sea is a funny Super Mario game, not a "tactical simulator" as promised. 
Edited by zhivago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be great if you could pst a screenshot or video of your testbuild to give us the option to come to our own conclusions.

 

If the T-90 can't spot the M1A2 first in all tries something might be wrong. It might be wrong.

 

We all know that both the T-90 and the M1A2 have good optics, and AFAIK the M1A2 has better optics. How long does it take for the tanks to spot each other? Did they spawn in plain view of each other or did the M1A2 drive into the T90s line of sight?

 

And, most importantly, why would you post something like this? You don't seem to know what to improve (you didn't offer a solution or something comparable), you didn't ask if this was a bug or intended and you started attacking the game, and therefore BFC, directly.

 

What are you trying to achieve? Do you just want to rage or do you want to make the game better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, let's see the scenario file used for testing.

I think we can tell the answer to @Jargotn's question by the title and the unwillingness to share the test scenario and the totally over the top Mario brothers comment.

If your lack of sharing is due to ignorance of how to share: press the more reply options and then you can attach things to your post. You will need for zip up your test file first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoted because I am just that worth quoting:

 

 

Here's the thing.  What Combat Mission tries to do is use unrealistic (in the military sense) systems to represent realistic outcomes.  This is the basis for any wargame.  The target/focus for this is to best represent the behaviors of military units operating within what is normal military practice.

 

So in that regard, the spotting systems assume two units moving into contact are doing so tactically through terrain that offers some degree of concealment.  It is not designed to properly simulate "and through the force of magic three tanks appear in a field 300 meters from each other."  The M1 has much better sensors, and as it works through the spotting checks it is most likely to pass them faster, and kill one of the T-90s, and then acquire and kill the second T-90, while sometimes the T-90's spotting rolls go well and it gets to shoot first.

 

This whole obsession with placing things more or less in the open and drawing conclusions from which is "better" is sort of....weird.  The game is not designed to support this behavior.  Nor is establishing it takes 1.34 T-90s to kill .56 Abrams especially helpful outside of measuring net trends over several battles.

 

We keep acting like there's tiny little digital mens in the tank, and their behavior is largely regulated by tiny digital eyes and brains, when in reality it's a whole mess of numbers and systems that are trying to replicate inherently chaotic, non-system results.

 

That said:

 

1. The T-90 in a treeline will be as obvious as it would be in the open with thermals.

2. T-90AM optics are still pretty "Eh."  The engagement range you selected is beyond the range of the Cathrine FC to be able to tell a M1 and a BMP-2 apart, but well within the M1's ability to tell you if the commander is out of the hatch and wearing sunglasses or not.

3. The GSR on the Russian vehicles sees really well through fog, and dark, but has a lot of problems with pretty much anything else. Trees, piles of trash on the ground, buildings, exposed rock faces, the target even being partially masked by terrain can all result in a "something is there!" but not a confirmed target*

 

 

So basically this is sounding like someone is rageful their Russian stuff is performing like Russian stuff performs.

 

*GSR is best used as a sort of tripwire, like it's your first warning something is there, but generally ground mounted radars are best to let you know where you look, vs the be all end all of spotting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even using the daysight ? It has 16x magnification so at 2.5km that should be enough. Russian thermals are not meant to be used much during the day anyway. And that panoramic sight on the AM should give the commander as much spotting capabilities if not better than being unbuttonned with binocs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I havent seen that kind of stuff in my games anyway.. Dont fight the Abrams with russian tanks at long range ! Ambush them at close range when on defense and use covered approachs and precision arty to degrade them before engaging them at closer range and using swarm tactics. Use the kryz for long-range. Hull down and 2.5km + is essential for success with them.

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even using the daysight.  When you're "scanning" in thermals (which is to say moving the optics back and forth looking for a target), a tank will be pretty obvious, hey look a bright spot, better look at that now.  When you're doing it in daylight, even with moving targets it can be tricky You're looking at something like 8 degrees of area at a time, with the optic in motion, unless the tank is hauling and throwing up a roostertail, at 2.5+ KM you might not see it.  

 

If we're in a race between spotters, the one that has effectively illuminated "hullo!  I am a tank!" type targets vs "I'm looking for something green in a field of green." the thermal will tend to win, and the thermal equipped platform will shoot first, and given the nature of AT weapons kill first.  

 

Really the abject last thing you want to do against an Abrams if you're using Russian MBTs is get in a fight at ranges over 1 KM.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Thé Catherine FC is not able to detect and distinguish an M1a2 at 2.5 km ? But i agree it takes more time anyway and a 1 second difference is enough. 

 

From the manufacturer's specs, it will see something, but does not have the resolution to tell you quite what it is. Basically it'll need a bit longer to go from "there is something out there" to "this is a legitimate target" than the M1, while the M1 is more able to go from "I see something/I should shoot this" a lot faster.  It also helps that effectively with thermals that the M1A2 has two spotters with equally powerful optics, while the T-90AM does not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL at panzersaurkrautwerfer's post, You are telling me that at a open field 2-3KM away with 14X zoom with a thermal the Catherine-FC cannot identify a M1A2? It is reasons such as this I will not reply to your posts regarding the T-90.  :huh: I guess the T-90A  is meant to fight tanks at lower then 2KM when it has a ATGM with proven accuracy of 100% to 3 to 5 KM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did a quickbattle last night. A fight At close range, 300 meters and less... (Thank you terrain !) 7 T-90As veteran but -1 officer against a platoon of M1A2s with regular crews but +1 officers. The T-90As were attacking and they spotted the M1s that were stationary in some tree lines first most of the time and destroyed them.. Even with partial penetrations on the thick right and left front turret slabs (slightly off-center so the angle was close to 90 degrees). Result: 4 to 3 for the T-90As. So get close !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statements like this make me question your expertise tbh.  

http://www.defensa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10414:-buenos-resultados-de-las-pruebas-operacionales-y-de-tiro-en-peru-del-tanque-ruso-t-90s&catid=55:latinoamerica&Itemid=163

 

Spanish trials of the T-90S and you can question all you want I am not the one who believes the T-90A is a god, I know good as well that the M1A2 Abrams can destroy the T-90A just as the T-90A can destroy the Abrams. And not providing sources for all your claims is not expert. No offence to you by the way, I am in no way wanting to insult you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  Those aren't Spanish trails.  They're a tech demo the Peruvians ran.  It's not a realistic test, it was shooting targets in an empty desert under optimal conditions, nor is a total of six missiles a good sample size for performance.

 

2. I operated M1A2s for a while, and trained on both the M1A1HC and M3A2.  I'm pretty familar with what thermal optics are capable of.

 

3. This is what thales claims the Catherine can do:

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/catherinefc_uk_071005.pdf

You'll note the ranges listed, I have never claimed the optic could not detect (or "find") a target, the difference is the Catherine FC, its just in wFOV it doesn't have great resolution so a lot of things are going to look like a tank, and then at nFOV it's still going to have issues at 2.5 KM or so figuring out what its looking at.  I've used similar generation thermal optics, and that's about how it runs down.  The newer M1A2 optics are something else entirely, and I've located "hostile" tanks during training exercises by the glowsticks* strapped to their antennas at combat range.

 

 

*During night live fire training glowsticks are attached to the antenna, green and red so that an observer without night optics can figure out turret orientation at a glance.  The crew in question did not remove their glowsticks for a few days, and despite hiding behind a berm, I was able to figure out where they were hiding at range because of the glowsticks on their antennas were a different temperature than the air around them, and were slightly above the berm itself

 

This is not something a Catherine FC, or even earlier generation M1 is capable of in the slightest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the first time these issues have been raised.

 

As I said a while ago, engagement sequence in Russian MBT is as follows. Thermal, IR ,Dayoptic.

 

You look through thermal, oh there's thermal a return.

Can I see him with my IR optics, because they are slightly better than day optic in low light conditions. I can.

Can I see him with my day optic gun sight. I can.

Now I engage.

 

Accuracy with GLATGM will always be higher than gunnery, if your manually putting something onto the target around 100% is expected. You can guide it, duh. With regular gunnery on the move 100% accuracy is unexpected, I think that's where you might be mistaken. But firing GLATGM from stationary, yes that is feasible. If you cant do it right then your not doing your job properly and will be enjoying stint as driver mechanic for the next few weeks. All you need to do is fire and keep the aiming reticule on the target, and it is guided to its explosive end by the will of Putin himself.

 

BRM series requires an extra "crew" or team in its passenger slots to utilise the radar function.

Edited by Stagler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

while the Us tanker would spot it on thermals... identify it and engage it .. a faster time of 1-2 seconds is likely at range then ... seems reasonable and you see that in the game. I've had some success at ranges of 2-3 kms in the valley of death but my tanks were outnumbering the US by a factor of 4 .. even then the exchange ratio was 11-5 for the Abrams. Not something the Russians could substain for long. Like I mentioned earlier, my results at close range are much better (even when just considering who spots first) because then the russian commander sees the M1 .. tells the gunner who engage and shoot it without switching optics. Or the gunner himself detects it and snap engage. Less hesitation and delay because the optics are at that range more or less on equal ground.

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it would make sense to engage in this way because of the wider FOV and acquisition capabilities of the Sosna-U. The day sight has 12x magnification and the ranger integrated, so you then switch over to regular gunsight, which will already be layed in the rough direction by the FCS, and acquire, lase, then fire through the regular sight. It is only 10cm away from the thermal eye viewer.

 

How long is it taking spotting now? At night yes, it would be higher as he would switch to IR and search there. But daylight hours, process would not take so long. Its not like the gunner has to turn an extra turret to face the target, the thermal optic and gunner daysight are almost aligned anyway.

 

Spotting does need looking at in some respects, look at my BTR thread in the tech support section.

Edited by Stagler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the sort of resolution offered by a Catherine FC, yeah, in daylight he would.  Especially in "complex" environments with buildings and terrain more diverse than open desert, you're going to have a lot of material that radiates heat as the sun warms it, and at 2.5 KM it'll all look pretty similar even at nFOV or something.  You switch to daylight to verify that this is something that needs to be shot because it is much clearer.

 

The thermal imaging systems on the Abrams are advanced enough to do without the daysight verification, you just drop into whatever magnification you like shooting with (I used to dial it up for the commander's engagement because I wanted to be sure my crosshairs were dead-on, while my gunner stuck to the 12-16ish range because he'd grown up shooting from M1A1s and that's what he felt comfortable with) confirm target, and then let fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it would make sense to engage in this way because of the wider FOV and acquisition capabilities of the Sosna-U. The day sight has 12x magnification and the ranger integrated, so you then switch over to regular gunsight, which will already be layed in the rough direction by the FCS, and acquire, lase, then fire through the regular sight. It is only 10cm away from the thermal eye viewer.

 

How long is it taking spotting now? At night yes, it would be higher as he would switch to IR and search there. But daylight hours, process would not take so long. Its not like the gunner has to turn an extra turret to face the target, the thermal optic and gunner daysight are almost aligned anyway.

 

Spotting does need looking at in some respects, look at my BTR thread in the tech support section.

switching sights would reasonably require 1 second of time, this is one second too many when dealings with M1A2s because their gunners dont need to

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...