Abrams laser warning receiver

[Nefron]

It is my understanding that currently there isn't a variant of Abrams equipped with a laser warning receiver. The developers obviously predicted such a potential development like with the APS, but what I don't like is that every single tank has those. Why not add separate variants, like with APS?

With all the talk about dealing with the superior Abrams spotting, I think that the lack of LWR would offer some really interesting tactical options. For one, it would be that easier get the first shot off despite the sensors disadvantage by setting up proper ambushes. Right now even if you do position your forces that they spot first, the tank disappears in a cloud of smoke very quickly. Without that problem Kornets would become pretty deadly. 

The LWR is like the only advantage that the T-90A has over Abrams, and I find that dissimilarity very interesting. It obviously reflects a difference in thinking of those responsible: the Russians thought it was important enough to spring money for such a system, the US did not. Having that difference in the game would make it feel more authentic in my opinion.  

Edited October 10, 2015 by Nefron

[akd]

 

The deployment of, and design requirements for, laser warning sys- tems intended for ground-vehicles has also evolved over the years. ISR Systems’ AN/VVR-1 laser warning sys- tem has been tested and incorporated on vehicles such as M-1 Abrams tank and the M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. This was improved with the subsequent AN/VVR-2 version that incorporated a single, mast-mounted sensor, and again with AN/VVR-3 which added a beam- rider detection capability. 

 

 

http://www.excelitas.com/Downloads/ARTICLE_JED-12-2013.pdfhttp://www.excelitas.com/Downloads/ARTICLE_JED-12-2013.pdf

So off-the-shelf systems are available, and various ECM equipment is not really tied to the vehicle variant, but needs of the theatre.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2015 by akd

[Nefron]

I know, like APS. Still, there should be different variants available in the game if it's not the norm. 

There is a reason that the Russians have these as standard equipment, and the Americans never used them. I'd like that difference highlighted.

And to be clear, this is not a nerf plz thread. I have no issues with say, the American ability to call down artillery with every single unit, if that corresponds to the way things are done in reality. 

[akd]

No, the APS on US and Russian tanks is much more speculative, e.g. the APS system for the T-72B3 has only been shown as a mock-up, no APS has been made for T-90AM (T-90SM), and although some back-end integration work has supposedly been done, Trophy has not been tested on Abrams or Bradley.  APS is definitely at a different level than off-the-shelf, type-classified LWR.

[Nefron]

Anyway, I think modeling those differences would make the game that much interesting. 

The way things are right now, we don't have a current version of Abrams properly modeled in the game. It would be fun trying to exploit that disadvantage. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have previously stated my support for non-LWR versions of US vehicles, but that question will be of lesser importance when/if some issues involving the behavior of LWR-equipped vehicles get ironed out.

[Nefron]

It would be pretty trivial to implement though, I see no reason why not.

[Bud Backer]

It is an interesting, and to me, reasonable suggestion. Vanir has a good point, but as you say, the option isn't a crazy one to offer. 

[akd]

Well, an "as is" option with both ERA and LWR removed could probably have value, but picking out a version without LWR on its own is probably not worth it.  Adding separate versions is not as simple as you think and can lead to some serious bloat.

[Nefron]

Yeah, that would probably be the best. Since we can play Ukrainian and Russian tanks as they are right now, I see no reason why Abrams should be any different. 

It would be really interesting to see if Abrams would still dominate as much if Russian tanks could effectively get the drop on it. 

[slysniper]

Don't you understand, the game is really a high level propaganda machine.

It is to create fear in the Russian mind, there cannot be a tank the reflects the present real ability 

[VladimirTarasov]

Don't you understand, the game is really a high level propaganda machine.

It is to create fear in the Russian mind, there cannot be a tank the reflects the present real ability 

Truely you are correct, I am very scared of American tonk  

[LUCASWILLEN05]

What annoys me about the the laser warning system is the way the crew always reverse back into cover as soon as the warning goes off. It has reached a point where I just don't want to send tanks forward any more, just putting them on overwatch positions (even that is not foolproof) and sending ATGM armed infantry in ahead to dispose of those pesky Russian T-90s. Sorry Vladimir Tarasov! 

[VladimirTarasov]

It is okay I am defecting to the US armored corps, I wan't to be in the Abrams from now on.  But seriously I see great potential in this game and I can't wait for future expansions and patches that will hopefully fix some stuff. And BTW I didn't know that M1 tanks dont have LWR, Made me feel proud of our T-90As for a second  

[John Kettler]

LUCASWILLEN05,

If you're going to advance your tanks and anticipate you'll be lased, then you must move at Fast, for this will prioritize movement over immediate retreat. I can say from experience the Abrams at speed is a deadlier threat than most tanks in the game are while static, though the T-90AM is a fine run and gun platform, too. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[slysniper]

What annoys me about the the laser warning system is the way the crew always reverse back into cover as soon as the warning goes off. It has reached a point where I just don't want to send tanks forward any more, just putting them on overwatch positions (even that is not foolproof) and sending ATGM armed infantry in ahead to dispose of those pesky Russian T-90s. Sorry Vladimir Tarasov! 

Or do what I do, just make sure to run the smoke out of the tanks that you want to move up and fire with. Once they cannot pop smoke, they do much better at returning fire, even if they do reverse. I hate to say it, I intentionally waste smoke in a few tanks early just so I know I will get them ready to be my units that I can move up and get them returning fire.

[Nefron]

See? Even the NATO capitalists want an Abrams without a LWR.

[c3k]

Lol!

This game uses "reasonable" projections of future capabilities. T-90 with active defense is one such projection. As is Abrams with APS and LWR. There is no conceivable scenario which would pre-suppose "stripped" US units would be put in-theater. All units would get all upgrades. Although the peacetime US procurement system moves at a snail's pace, in war, innovation and quick fielding has been a hallmark of the deployments, thus far. I see no reason why that would change.

The US Army is currently working on 60-100kW solid-state lasers. 2017-2022 field trial times are trotted out. (Optimistic IMHO, but the capability exists. Similar to Patriots vs. Scuds in GW I.)Should the game include US Army ADA using lasers to zap those pesky Russian drones and mortar shells? I think folks concerned with LWR on Abrams would have their heads explode if lasers were put in the game. (Of course, that could just be the laser targeting them....) I'd love a Laser Tank.

Currently, I can buy a directional LWR for my car for a few hundred dollars. It is trivial to have similar systems added to Abrams.

Ken

Edited to add a timely news story: http://aviationweek.com/technology/inside-lockheed-martin-s-fiber-laser-weapon?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20151012_AW-19_202&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001567309&utm_campaign=4032&utm_medium=email&elq2=84e8856bc6af49dd9e7ae79e88361135

Edited October 12, 2015 by c3k

[LUCASWILLEN05]

John Kettler and Slysniper I will give your suggestions a try but given the terrain and lethality of ATGM weapons falling back on late WW2 tactics, sending infantry ahead of the tanks to identift and beutralize the threats seems likely to yield the best resultsUsing smoke (where available) and fast movement rates from cover to cover when the tanks need to move probably helps on a battlefield of this lethality.

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Lol!

This game uses "reasonable" projections of future capabilities. T-90 with active defense is one such projection. As is Abrams with APS and LWR. There is no conceivable scenario which would pre-suppose "stripped" US units would be put in-theater. All units would get all upgrades. Although the peacetime US procurement system moves at a snail's pace, in war, innovation and quick fielding has been a hallmark of the deployments, thus far. I see no reason why that would change.

The US Army is currently working on 60-100kW solid-state lasers. 2017-2022 field trial times are trotted out. (Optimistic IMHO, but the capability exists. Similar to Patriots vs. Scuds in GW I.)Should the game include US Army ADA using lasers to zap those pesky Russian drones and mortar shells? I think folks concerned with LWR on Abrams would have their heads explode if lasers were put in the game. (Of course, that could just be the laser targeting them....) I'd love a Laser Tank.

Currently, I can buy a directional LWR for my car for a few hundred dollars. It is trivial to have similar systems added to Abrams.

Ken

 

One wonders whether it wuld be possible for the system to be fitted to all AFVs at the start of a conflictand to what extent this could keep up with losses. Bear in mind that the conflict portrayed in game developed at quite short notice although the warning signs were there of a possible war. I think it more likely, at lleast in the early days, that some units would have the capability, others woul not. However, towards the end  of the war more units would have the capability deployed than those without as you suggest

[sburke]

 

Currently, I can buy a directional LWR for my car for a few hundred dollars. It is trivial to have similar systems added to Abrams.

Ken

Does your car pop smoke and reverse a lot?

[c3k]

Does your car pop smoke and reverse a lot?

Alas, yes. Far too often, and like the in-game Abrams, rarely when I want it to.

 

:)

[MOS:96B2P]

What annoys me about the the laser warning system is the way the crew always reverse back into cover as soon as the warning goes off. It has reached a point where I just don't want to send tanks forward any more, just putting them on overwatch positions (even that is not foolproof) <Snip> 

Have you experimented with the Pause command?  I don't do this very often because I am afraid of losing a tank but...........  If you give a tank the Pause command and it has good morale I think it will mostly stay in that position until the Pause time expires.  You can also have it permanently paused and it will stay until you un-pause it.

Of course the downside is that the laser warning is going off for a reason so if the tank does not reverse it may get hit .......................... but if you are in a situation where it is worth the risk the Pause command may work.  Good luck with that. 

 

[Nefron]

Lol!

This game uses "reasonable" projections of future capabilities. T-90 with active defense is one such projection. As is Abrams with APS and LWR. There is no conceivable scenario which would pre-suppose "stripped" US units would be put in-theater. All units would get all upgrades. Although the peacetime US procurement system moves at a snail's pace, in war, innovation and quick fielding has been a hallmark of the deployments, thus far. I see no reason why that would change.

That is all OK. However, we can play with Ukrainian and Russian tanks as they are right now. They didn't magically upgrade all T-90s to the best in game variant.

 I see absolutely no reason not to have that with US tanks as well. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

That is all OK. However, we can play with Ukrainian and Russian tanks as they are right now. They didn't magically upgrade all T-90s to the best in game variant.

 

All the tanks minus the T-90A and T-64BV are somewhat future/counter-factual tanks.  M1A2 is pretty modest as nearly everything missing from the current batch of M1A2s in service is either in service, but not often mounted (like the LWS or ERA), or is near-term on the horizon upgrades (like the ammo and ammo datalink).  Contrasted to the T-90AM and the various Ukrainian late model tanks, it's pretty much stone sober realism.  

 

However I would like to have a sort of "tanks of 2014" module that is just the as of December 31st 2014 what the various vehicles of each nation looked like (either things like the Abrams with only its modern set of equipment, or the inclusion of the much less modern Russian armor that still makes up a fairly big chunk of their inventory).

Battlefront did a good job with keeping the future systems only between "very likely" to "modestly optimistic" for CMBS though.  Abrams is a good example of the "very likely" stuff.