Vanir Ausf B

“TIM1500 is the longest-range uncooled imager in service on remote weapon stations" http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=1051 It would be nice to find some real numbers for range to enable apples to apples comparisons, but my Google Fu has failed.

I have finally got some time to look into this. Despite being an uncooled device it is not clear to me that the TIM 5000 is necessarily less capable than the Catherine FC. It does have a lower resolution, but it sees further into the infrared spectrum than the Catherine FC and has a more powerful zoom. Catherine FC Spectral Band: 8-12 μm Field of view (FOV): Wide FOV : 9° x 6.7° Narrow FOV : 3° x 2.2° Electronic zoom (x2) : 1.5° x 1.1° Image resolution: 754 x 576 TIM 1500 Spectral band: 7.5 - 14 mm Format 640 x 480 28 mm pitch Field of view (horizontal) Wide 10.1°; Narrow 3.3° Electronic zoom 2x, 3x, 4x

My impression is that BFC feels that they have already tried appealing to the mainstream via advertising and retail sales and it didn't work out. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/109837-yippeeeeeeeee/?p=1449206 http://community.battlefront.com/topic/99260-what-i-think/?p=1300438

This is why they're not in the game:

They appear to be to a small extent, but the difference between vehicles with and without Javs is small. I think most of the cost of Javelins is in the infantry price itself. I assume they are, but US thermal sights for infantry are not working properly right now. That will be fixed in the next patch, hopefully. There will also be some significant changes in QB prices.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-244.html Good discussion about this. Look specifically at post #3657 T-72B(M)/T-90 is 540mm vs. HEAT. http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html I have never seen a Javelin fired in direct attack mode in the game. I have no idea how antaress73 is getting them to do that. It's not like there's a direct attack mode command. The only time I have seen a Javelin hit the hull of a tank was when fired at very short range, like 100 meters, so didn't have the distance to climb to altitude.

I don't think there are any vehicles in Black Sea that carry smoke munitions.

T-72/B upper hull without ERA is 510mm vs HEAT. And keep in mind that is line of sight resistance. A Javelin will be striking it at a steep angle, negating much of the slope.

It will be in the next patch, but not just for the US. The other option is to just ban US APS. It's presence is speculative anyways.

AFAIK there is no publicly available fixed version of that map. One of the posters in that thread edited a different bridge into the map for his own use (post #15) but he didn't make it public.

Dubya's policy was to get thousands of Americans killed and maimed with little to show for it. What has Obama done to top that?

Keep in mind that in the next patch US Excalibur rounds will have their precision slightly downgraded.

No problems so far on Windows 7-64 bit.

Battlesighting and "lasing off" were discussed during development, the concepts being close to what panzersaurkrautwerfer wrote. They didn't make it into the base game but I have a strong feeling it's not a dead topic

And with the latest FCS the accuracy claim is suspects as well. At least within Black Sea, first shot sabot accuracy for all tanks is 90+% at 2000 meters (assuming stationary shooter and target).

Whoa, lay off the ethnic slurs, eh?

1) What Sublime said. Spotting isn't automatic. Sometimes units are unlucky. 2) No idea. You would have to post a save game file 3) Tanks in CMBB retreated more readily than in CMRT. 4) The skirts are not just cosmetic. The tanks really are more vulnerable to AT rifles where they are missing. 5) I don't know.]

Apologies if I misunderstood. It sounded to me like you were driving the vehicles until they were barely in LOS and then stopping them immediately. Anyways, I grew weary of deciphering other people's tests and did my own. BMP-3M vs Stryker M1126. Both have 2 man crews, both have a thermal imager on the gunner's sight. The moving vehicles top a rise 800m in front of the stationary ones. Quick and dirty; no spotting times, just who spots who first. 50 iterations each way. BMPs moving Stryker spots first: 45 BMP spots first: 5 Stryker moving Stryker spots first 19 BMP spots first: 30 1 draw Bottom line is that Black Sea assumes US sights to be more capable than Russian, and I have yet to see any convincing evidence to suggest that is incorrect. The degree to which they are better is debatable and I am not going to claim that this early version of Black Sea has it nailed at the outset. This sort of thing is difficult to quantify and usually boils down to people's gut feelings. Tweaks may be made. But I also think we should put to rest the charge that stationary Russian units are routinely spotted first by moving US units, at least in cases of both having similar types of sighting devices. But if it's an older Russian vehicle that doesn't have a thermal imager and it's raining or foggy it may be time.

If you are using the stock version of MG Counterattack at Son note that there is a problem with one of the bridges that can break the scenario. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111514-counterattack-at-son-bailey-bridge-problem/?hl=counterattack

Someone actually downvoted my post at the top of the page. LOL. Hilarious.

As I suspected, you are not really testing moving vs. stationary, you are testing stationary vs. stationary. If the units stop moving as soon as they enter LOS of the enemy the movement is irrelevant. In order to test moving vs. stationary the moving units must move around while in LOS of the enemy, and I don't mean for 1 or 2 seconds. Units in Combat Mission do not spot continuously, they spot in intervals of varying length but usually 3 to 7 seconds. A vehicle can cover a lot of ground in 7 seconds. If a unit is very unlucky and fails its spotting check on the moving target it has to wait for the next spotting check, during which time the moving tank covers a lot more terrain. This is why you occasionally see vehicles suddenly appear in open ground or not getting spotted at all while traversing that open ground in LOS of your units. It's an unfortunate artifact of how spotting works in the CMx2 engine, it's not because of 'MURICA. If I am reading this correctly you are the most unlucky Combat Mission player in the world, narrowly beating out Stagler. I have spent a disturbing amount of time watching T-90AMs and Abrams tanks spot each other in various tests. A T-90AM will often spot a stationary Abrams at 2000 meters in less than one turn. For an Abrams to drive around in full view of 3 T-90s at 500 meters for 2 turns without being spotted is... extraordinary. I would bet money that if I designed a test duplicating that situation and ran it 1000 times the Abrams would be spotted in 999 of them.

I generally try to encourage people to test things when they have questions about game mechanics, but I don't think nuzrak's tests show anything. What does "BMP-3M moving into the LOS of static M2-A3 in open ground" really mean? If the moving units are stopping the instant they move into LOS of the stationary units then the movement is irrelevant. If they are moving while in LOS of the enemy then the distance and speed need to be known. The results are further compromised by the separate commander not effectively communicating with the crew, a known issue.

I don't think he said that. "The NAF quickly redeployed the GRU Spetsnaz into Logvinovo, which met the strike of the unblocking group that tried to recapture Logvinovo and unblock the road."

The Abrams has a very thick forehead Abrams LOS resistance is over 900mm on the front turret side panels. 3BM42M/3BM44M Mango is a mid-80s projectile that only penetrates about 500mm at 2000 meters so it would have no chance. Good luck with that! They don't even tell us beta testers.