Bufo

It's pg.10, not pg.12.
And T-72 for sure had laser rangefinder. All t-72 family tanks have it, except for the very first t-72 of relatively limited production. All t-72 starting from t-72A were equipped with laser rangefinder.
By the time the doc was written the production of newer types were in full. 
 

Sure, every assessment could be criticized. But at least it's something to rely on. 
I guess if CIA document of such kind stated the inferiority of Soviet tanks quality, it would be universally accepted on this forum as a final and ultimate proof😄
I would like to see the credible document that proves that t-72 or any late Cold war Soviet tanks had problems with daylight optics. Still, I've seen none.

I don't seek out armor duels because they are a bit like tossing a coin, but they come up again and again. So I was interested to learn what I can do to maximize the chances for my tank in a duel if it gets into one.
So I put two identical Pz IVH (late) tanks with regular crews, no modifiers, against each other at 600 m range. I called one "Attacker" and the other "Defender", although it does not mean anything. I put both on a mild slope (partial hull down) and varied different conditions. Crew hatches open/closed, vehicle movement, terrain type, crew experience. I ran each case at least 1000 times and recorded the percentage of wins by each side. A 'win' means that the other vehicle was destroyed or the crew bailed out. If both vehicles were alive after 5 minutes, neither side won - usually one vehicle got hit and retreated back down the slope. If neither vehicle survived, both sides got a win.
The tables show the win rate on each side. The statistics were not perfect even with 1000 duels per case. Results of repeat runs could vary by up to +/- 3%. Notably I did not get a perfectly symmetric results even for reference cases R1 and R4 where the vehicles had identical conditions on both sides. So, don't take the numbers as the absolutely accurate truth. They just show what works.
Pz IVH was a good tank for this purpose because it can easily kill itself - powerful gun and vs weak armor. Therefore, the duels were mainly about who is able to spot first and land the first round accurately on target.
I did not find anything revolutionary - mostly stuff people already know and do - but it was still interesting to see the numbers. Here it is:
1. Keep your crew hatches open when expecting to fight an enemy AFV. If you can, force the enemy to close theirs.
Table 1. Effect of crew hatches open/closed. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
49%
49%
Closed
Open [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Open
Open
76%
21%
Closed
2. Minimize movement when within enemy LOS. Stop as soon as your vehicle can see the place where the enemy is (represented with the "Hull Down" command in the table below, which gives additional advantage of being harder to see and hit due to being hull down; this is not to say that the Hull Down command is always useable, but it worked here well because the Attacker was going up the slope). Movement makes you more visible - and it does not appear to matter what kind of movement command you use - in fact the faster movement commands seem to work a bit better.
Table 2. Effect of vehicle movement. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using different movement commands. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Hunt [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Stationary
Slow
35%
63%
Stationary
Move
39%
59%
Stationary
Quick
42%
56%
Stationary
Fast
41%
57%
Stationary
Hull Down
61%
29%
Stationary
Quick: Minimizes the time interval when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Therefore, Quick works well as it gets the attacker into position quickly, whereas Slow works poorly.
Hull Down: Better cover than the Defender and minimizes time when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Also: Easier to disengage when damaged – probably for both sides. High percentage of duels with no winner.
3. If you have to Hunt, point 1. about crew hatches still applies and can reverse the odds in your favor.
Table 3. Effect of crew hatches open/closed while the Attacker is moving. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using Hunt. The Defender is stationary. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
37%
60%
Closed
Open [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Open
Open
64%
34%
Closed
Closed
14%
82%
Open
4. Target arc can serve various purposes but does not help with seeing or hitting the enemy. TRP helps, likely by increasing the chances of a first hit.
Table 4. Effect of using Target Armor Arc and Target Reference Point (TRP). Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
No arc [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] No arc
Target Armor Arc
50%
49%
No arc
TRP on Defender
72%
28%
No TRP
Note: Target Arc can still help by pointing the gun and the Commander’s attention to the right direction if the vehicle is not moving directly towards the defender. Also, it prevents distraction of the Attacker by other, low-priority targets.
5. Ground type can provide some help by concealment. Tall types of grass (T and TY), Weeds, Brush, Lt Forest (without trees) and Crop 1 give a small advantage over hard or bare surfaces. Very tall types of crops (2-6) and Grass XT give significant advantage. There is no disadvantage in being on road or pavement compared to grass, but sand, mud and cobblestone seem to hurt a little, possibly because they lower the chances of disengaging when retreating in damaged condition.
Trees are complicated and depend on type. Type A trees are somewhat helpful if there are 2 or 3 on the tile. Type B trees are not helpful at all. Type C trees seem to be best, especially if there are 2 or 3. Type D trees are somewhat helpful independently on their number. Type E are like Type A. Bush does not make much of a change.
Stone and brick walls and low bocage give some advantage - can be concealment as well as cover. But bocage is the big one. A tank behind bocage almost always wins against a tank in open ground.
Table 5a. Effect of Defender ground type – bare surfaces, hard surfaces and roads. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass
45%
51%
Dirt
Grass
47%
50%
Dirt Red
Grass
49%
48%
Hard
Grass
50%
48%
Rocky
Grass
49%
49%
Rocky Red
Grass
52%
47%
Sand
Grass
52%
47%
Mud
Grass
50%
49%
Pavement 1
Grass
50%
50%
Pavement 2
Grass
52%
47%
Cobblestone
Grass
47%
51%
Gravel
Grass
46%
49%
Dirt Lot
Grass
49%
48%
Dirt Road
Grass
47%
50%
Gravel Road
Grass
51%
48%
Paved 1
Grass
48%
51%
Paved 2
Grass
47%
49%
Foot Path
Sand, Mud, Cobblestone (?): Can impair movement, possibly making retreat of a damaged vehicle slower and less likely to succeed before the Attacker fires another accurate shot.
Table 5b. Effect of Defender ground type – low vegetation and cultivated fields. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass
Grass
50%
47%
Grass Y
Grass
50%
48%
Clover
Grass
50%
48%
Flowers
Grass
49%
50%
Plow NS
Grass
50%
50%
Plow EW
Grass
43%
57%
Grass T
Grass
43%
55%
Grass TY
Grass
44%
54%
Weeds
Grass
44%
55%
Grass + Brush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
[R3] Lt Forest
Grass
42%
57%
Crop 1
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 2
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 3
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 4
Grass
40%
58%
Crop 5
Grass
39%
59%
Crop 6
Grass
38%
60%
Grass XT
Table 5c. Effect of Defender ground type – foliage. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass, no foliage
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
42%
54%
Grass + 3x Type A Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
46%
Grass + 2x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
47%
Grass + 3x Type B Tree
Grass
43%
52%
Grass + 1x Type C Tree
Grass
33%
62%
Grass + 2x Type C Tree
Grass
32%
62%
Grass + 3x Type C Tree
Grass
44%
52%
Grass + 1x Type D Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type D Tree
Grass
40%
55%
Grass + 3x Type D Tree
Grass
50%
47%
Grass + 1x Type E Tree
Grass
42%
55%
Grass + 2x Type E Tree
Grass
41%
55%
Grass + 3x Type E Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type A Bush
Grass
52%
47%
Grass + 2x Type A Bush
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 3x Type A Bush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
 [R3] Lt Forest, no foliage
Grass
44%
54%
Lt Forest + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
39%
57%
Lt Forest + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
37%
59%
Lt Forest + 3x Type A Tree
1x Tree: Can be detrimental because it does not provide enough concealment and can trigger APHE shells passing high, wounding the exposed Commander.
Table 5d. Effect of Defender ground type – walls and fences. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R4]
48%
51%
[R4] Grass
Grass
46%
54%
Grass + Stone
Grass
47%
52%
Grass + Brick
Grass
 
 
Grass + Rural Stone
Grass
43%
55%
Grass + Low Bocage
Grass
7%
89%
Grass + Bocage
6. Crew experience - there is a big change from Green to Regular to Veteran, but Crack gives little advantage over Veteran.
Table 6. Effect of crew Experience. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Green
33%
66%
Regular
Regular
36%
61%
Veteran
Veteran
44%
57%
Crack
Green
20%
78%
Veteran
Regular
32%
67%
Crack
Green
18%
82%
Crack

Once you notice it it becomes very obvious and in the modern titles id say it matter more.
Just ran a test with a german tank btl and information about a hostile tank was at the btls hq before it was at the platoonmates tank which is simply impossible irl given how the radios are set up. It still got there in a minute but it should have only taken a few seconds.

CMx3..next year in the holy land?

If you have a link to the pseudocode feel free to share it. Peeps here will appreciate it.

Canadian DLC confirmed

Canadian DLC confirmed

@The_Capt Can you please continue the phrase "t72 in the above-mentioned .btt scenario can't spot enemy tank in the open field during daylight at the distance of 2 km that is straight ahead of it because..."
Without going into generalisation about "spotting is hard", "thermals", "Soviet doctrine" etc.
Just concrete explanation of this particular case.
Thank you. 

In my experience unless you get unlucky with a first round hit (rare) they button up as soon as shots start landing or wizzing past.  Opening up has worked for me, but hey it is a risk to balance with poorer visibility while buttoned up…each to their own.

I believed the same but then I found a post from Steve:
"there is a bonus for spotting things within an Arc"
Also:
"The spotting bonus is only within the colored area of the arc. Outside of that there's no bonus."
Links:
 

I believed the same but then I found a post from Steve:
"there is a bonus for spotting things within an Arc"
Also:
"The spotting bonus is only within the colored area of the arc. Outside of that there's no bonus."
Links:
 

Spotting has always been at the crux of complaints around the CM games.  Its more the inconsistency in it and the fact that no one seems to really know how it works in detail.  I think the LOS scanning cycle is part of the perception issue.  I used to bump into issues infrequently where I could drive a Sherman right up to a Tiger and the Tiger wouldn't spot for a half a turn.  It doesn't happen often, but it happens.
Not sure anything can get at those infrequent outliers.  Steel Beasts, which I think represents cold war battles better than CM, has its own issues with insta-spotting of infantry and other things.  I do find it more consistent in its spotting, good or bad.  And it does some very good things around combined arms.  There is a wargame mode for it and its still my go to for cold war and near-modern tactical combat.

This is because the game uses an Intel GPU. If thats the only graphics card you have, then you are fokked, as theres no way to correct it, it has been a known issue.

I believed the same but then I found a post from Steve:
"there is a bonus for spotting things within an Arc"
Also:
"The spotting bonus is only within the colored area of the arc. Outside of that there's no bonus."
Links:
 

I believed the same but then I found a post from Steve:
"there is a bonus for spotting things within an Arc"
Also:
"The spotting bonus is only within the colored area of the arc. Outside of that there's no bonus."
Links:
 

Your unit would turn to face that direction making the center of the arc the new front facing.
Think about this: micromanaging arcs to improve spotting would create a game within the game that the AI cannot play at all.  Every one of you (except Sgt. Squarehead; he’s special) that believes arcs improve spotting is using your god knowledge of enemy unit locations to place narrow arcs on the locations of enemy units that you have knowledge of, but that the unit does not (if it had C2 knowledge it would receive a ? spot that would itself increase chances of spotting).  That is certainly a game to be played if it worked that way, but it is in no way realistic in overall outcome.

Yeah just as I thought so, the first to bring up SB as evidence would be also the first to dismiss it if it suited him.

Personally the US feels how it should. But the t64's legit cant see anything in front of them. Ive had M60 (A1?) on grishof spot vehicles deep in forests but my tanks are unable to spot HUGE m60s in the open. I would love to send people my save file. My entire match has been ****ed. 
Ive had better performance from t34/85. 
 
My post on the fgm with a few screenshots.. That was just 1/3 of the very odd spotting. 
 
https://thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/potential-issue-with-cmcw.33112/page-2

I am playing Grieshof Meet and Greet right now, I even posted on a different forum on just how bad the T64 spotting is. They cant see targets within 3-700m of them. But they can recieve fire. its so time consuming to document this so I am probably going to whip out my phone to record some video. 

Its not fundamentally broken but the examples do show that there are certain situations where the CM simulation doesnt match up to what you would expect.

I was talking in general. 

There is no need to make it personal. 
Can we look at the "RL data" that was used to make spotting system in CMCW the way that it is now? The thing is we don't know how spotting actually works in CMCW (beyond some vaguely phrased description). Nor we have any kind of real life data to support that your understanding is accurate. 
Well, @Haplessdid Youtube video recently using Steel Beasts to show how hard is to spot things from AFV. This video was highly acclaimed and received good reviews, it was even used to show me that I don't understand how tank spotting works. But apparently now it is wrong to compare CM and Steel Beasts.
But Steel Beasts and CM do have something in common. Both of them claim to be not just games, but simulators, e.g. they portray reality as close as they can. As you rightly said they both are used in military training. I don't compare Tetris to Diablo 2. I compare two AFV and ground troops tactics simulator. They both have common reference point - reality. 
What you are saying, I'm afraid, shows that you absolutely have no idea how Steel Beasts works. Vehicles in SB also have AI and spotting mechanics. As I said, 2 games have a lot in common, with Steel Beasts having tactical and personal - simulating crew members - layer that is lacking in CM.
The issue here is quite obvious. 
Both mission are created with ideal conditions - flat earth, daylight, the target is directly ahead. 
In Steel Beasts tank behaves very natural. It is pointed in the direction of the target from the very start, so it takes crew only 2 second to see tank in the clear daylight in front of them. Basically, it's the only thing that is there, nothing attracts their attention except of it. 
What happens in CMCW is absolutely counterintuitive and unexplainable. The tank also pointed in the direction of the target, it's flat earth, no obstacles, no smoke, nothing distracts the crew... But minute after minute goes by and nothing is happening. Why? How can you explain it? Are they sleeping? Are they arguing with each other? Why don't they look at their optics and see the first thing that is right in front of them - the enemy tank. 
I would like to hear your explanation of this particular situation. 

I guess it's much more simple than that.
It stems from the game design philosophy, e.g. how they percieve the world they create. The underlying proposition is that Russian AFV are inferior comparing to the Western. 
In game they have some sort if index or indexes that determines spotting abilities. 
They conceptually decided that - let's say - Russian AFV's spotting should be 40% of US. For example, Abrams has 100 spotting points and t90 - 40 points.
You may say that it's more complicated, that CM simulates different systems and subststems, which may be is true, but the baseline is that everything has some sort of quantative measurement.
In the end it leads to some buggy consequences, like Russian tanks are blind beyond 2 km range in CMCW. 

It doesn't require any additional evidence to understand that optics of Soviet tanks in late Cold war period could easily detect targets at 2 km distance during daylight under perfect weather conditions. 
In fact everybody can spot tank at 2 km in the open field using cheapest binoculars, not to mention tank optics that costs dozens or hundreds thousands in USD.