Advances in Spotting

[dieseltaylor]

As a man totally ignorant of post WW2 army matters I was wondering on whether the technological advances over the past 70 years have actually made a significant difference.

For instance I assume now that all modern infantry have very very good binoculars at least. My little compact camera has an effective zoom of 17 but that is 2012 technology. Most of the guys who served in the military and are playing I imagine saw there service in the 70-90's.

This interest was sparked of by Ron saying the spotting seemed reasonably on but for non-military guys without experience .......

BTW does noise come into the game or RL - apparently the Germans always knew when American tanks were about as US drivers gunned their engines, conversely the German tanks were relatively quiet.

[Vanir Ausf B]

As a man totally ignorant of post WW2 army matters I was wondering on whether the technological advances over the past 70 years have actually made a significant difference.

Yes it has, particularly at night.

BTW does noise come into the game or RL - apparently the Germans always knew when American tanks were about as US drivers gunned their engines, conversely the German tanks were relatively quiet.

There are sound contacts in he game, which you would know if you played it. But AFAIK there is no difference in sound volume between different tanks.

[Michael Emrys]

But AFAIK there is no difference in sound volume between different tanks.

I wonder if there is between tanks and armored cars. I know that some if not most ACs were engineered to be quiet running.

Michael

[MikeyD]

I recall reading Leopard II crews need to wear special hearing protection due to the high noise level, no more mere beret and headphones. Swiss Leopard IIs have been fitted with humungous exhaust mufflers because the residents living around the bases just couldn't take the noise anymore. I guess the world champ for interior noise level might be Churchill. Imagine continually dragging mud-encrusted tracks over the top of the hull whenever you moved! :eek:

About technology. The Pentagon tried to field a high tech total integrated battlefield awareness system some years ago. It wasn't exactly a smashing success. High tech sensors and optic had a nasty habit of getting shot up, blown up or just plain breaking in Iraq. The supply chain was stretched to breaking just keeping the troops stocked with batteries. There's no doubt all sorts of exotic high tech stuff you can perform in the first month or two of a conflict before the fancy stuff all starts breaking on you. Then its back to the 'mkI eyeball' again

[Vark]

Don't forget the ever present drones and networking, what you see can be relayed to vastly more units than WWII.

I also think that basic techniques of observation and relaying it are far more standardised now. Reading some accounts of WWII, compared with today, you are struck by how ad-hoc and 'unprofessional' the approaches were, not surprising given the largely conscript nature of the soldiers involved.

[JasonC]

Information tech and night vision are the major advances. There are also portable rangefinders these days, an important advance. Modern scopes have larger tubes that collect more light and uniformly have clear, high quality glass. The best scopes did in WW II already (Zeiss e.g.), but not all did.

It isn't a matter of magnification, however. Once you go past about 7 times magnification, a man's hands can't hold the device steady enough to get a really clear view. At 10 times, the view is shaking, unless you have a bipod mount and a quite steady rest, prone and stationary, etc. You could give everyone 50 power field glasses effortlessly (think dime store telescopes for amateur astronomy) , they just wouldn't see anything through them but bouncing random jostle. Telescopes of that power need stabilized tripod mounts, etc.

[Vark]

Don't also forget TI can be used, in the daytime and conditions of reduced visibility, to help locate what would have been previously 'invisible' troops in concealed positions.

http://www.opticsplanet.com/thermal-imaging-vs-night-vision.html

Don't also forget the widespread use of laser indicators like the this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PEQ-2

Though it's 'invisibility' has been compromised by cheap digital cameras which can detect the beams.

[Erwin]

There may be something wrong with your shaky hands, Jason. I have a 10x and it's perfectly steady. (Wouldn't go bigger mag tho'.)

[Holman]

One big difference is maps. Most units today have the chance to study a highly detailed map of any area where they are operating, possibly one reflecting visible enemy positions as of a few minutes or hours ago. This goes for every soldier, not just officers, and some units might be able to consult those maps continually during the action.

In WW2, only officers had maps--static, large-scale, and often out-of-date ones. While not having a map doesn't change what an individual soldier can see with his eyes, it makes a big difference in orientation and understanding of what's over the hill.

In fact, one of the realism limitations of CMx2-WW2 is the player's perfect knowledge of topography.

[Wicky]

Just reading about this in the fascinating Spies In The Sky: The Secret Battle for Aerial Intelligence during World War II

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spies-Sky-Secret-Battle-Intelligence/dp/1408703629

As the Allied forces slogged their way up the Italian peninsula, forward APIS units helped in briefing local commanders. Before every assault, sixty photo-maps were produced for each division so they could be distributed to every company and artillery battery taking part in the assault. Mosaic photo-maps were made at a scale of 1:50,000, and more detailed mosaics of 1:10,000 could be made of areas of particular importance. This intelligence, combined with statements from prisoners of war, from ground observation posts and from any intercepted enemy communications, enabled divisional intelligence officers to build up a picture of the distribution of enemy forces ahead. It was reputed that an order from a German regimental commander was captured near the Sangro river in south-east Italy. It read: 'The enemy are taking air photographs every day so that they know as much about our positions as anyone of us. To reduce this leakage of information you must avoid making footpaths and you must carefully camouflage your positions. In particular, you must avoid exposing your bare backsides during the daytime as they would be clearly visible on the photographs and might pinpoint positions.' There is no evidence of PIs identifying enemy units from spotting their bare bottoms. But the order remains a good one, just in case.

[Badger73]

As a man totally ignorant of post WW2 army matters I was wondering on whether the technological advances over the past 70 years have actually made a significant difference.

<snipped>

Digressing somewhat, the technology and military science advances are almost overwhelming; from a focus on C2 (Command and Control) in WW2 to C5ISR (command, control, communications, computers, combat systems, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) today. Everything mentioned by others above plus the amazing information management systems fed by the new hardware tools.

[A Canadian Cat]

Drones are now used to "scout" ahead of your forces as well. So troops know if there are enemies on the other side of the wall, ditch, hill etc. before they even get into a position to get their own eyes on the area. Makes it easier to find the enemy if you know more or less where to look.

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting to hear what was available in WW2 Ital for planning. Is there some handbook on observational skills that has come out post war?

I have read an interesting anecdote of two US soldiers wandering down a road and stopping obliviously next to an Allied armoured car. One asked the other for a light and the armoured car commander chipped in to offer. : )

Here is some WW2 training vids

http://www.shotgunnews.com/2011/06/06/wwii-german-sniper-training-%E2%80%93-part-2/

[c3k]

One big difference is maps. Most units today have the chance to study a highly detailed map of any area where they are operating, possibly one reflecting visible enemy positions as of a few minutes or hours ago. This goes for every soldier, not just officers, and some units might be able to consult those maps continually during the action.

In WW2, only officers had maps--static, large-scale, and often out-of-date ones. While not having a map doesn't change what an individual soldier can see with his eyes, it makes a big difference in orientation and understanding of what's over the hill.

In fact, one of the realism limitations of CMx2-WW2 is the player's perfect knowledge of topography.

Germans heading East in the beginning of their invasion of the Soviet Union had EXTREMELY limited maps. Frequently the maps they did have, were wrong. Non-existant roads, etc., were a problem. Getting fast, radio-equipped armored cars out front were a necessity for navigation.

That lesson was retained by the Soviets. All maps were considered state secrets. Couple the lack of available maps with the need to get a pass to leave your city, and you quite effectively imprisoned your population.

GPS location, geo data bases, google earth, recce drones, real-time data, hyper-spectral scanning, networked forces, blue force location displays, satellites, night vision, magnified optic gunsights on EVERY weapon.

THAT'S sci-fi in real life.