M1 Abrams currently with not APS?

[VladimirTarasov]

The imager is the important part, and the component that'll impact visual quality, acquisition range, and resolution while moving.  It'll be interesting to see what the Armata has if it ever comes to be a common tank, but given the state of Russian electronics there's reason to doubt it compares to the current generation elsewhere. 

 

But yeah.  I was on what is the current generation of M1A2 SEP v2s.  The main difference between them and the in-game ones is the ERA is a theater-equipped kit vs standard issue (basically the one part of TUSK that the M1A2 SEP didn't pick up), the data-link for rounds isn't a installed system, and the ammunition family is still the M829A3/MPAT/Cannister/ORD family vs the M829A4/AMP mix.

 

 

That sounds interesting, Would love to hear about your service in the tank forces, I am a tank nut myself and addicted to learning about tanks I was a ground troop at most, Although I have driven the BMD-2 and BTR-80 before. And yes, The imager is the most important for target identification and engagement, It boggles my mind how Russia just started mass introduction of thermals onto tanks in 2005, While the U.S. has been doing it since the 80s... But the tanks we had were for European standards, Mostly 1500 meter engagement ranges. At night operations the U.S. tanks clearly had advantages back then and still do in overall quantity and for now quality. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Topic

 

I started up the scenerio, haven't gotten too far in yet (there's a reason I tend to play quick battles, it's usually what I've got the 30-40 minutes for).  More results to follow, but just eyeing the terrain it's not the sort of stuff I'd want to fight an Abrams on.

 

Re: Tanking

 

I still technically am an Armor officer, although I've moved to the National Guard (which is its own odd Americanism).  I was only really a "tank*" officer for my initial officer training and the last two years of my active service.  As a new Lieutenant I trained on the M1A1HC, and the absolute baseline M3A2 (it had the armor upgrades to make it a A2, but did not have the LRF or any of the other Operation Desert Storm period upgrades), then spent a few years in an Cavalry squadron mostly doing Iraq focused counter-insurgency training/operations.  I did wind up being the Executive Officer for the one Cav Troop in our Squadron that was still training on Bradleys for one of our deployments though, so while I didn't get to play with them, I'm fairly well acquainted with the feeding and care of them.    Then I went off to some advanced training, and then spent some time in Korea working chiefly with M1A2 SEP V2s, including a stint as a company commander which frankly will likely be the "best" years of my military service.    I'm still in an "armored" unit in the National Guard but I now work at the Brigade HQ level (which shouldn't be confused with my being especially important, I'm simply now senior enough to be the small fish in a big pond).

 

*the various recon units in the US Army are part of the Armor branch.  While the enlisted and NCO personnel are their own distinct MOS and are generally not interchangeable without being retrained, the officer level leadership bounces between the armor and cavalry organizations.

[cool breeze]

Picture is worth a thousand words, so fire up the BF's very own Valley of Death scenario from the Red side. About 45 mins into it you'll most likely have several platoons of recon infantry, command elements, spotters, AT-14 team and about 15 T-90 barrels (with ample time to set up and stay still) positioned in the treeline about 1/3 across the map, with all the support vehicles parked in terrain dips behind the trees. AI appears to be herding Bradleys behind trees by the Blue starting area without much activity until Red enters the village and starts setting up there, that's when the cloaked death stars appear on the left side of the map and proceed to destroy those meticolously positioned 15 T-90s  without even having a courtesy to stop. There is plenty of time to set up the treeline ambush and let the whole Red formation rest and conceal for a while. In my game, a couple of radio equipped infantry teams got a spot on 2 M1s, but could not relay it to tanks sitting 20m away from them for several minutes). Towards the end of the massacre my reinforcing group of a 4 more T-90s managed to get a few shots off...which all missed....at a fairly comfortable 2km range (hence the modern fire control comment).

 

I reloaded and tried the another way of quickly surging my T-90s into the village instead of the failed medium-range ambush, so that I could position them on an incline, with guns facing right at M1s bellies at point blank range once the start rolling downhill. The surge worked; I even managed to get 3 platoons of infantry with BMP-3s on scene, loaded with RPGs and in buildings before M1s appeared. Result was about the same just at close range, with M1s happily rolling down the hill and 1-shotting my blind T-90s at point blank  range. Infantry, BMPs, T-90s all destroyed in several minutes of heavy cursing from my side.

 

 

You seriously don't think that about 100 eyes with binos and 15 sets of more-than-adequate thermals probing an open field 2km away from a concealed positions with sighted firearcs on a hot summer day  will have a serious spotting and firepower advantages  over a platoon of M1s rolling in blind? I've only used infantry tripod thermals once in 2005 (celebrity kit in the Canadian Forces), and on a +30C day nobody could make out coherent human shapes in a treeline 250m away without some very heavy coaching by the attached signals guy. Tanks have the more powerful stuff, but the amount of background noise would still be significant, especially at 2km, and those T-90s had 15-20 mins to cooldown their engines. Mk1 eyeballs should've been the primary spotting tool in such a scenario, with Infantry binos, especailly two recon platoons and a platoon worth of specialists and command elements worth, providing a serious advantage and not more static target dummies. I used to think that spotting was situational in this game, with maybe a slight advantage to the US side during daytime, until playing this scenario. At 3km+ and nighttime I would not argue a clear US advantage, but what transpired in Valley of Death just felt artificial. 

I played as the Russians  on this scenario a couple times and quite a few quickbattles, mostly vs. the AI.  I was using it to try to figure out how to take on the Abrams and Bradley at long range.  After a fair amount of "experimentation"  I came to the conclusion that that scenario and map give a terrible representation of Russia's abilities to take on the USA in that kind of scenario.  The main thing is that the attackers have better map position than the defenders.  The attackers are repeatedly coming online, all at once, all hulldown, all above the Russians, while the Russians are all not-hulldown, mostly on a forward slope maybe hiding in some tree cover but not very deep, and generally are being taken on piecemeal.  I think in the scenario its actually more than one platoon of Abrams, but either way the Bradley are quite potent with those big ranges.  I think the Abrams also have better crews, and each tank has an extra guy spotting in it.    Anyway I really don't think you should draw any conclusions about the Russians at long range on that map.  Besides the attacker having the better side of the river, the map is super narrow, so you don't get the flanking shots that are so helpful against the Abrams.  If I really want wreck some long range hurt of some Abrams and Bradleys   (modern day big game hunting) I load up the huge square-ish map with the swampy winding river in the middle

 

Just looked it up cause im so nice.

 

Huge Rough-Water-Town 3040 x 2000

 

this map has the long range but also has proper defender advantage with lots of great hull down positions and lots of chokepoints to defend from multiple angles, and did I mention wide enough to shoot from multiple angles?      I have a hard time putting a map like valley of death in a like context that makes sense to me.  like why is it so narrow why doesn't the stuff over there matter?  and why cant the defenders just start farther back where it is higher and hulldown?  I like maps that don't seem to be leaving out any important stuff.  Huge Rough-Water-Town does a great job of that, while I felt that valley of death did not.

 

 

And no offense intended to the maker of valley of death...  I do like it, you got me to play in quit a few times.  But I would like it better if another 100 or more meters were added on the back of the defenders zone to give hulldown positions. 

Edited July 3, 2015 by cool breeze

[sburke]

I'm still in an "armored" unit in the National Guard but I now work at the Brigade HQ level (which shouldn't be confused with my being especially important, I'm simply now senior enough to be the small fish in a big pond).

I don't think you should underrate your importance. Now get me a coffee and see that the head is wiped clean. I don't like messy stuff on my toilet seat.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I don't think you should underrate your importance. Now get me a coffee and see that the head is wiped clean. I don't like messy stuff on my toilet seat.

 

Head?  WHAT IS THIS MADNESS YOU SPEAK OF?

[antaress73]

I played that scenario )valley of death) against the AI as the Russians and I managed a total victory with the US force destroyed and lost 15 t-90 and three BMPs. And this was before 1.03 where relikt wasnt very effective ( it now is).

[antaress73]

And if the thermals are so inadequate at longer range why dont the Russians in game switch to day optics during the day ? That would make them less blind , a platoon of m1s in the open racing towards you would be spotted quickly on the panoramic day sight of the T-90AM .

[cool breeze]

Does anyone want to agree with me about Valley of Death being a hard map to defend on and kind of an easy one to attack on?  What about my assessment that Huge Rough Water Town  is a better balanced map to take on the USA at long range?

[BTR]

I did this a while back, and even though most of you read this, I got too lasy to include actual pictures I managed to dig up of how different sights actually looked from the operator's perspective. Sorry for those images being so small. They show what next-gen thermal domestic thermal optics (currently available) are capable of doing. 

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gfvptz_WOH8jLBMOaFk4CXWK05JWNXX1oFxBBwNknSw/edit

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Those aren't the actual images of what the imager is capable of though.  I mean I'm not doubting the capability "THIS IS IMPOSSIBRU!" or something, it's just the images appear to be something done up to show what a view through the imager might look like, but it looks like a Steel Beasts screenshot or something.

[cool breeze]

I also thought the pics were some kind of simulation of what it should look like, I mean it didn't look like a picture of a screen in the tank.  Of course that would give an unfair representation of the image quality in its own way, because it would then be double distorted,  picture of a picture.  But it also seems unfair to look at it blown up on my 40 inch or whatever this is HD tv, I don't think they have those in the t-90.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I also thought the pics were some kind of simulation of what it should look like, I mean it didn't look like a picture of a screen in the tank.  Of course that would give an unfair representation of the image quality in its own way, because it would then be double distorted,  picture of a picture.  But it also seems unfair to look at it blown up on my 40 inch or whatever this is HD tv, I don't think they have those in the t-90.

 

I've looked through a pretty wide range of thermal optics, and it's not really a good representation of what ANY thermal optic looks like.  I suggest it's simply a symbology illustration to show how the information is arrayed within the gunner's optic...but it's not really a good demonstration of what current Russian optics can do.

[BTR]

These are representative enough of FOV + distance of target recognition in *perfect* environment. They came from a manufacturer's presentation (marketing pitch). Perhaps the point I was making, is that T-90AM/T-72B3 don't quite spot as well as they should, but this has been said many, many times already.

 

For real pictures, Sosna-U 

Thermal

Edited July 7, 2015 by BTR

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Yeah.  That's going to be not that good in a complex environment.  You can only see "dark" objects because they're in front of lighter ones, the concrete and the parked vehicles are showing up about the same (like, on the Abrams there's a clear difference if you're looking at a vehicle or pavement simply because they're absorbing heat differently.

 

Is it "can't see a tank moving in an open field?"  Probably not.  But it might not be "find a target faster on a cluttered/very hot battlefield before it catches a sabot. Also given the level of magnification possible, and narrow FOV, there's a lot when looking through that level of optic that is "well heated rock" but at 10X or something might look like a tank halting to get off a shot at range.  This will compound the further away the target is.

 

 It also doesn't help that the tanks themselves were parked in a treeline.  Speaking from my happy tanking funtimes:

 

1. Hard ground is pretty much the one thing that'll effectively conceal you from Abrams type optics.  The more you can get behind a hill, the better.

 

2. Foliage is actually detrimental in my opinion. It is possible to put enough "green" in front of a tank to make it hard to acquire.  However all it takes is a thinner bunch of plants to still be seen....while the density of the concealment will usually block out most of the optics*

 

I don't know if that's simulated, but just my two cents there.

 

Either way presenting the earlier images as:

 

 

 

show what next-gen thermal domestic thermal optics (currently available) are capable of doing. 

 

Is dishonest, and a simply...it's not real.  It's fake pictures of a fake tank on fake terrain.  When speaking about systems this sort of mockup cannot be taken as a demonstration of any capabilities.  

 

*on a few occasions when playing OPFOR for my dudes, I parked the tank well behind some very dense ground cover.  I sat on the roof of the turret basically watching for movement as with that much concealment, neither my or the attacking force's optics could see through it, day or thermals.  Once it was apparent the attacking platoon had entered my engagement area, I hopped back in the tank, we gunned it through the thickets, exploding out on the flank of the attacking unit, where we basically did a one tank charge through the rear of their formation.

I wasn't being a dick, as much as trying to teach the super important lesson about why the wing tanks look to the flanks rather than everyone getting fixated on the objective.

Edited July 7, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[BTR]

Is dishonest, and a simply...it's not real.  It's fake pictures of a fake tank on fake terrain.  When speaking about systems this sort of mockup cannot be taken as a demonstration of any capabilities.

Fair enough. Maybe I should have phrased otherwise. Yet, these systems do exist with higher resolution domestic made matrices. I still think that marketing material represents FOV and is relatively representative of a system operating in perfect conditions. I have no idea how these systems will perform in a real fight because I have not used them or know anyone who has.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2015 by BTR

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Resolution isn't the only factor at play.  The sensitivity of the camera is a pretty big deal, and maintaining resolution "on the move" is something that historically has not been a strong point on Russian optics.

 

As far as the images shown earlier, not really.  It looks typical for a computer game/simulator, but even under highly optimal circumstance in the field, the image is just much too clean.  

 

It reminds me lots of the gunnery trainer graphics actually, which is not really a good standard to measure much by.  

 

Again, it'll be interesting to see what actually comes down the pipeline.  But the lack of information, and some historic official and unofficial optimistic estimates make it hard to give me some reason to adopt a much more conservative stance on capabilities.   

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Again, it'll be interesting to see what actually comes down the pipeline.  But the lack of information, and some historic official and unofficial optimistic estimates make it hard to give me some reason to adopt a much more conservative stance on capabilities

 

Dear god I need to proofread more.  I meant to say 

 

Again, it'll be interesting to see what actually comes down the pipeline.  But the lack of information, and some historic official and unofficial optimistic estimates gives me reason to adopt a much more conservative stance on capabilities.

[Stagler]

Dear god I need to proofread more.  I meant to say 

 

Again, it'll be interesting to see what actually comes down the pipeline.  But the lack of information, and some historic official and unofficial optimistic estimates gives me reason to adopt a much more conservative stance on capabilities.

 

Indeed, stuff shown but sadly not demonstrated at Army 2015 looked interesting.

[MikeyD]

CMBS was built in 2014 to depict a war in 2017, and will no doubt still be up for sale in 2020. Its rather like the movie 'Back to the future' in that way, the movie that traveled ahead in time aaaaaall the way to autumn of 2015!   Either they will have predicted correctly or they won't. But give 'em credit for trying. I remember in CMSF development they got late word of the Marines adopting the M32 multiple grenade launcher. They moved heaven-and-earth to get the weapon into the Marine module. Then after the module came out the Marines drastically scale-back procurement! Expletive expletive!!!!

[Stagler]

Well they can only be as right as their sources are at providing the correct information

[cool breeze]

Thanks for the pics BTR, I think those re exactly what we were looking for. 

 

panzersourkrautwerfer,  I think it should be remembered that those screens are probably a lot more readable in real life than this picture in a picture.  Our eyes are VERY  good at seeing things in a HUGE range of different brightnesses, while cameras need to pick an aperture setting and stick to it for the picture.  So the details in the dark and light areas on the screen are both washed out and harder to see than in real life.  with a camera you can only show the light or dark in good detail, not both.

Edited July 9, 2015 by cool breeze

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Stagler

 

If it makes you feel better I hold US hardware to the same standard.  I was forced to go to the 2012 Maneuver Conference and had nothing but eyerolls for half the hardware displayed.

 

Re:M32

 

Good old Marine revolutionary piece of equipment massively improve Marine Squad performance firepower dominance over all threats hey never mind we're not buying it.

 

 

 

 

I think it should be remembered that those screens are probably a lot more readable in real life than this picture in a picture.  Our eyes are VERY  good at seeing things in a HUGE range of different brightnesses, while cameras need to pick an aperture setting and stick to it for the picture.  So the details in the dark and light areas on the screen are both washed out and harder to see than in real life.  with a camera you can only show the light or dark in good detail, not both.

 

This is what a crappy photo of what a M1A2 SEP V2's CITV looks like:

 

Maginfication was kicked up to a lot (50X I think?), I forget the range (the indicated 1200 meters is because that's what the range input is if you haven't lased anything and the round selector is on Sabot).  Greater than a few hundred meters, shorter than 1.5 KM.  The white blob is from moisture between the protective outer screen and the inner screen frosting over because the tank itself was in South Korea in the dead of winter.  This is not a common fault, and once the tank warmed up the image cleared.

 

Camera was my iphone.  So that's a lot of the crappy image quality too.

You'll note the difference between optics however especially in sensitivity. The vehicle on the right is a K200 that had been parked for some time (note that the tracks are the same temperature as the rest of the vehicle, if it'd been driven the tracks would be much lighter from friction).  Also worth nothing is the clear difference in "high" points that have been slightly more heated than the rest of the vehicle due to sun exposure.  The big black space is basically flat snow cover, with the various other points being a mix of exposed grass or small crests catching more thermal energy.

The only real heat source in this photo would be dismounted personnel (guy in foreground, dude who's head is clearing the small mass in the background).  Contrast this to the Russian thermals which have well illuminated the heated cab  and wheels on the truck and such, but everything else is shades of dark.  Also shows you what a "real" thermal optic looks like vs the computer game type thermal images.

 

Talking about cameras and stuff, and the human eye is neat, but there's a clear difference in performance in what heat is being detected.  The Russian stuff looks very on par for 95-97 or so.  The more modern stuff might be more capable, but that the Catherine FC represented an improvement in functionality, opens questions to the maturity and viability of the various Russian purely domestic systems.  

[cool breeze]

Thanks panzersaurkrautwerfer point very well made, the picture you posted speaks volumes.  USA Thermals and image processing seem far better.  Still I think the point I made stands, the Russian imager would probably be easier to read in real life than it is in the pic.  And while your comparison photo certainly proves ours are more sensitive, the fact that the pic from the Russian one has a hot object while the pic you posted doesn't makes the exposure issue more pronounced in the Russian pic.  Now that we talked about al this stuff it would be interesting to see a pic from the russian imager when everything is cold

[Kieme(ITA)]

Thanks for sharing Panzer,

now it's time to open the door to those suits knocking...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Only thing I couldn't have shown you on a tank is the BFT display in operation.   I can't let you walk away with pieces of it, or pop open some boxes on it, but there's plenty of school children and exchange officers who've seen what I just posted.