Use and limitations of arty-dropped smoke

[Bahger]

I'm in the final mission of the tutorial and thinking about a mixed smoke/HE barrage on the objectives before I send my infantry over open ground.  However, can anyone confirm whether or not this will impede my own troops' ability to spot and aim?  I do not want my Bradleys and infantry to be blinded and I've got a sniper and grenade launcher team in the base of fire as well, so I do not want to score an own goal with the smoke!  Many thanks!

[womble]

I'd be surprised if your own smoke isn't multispectrum obscurant. The days of the Russkies not having enough IR to be able to cope in non-IR-proof smoke are gone. So yes, the smoke will blind you too.

[antaress73]

Artillery and mortar deployed smoke is not multispectrum blocking. It's good old WP. Only the vehicule's smoke grenades are IR blocking.

[Vanir Ausf B]

^^^ This

 

You should be fine, particularly since IR sights are ubiquitous in US forces.

[womble]

That seems a bit lacking, given the proliferation of IR gear.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It was discussed internally, and the best info that we came up with is that there is no multispectral smoke deliverable via indirect fire in the US, Russian or Ukrainian military. We know with near 100% certainty that the US doesn't have it. There are some "foreign" (I don't know the nationality) sources of artillery smoke that advertise themselves as multispectral, but our same source states that the US has tested them and found that they don't work any better than WP.

 

I was gobsmacked by all this, and also dismayed, but it is correct to the best or our knowledge.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[womble]

Oh, I'm certainly not challenging your research. Didn't mean to give that impression. I'm just surprised that no one, especially the US has managed to put the same gunk that's in the smoke dischargers into an artillery shell and make it work. Maybe it's just too expensive to use for anything except immediate protection of high-value assets like armoured vehicles.

[MOS:96B2P]

Artillery and mortar deployed smoke is not multispectrum blocking. It's good old WP. Only the vehicule's smoke grenades are IR blocking.

 

In the WWII titles I would sometimes use smoke to isolate OpFor positions.  I have not tried this in CMBS yet.  But if the OpFor can see through and into the smoke with IR maybe the isolation smoke screen tactic will not be as effective?  The game mechanics in the WWII titles would not allow for the firing through an established smoke screen.  (Unless the fire was established prior to the smoke screen.  Then the fire could continue until cancelled)  

 

Possibly another review of tactics due to the modern era.        

[Jammersix]

There are other reasons to use WP in mortar and artillery, the primary one being that you don't want to be anywhere near one when it detonates. Dropping WP on or near your own troops will get you fragged by those same troops. The smoke from a WP round was, in fact, originally a secondary effect. The fact that it does both is the reason real life mortars and artillery deliver WP.  Since vehicles probably are near friendly forces, WP suddenly erupting from a vehicle would be a Bad Thing.

[womble]

Sure, WP in your dischargers would be unwelcome, but they had ways around that before they developed the broad-spectrum obscurants now used there. Similarly, there are other ways of dropping a smokescreen, which have been used to effect in the past. Is WP a faster-developing screen than base-ejection? Does that advantage, plus the pyrotechnic/incendiary/chemical effect outweigh the disadvantage of having smoke the enemy MBTs (at the very least) can see through?

I ask in case someone knows and can enlighten me, not to challenge anything previously asserted.

[Jotte]

*deleted, posted in wrong thread*

Edited January 4, 2016 by TJT