Russian Optics and Spotting in general

[agusto]

Yeah 1 km is very close for the Khrizantema. At that range tanks are better for fighting the M1A2 in my experience. With the Khriz, you want to be 2,5km away from the target, in hull down and hidden in a treeline. Then the Khriz is a really, really effective Abrams killer.

[Kraft]

It's pretty hard to find a map that offers 2.5km of LOS wide enough to allow ATGM fire on a position that is going to feature enemy armor, even on huge maps. I'll redo the test with 2km. I'm not after a "realistic scenario" but what I can expect while playing BS on large & huge maps

 

 

not a big sample but eh, enough for me to judge this vehicle 

 

open, flat, everything normal yadda yadda

M1 APS- 20

Kh - 0

Kh spotted first but died while 9M123s still in the air- 9

 

open, flat, normal etc but this time Kh being in "light forest" terrain and 1 "Tree H" per tile

M1 still in the open

Kh still has full LOS on the M1.

 

M1 APS - 19

Kh - 1

Kh hit but did not kill and died in return - 1

 

The amount of Kh being killed without even getting a ? spot has increased noticeable but I did not counted it, several times even when the M1 missed it Kh still did not spot the M1

 

No target arc used - might be a game changer for both. Maybe I'll try it again with hull down tomorrow

I'm pretty confident that if I turn the M1 90° the Kh would hit almost always hit first but try getting a 2km flank shot in a pbem

Edited March 6, 2015 by Kraft

[Vanir Ausf B]

When fighting M1A2s, you should use your T-90s in the same manner as you would use your M4 Shermans when fighting Tiger I tanks. Another tip: dont try to frontally penetrate the Abrams' frontal turret armor at more than 500 meteres. I dont have any hard data available, but in my experience the best thing you will get at more than 500 meteres is a partial penbetration. At 1000m you probally wont do any damgage at all.

 

All Russian tanks in-game can penetrate the Abrams frontally to at least 2000 meters. It all depends on hit location. Specifically, the lower hull, the gun mantlet and the small recessed area below the mantlet are vulnerable.

[nuzrak]

Unfortunately I don’t have much time this week to look into this any further but I did get time to run another quick test based on some of the suggestions in the thread.

 

I basically re-ran what I did before but this time with a BMP-3M (with an infantry command element aboard) v Bradley M2-A3

 

I only ran this test 10 times each way, so it’s not definitive by any means, but this is what I found.

 

TEST 1 - M2-A3 moving into the LOS of static BMP-3M in open ground with infantry command unit aboard at approx. 100m (10 runs)

 

Bradley Deaths

1 x KIA (BMP not spotted and no return fire)

2 x Smoke released then when smoke cleared KIA (did not reacquire  BMP)

1 x KIA after exchange of fire (Bradley fired first – BMP Immobilized)

 

Spotted BMP x 9

 

BMP Deaths

6 x KIA (No return fire – 4 x of these the Command squad spotted Bradley but BMP crew did not)

 

BMP crew Spotted Bradley x 4

 

TEST 2 - BMP – 3M moving into the LOS of static M2-A3 in open ground, approx. 100m (10 runs)

 

Bradley Deaths

2 x Smoke released then KIA (This is not a good test (My bad) as Bradley moved forward due to rear map edge) did not reacquire LOS on BMP

1 X KIA after spotting and firing first on BMP! What’s interesting here is that the BMP lost its Optics and Constellation array before returning very accurate fire to KIA the Bradley!

 

BMP Deaths

7 X KIA ( 4 X of these command unit spotted Bradley but not the BMP)

 

 

So as small a test as this is and consequently not conclusive, I’m still seeing something similar to the 100 runs I did earlier in the week with assorted vehicles.

The command unit in the BMP definitely spots faster than the BMP crew, so that assumption does seem to be correct, but it equally doesn't matter because the information is not passed to the BMP crew and the BMP continues toward the Bradley blind to its existence.

 

So does this prove anything or just add more confusion?

 

It's too small a test so actually I’m not really sure.

 

The KIA results in and of themselves do not seem unrealistic in such confined parameters IMO taking into account the capabilities and roles that these two vehicles are designed for.

But that said, the spotting itself still seems a little off to me. Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that being mobile or static seems make little difference on the way that either vehicle spots and their reaction times; which is a huge tactical advantage to the US.

I can accept that the Russians might not react as fast due to inferior technology and perhaps even training, but I just don’t buy that they routinely would fail to even spot an enemy vehicle in the forward arc of their BMP at 100m!

 

So my questions are the same as they were in the original post.

 

1)Is what I’m seeing an accurate depiction of the technological differences between these nations optics and comms systems as we believe they will function in 2017?

 

Or

 

2)Is there actually an underlying issue in the way spotting is functioning for the Russians given their different types of tech and does something need to be dialed up or down?

 

I know you guys at BFC are very busy, but it would be nice to get someone with some idea of how the underlying code works to comment on this as it does seem to rear its head with each iteration of the engine!

[AttorneyAtWar]

So as small a test as this is and consequently not conclusive, I’m still seeing something similar to the 100 runs I did earlier in the week with assorted vehicles.

The command unit in the BMP definitely spots faster than the BMP crew, so that assumption does seem to be correct, but it equally doesn't matter because the information is not passed to the BMP crew and the BMP continues toward the Bradley blind to its existence.

 

So does this prove anything or just add more confusion?

 

 

Yeah I had the same problem with Russian reconnaissance infantry in Tigr's, they spotted a Ukranian BMP at the end of the road while in the Tigr passenger seats, but the gunner or driver were completely unaware of it. This is very silly, because the gunner if anything should have way better LOS from the top of the vehicle rather than the infantry sitting inside. It took two turns for the gunner/driver of the Tigr to finally spot it, instead of just the passengers.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Raptorx7

[Vanir Ausf B]

Not at all, T-72B3 is inferior to T-90A.

 

BMP-2M has better gunner optics than basic model BMP-3, on par with BMP-3M which is the most proliferated Russian IFV ingame.

If i was talking about least capable systems, I would mention the MTLB.

 

Cheers to Vanir for doing the maths. TI on gunner position on Stryker should be at least on par with gunner position in BMP-2M and anything with the same gunsight. We can see that its slightly off there. Should be more ties, and less of a lean infavour of the Stryker imo.

 

Something to keep in mind is that one of the changes from CMSF to Black Sea in how vehicle optics work is that thermal imaging systems -- FLIR -- are much better at spotting than day/night sights. In CMSF TI sights just let you see through normal smoke but were otherwise treated the same as any other day/night sight. Also note that, to the best of my knowledge, the Black Sea code draws a distinction between thermal intensifiers that see in the near infrared spectrum -- smaller, cheaper, not cooled -- and  thermal imagers , i.e. FLIR, that see into the mid to far infrared spectrum and are larger, more expensive and are cooled. The former are considered to be day/night sights and not in the same category as FLIR.

 

To the best of my knowledge the BPK-3-42 gunner's sight on the BMP-2M is a thermal intensifier. The fact that it has a passive range of only 800 meters is strongly suggestive. That means that in the Black Sea code it is not on-par with the Stryker gunner's thermal channel nor with the Vesna-K gunner's sight on the BMP-3M which by way of comparison is a FLIR with a passive range of over 4000 meters.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[agusto]

All Russian tanks in-game can penetrate the Abrams frontally to at least 2000 meters. It all depends on hit location. Specifically, the lower hull, the gun mantlet and the small recessed area below the mantlet are vulnerable.

 

Hmm. I cant remember even a single penetrating hit vs. an Abrams at ranges in the 1km + range. Recently i had a game where 2 platoons of T-90s were slugging it out with a platoon of Abrams tanks at roughly 1500 meters. All the T-90s were destroyed but not a single M1A2. After the battle i took a look at the Abramses and all that my T-90s could do was degrade some subsystems. On the other hand, after i started to avoid long range fights against Abrams tanks in subsequent games and started to engage them at ranges between 250 and 500m, i found myself able to destroy Abrams tanks with reasonable success. I know, i know, "anecdotal evidence" etc, but i still have the impression that sending a T-90 to attack an M1A2 at 2km range is a really, really bad idea. It seems to be at least very unlikely to hit some of the soft spots on the Abrams frontal armor. It is not that i dont believe you saying that penetrations at 2km are possible, i just havent seen any yet.

Edited March 6, 2015 by agusto

[Vanir Ausf B]

TEST 1 - M2-A3 moving into the LOS of static BMP-3M in open ground with infantry command unit aboard at approx. 100m (10 runs)

Vehicles with 2-man crews that have a passenger sitting in the commander's seat are presently suffering from poor communication between commander and crew. The next patch should fix this.

[Stagler]

Unfortunately I don’t have much time this week to look into this any further but I did get time to run another quick test based on some of the suggestions in the thread.

 

I basically re-ran what I did before but this time with a BMP-3M (with an infantry command element aboard) v Bradley M2-A3

 

I only ran this test 10 times each way, so it’s not definitive by any means, but this is what I found.

 

TEST 1 - M2-A3 moving into the LOS of static BMP-3M in open ground with infantry command unit aboard at approx. 100m (10 runs)

 

Bradley Deaths

1 x KIA (BMP not spotted and no return fire)

2 x Smoke released then when smoke cleared KIA (did not reacquire  BMP)

1 x KIA after exchange of fire (Bradley fired first – BMP Immobilized)

 

Spotted BMP x 9

 

BMP Deaths

6 x KIA (No return fire – 4 x of these the Command squad spotted Bradley but BMP crew did not)

 

BMP crew Spotted Bradley x 4

 

TEST 2 - BMP – 3M moving into the LOS of static M2-A3 in open ground, approx. 100m (10 runs)

 

Bradley Deaths

2 x Smoke released then KIA (This is not a good test (My bad) as Bradley moved forward due to rear map edge) did not reacquire LOS on BMP

1 X KIA after spotting and firing first on BMP! What’s interesting here is that the BMP lost its Optics and Constellation array before returning very accurate fire to KIA the Bradley!

 

BMP Deaths

7 X KIA ( 4 X of these command unit spotted Bradley but not the BMP)

 

 

So as small a test as this is and consequently not conclusive, I’m still seeing something similar to the 100 runs I did earlier in the week with assorted vehicles.

The command unit in the BMP definitely spots faster than the BMP crew, so that assumption does seem to be correct, but it equally doesn't matter because the information is not passed to the BMP crew and the BMP continues toward the Bradley blind to its existence.

 

So does this prove anything or just add more confusion?

 

It's too small a test so actually I’m not really sure.

 

The KIA results in and of themselves do not seem unrealistic in such confined parameters IMO taking into account the capabilities and roles that these two vehicles are designed for.

But that said, the spotting itself still seems a little off to me. Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that being mobile or static seems make little difference on the way that either vehicle spots and their reaction times; which is a huge tactical advantage to the US.

I can accept that the Russians might not react as fast due to inferior technology and perhaps even training, but I just don’t buy that they routinely would fail to even spot an enemy vehicle in the forward arc of their BMP at 100m!

 

So my questions are the same as they were in the original post.

 

1)Is what I’m seeing an accurate depiction of the technological differences between these nations optics and comms systems as we believe they will function in 2017?

 

Or

 

2)Is there actually an underlying issue in the way spotting is functioning for the Russians given their different types of tech and does something need to be dialed up or down?

 

I know you guys at BFC are very busy, but it would be nice to get someone with some idea of how the underlying code works to comment on this as it does seem to rear its head with each iteration of the engine!

 

Cheers for working on some figures btw guys. Seems my gut feeling wasn't just completely a gut feeling eh?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Again, narrow aperture optics, sweeping a frontal arc.  You'll miss lots of things even with fairly advanced optics given you're only seeing so much of the battlefield at once.  Simply having something in front of the vehicle doesn't ensure instantspot.  Given that yankee imperialists have FLIR type optics for the commander, gunner, and even the driver, there's more, and more advanced optics covering the battlefield which makes it pretty reasonable they'll find targets faster.

 

There's simply no logical reason less eyes, with less optics should be able to cover an area as well as more, and better "eyes."  The occasional BMP shoots first instances cover the gunner being well oriented quite well.  But again, just because someone is in front of the vehicle, it doesn't mean instantspot.

Edited March 6, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[Vanir Ausf B]

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.

[womble]

AI controlled vehicles and infantry units should more often shoot at question marks, I think.

Maybe. But it's not likely to happen much. Question marks vary from "I'm sure there's something there, but I'm not sure what it is," to "Someone told me something was there 5 minutes ago," and the AI isn't going to know which applies in any given case. If it were something the AI could readily handle, it would have been in from early on; as it is, the AI only ever fires at fully spotted targets. It's one of the biggest advantages a human player has over the AI. It would take a drastic redesign of the "tentative spotting" mechanics, I think.

[Sublime]

Agusto i.d agree on the long range issue. You have to remember the ai aims for center mass as well - making long distance shots for weak points a real crap shoot. Fwiw has anyone else seen what i have with their javelins not working occassionally? I never saw this in cmsf, but ive seen javs get fired several times in the past few days and fly happily straight on into the horizon.. what is that? Life?

[Apocal]

Fwiw has anyone else seen what i have with their javelins not working occassionally? I never saw this in cmsf, but ive seen javs get fired several times in the past few days and fly happily straight on into the horizon.. what is that? Life?

 

I've been having similar issues when using partially suppressed Javelin teams firing at vehicles in tree cover. I assume it is to simulate a degraded lock being lost due to foliage.

[nuzrak]

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.

 

The last test I ran had the moving vehicles performing a ‘hunt’ command over a small blocking ridge line to bring its forward arc into the forward arc of the static vehicle in open ground approximately 100m away.

 

What I would expect to see is the static vehicle to have the upper hand most of the time or at least a change in the numbers in regards to the BMP; It just seems logical that even the BMP with its narrower spotting arc should get, in theory, a bump in spotting the high profile Bradley moving up over a rise in front of it. I know sky lining isn't modeled in the game, but silhouette is a factor I believe? 

But the numbers so far seem to show no significant change in spotting chance for the either vehicle, static or moving!

 

Again, it’s too small a test to be definitive, but it does seem to confirm, at least to me, a trend some of us are perceiving right across the board with Russian spotting.

 

For example, I am playing a game H2H right now where I had 3 x T90AM’s in woods covering a relatively tight open terrain corridor between a hill and woods. A basic good key hole position. They were all systematically KIA’d by a M1 that moved into the open ground approximately 500m away in two turns. None of the T90’s spotted the M1!

Now, that just doesn't seem right to me... and again its not conclusive because it's a single event, but it does seem to happen with frustrating regularity to Russian vehicles.

 

As to what any of this shows / proves you’re absolutely right Vanir that it might not show anything more than the game engine working exactly the way it should and if that is so, then that’s great, we can put this subject to rest and move onto a tactics discussion on how to make the Russian forces more viable for H2H play.

 

Bottom line though is that until we hear officially that there is an issue or not, more extensive testing needs to be done, and with more than just Bradley's and BMP's.

If I get time I'll try to do that because my gut feeling is still that the spotting is not working quite the way it should be...

[akd]

Target Arcs do not affect spotting beyond setting the units facing.  They are for controlling engagement, not spotting.

[nuzrak]

I did not test with target arcs, it was just a standard hunt command for the moving AFV and nothing for the static vehicle...

[akd]

I did not test with target arcs, it was just a standard hunt command for the moving AFV and nothing for the static vehicle...

 

Oh, I misinterpreted this bit:

 

It just seems logical that even the BMP with its narrower spotting arc should get, in theory, a bump in spotting the high profile Bradley moving up over a rise in front of it.

[Sgt Joch]

I have to admit my playing experience so far is the other way. I am in a H2H game using BMP-3Ms in night, rainy conditions. With the thermals/night optics, they are spotting enemy units which are still invisible to my infantry units 50-100 meters in front.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The last test I ran had the moving vehicles performing a ‘hunt’ command over a small blocking ridge line to bring its forward arc into the forward arc of the static vehicle in open ground approximately 100m away.

 

What I would expect to see is the static vehicle to have the upper hand most of the time or at least a change in the numbers in regards to the BMP; It just seems logical that even the BMP with its narrower spotting arc should get, in theory, a bump in spotting the high profile Bradley moving up over a rise in front of it. I know sky lining isn't modeled in the game, but silhouette is a factor I believe? 

But the numbers so far seem to show no significant change in spotting chance for the either vehicle, static or moving!

 

Again, it’s too small a test to be definitive, but it does seem to confirm, at least to me, a trend some of us are perceiving right across the board with Russian spotting.

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.

 

For example, I am playing a game H2H right now where I had 3 x T90AM’s in woods covering a relatively tight open terrain corridor between a hill and woods. A basic good key hole position. They were all systematically KIA’d by a M1 that moved into the open ground approximately 500m away in two turns. None of the T90’s spotted the M1!

Now, that just doesn't seem right to me... and again its not conclusive because it's a single event, but it does seem to happen with frustrating regularity to Russian vehicles.

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.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

[Thewood1]

I have seen none of these people complaining about spotting and running tests post single video or save.

[Stagler]

And?

[Thewood1]

So if you want someone to do something...show it.  How hard is that?  You actually had to run it.  In the time spent here trying to prove a point, you could have run a test and saved it.  Let more people run it.  Get a siginificant n.  Or at least prove your point.

[Stagler]

I don't play turn based. Its a ****ing pos. Only wego I have is with Doug Williams. And the turn cache is cleared.