Smoke and Smoke

[melm]

I am currently replay CMBS Russian campaign missions (I have to confess this is my favorite campaign so far) and try to have sort of different play style comparing with my first try time ago, which is laying heavy smoke on the target buildings before my assault. I found it interesting that my BMP sometimes can 'see' through heavy white smoke laid by mortars or 152mm heavy arty and enemy also can see through it with small arms or .50 cal firing at my assault teams(Yes, I am talking about last two missions). However, according to my experience, tank or IFV's smoke charge can block opponent tanker's view quite effectively.  Are they two different kinds of smoke in CMBS modeling? Since they are both white for me.

[Ivanov]

Can the thermal imaging devices not see through the smoke?

[AttorneyAtWar]

Only tanks and certain APC's launch multi-spectral IR blocking smoke, smoke launched by artillery does not stop thermal imaging.

[melm]

All right. Smoke seems not so useful then.

[Ivanov]

All right. Smoke seems not so useful then.

If you're playing against the Ukrainians, it should be useful because their infantry is not equipped with any thermal imaging systems ( I guess ). 

I have reservations about using the smoke because I'm worried, that it may equally blind my guys as the enemy. Anybody has any thoughts about that?

 

[melm]

I'd like to drive my mounted inf to the to-be-secured target area as close as possible to avoid long tedious dismounted inf moving stage since sometimes you even need to cross open field with little cover. And also I wish I won't get snipe while moving in the open by javelin team or Russian ATGM team from somewhere I can't possibly detect especially with full squad in the car. So I may compromise my own blindness for enemy's blindness.

BTW, I doubt both armies, US or Russian, don't have any tube-launched infrared obscuring smoke rounds. I'd like to have someone just tell me 'no, they don't have them!', then I would just be happy with what we have in CMBS.

Edited January 4, 2016 by melm

[melm]

I found this related topic

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'd like to have someone just tell me 'no, they don't have them!', then I would just be happy with what we have in CMBS.

During the game's development this was looked at and to my own surprise nobody has it.

So yes, against Russian and US forces tube smoke is mostly useless. However, late model BMPs and BTRs have multi-spectral smoke and they launch their smoke grenades forward a considerable distance. Off the top of my head it's something like 80 meters for BMPs and 125m for BTRs so if the wind is favorable they can be very useful.

[Jotte]

Snipped from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-50/Appg.htm

  Quote

Bispectral Obscurants

Bispectral obscurants defeat or degrade two portions of the electromagnetic spectrum simultaneously. As previously stated, phosphorous smokes defeat both the visual and infrared portions of the spectrum. Other bispectral capabilities include type III IR obscurant, which is a micropulverized metal compound. Currently we use this bispectral obscurant in self-defense systems only (for example, the M76 smoke grenade for armored vehicle grenade launchers). In the near term we will have and use a large-area bispectral obscurant capability.

Multispectral Obscurants

As implied by the name, multispectral obscurants will defeat or degrade multiple portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Challenges associated with this technology include preventing the inadvertent suppression of friendly force EO systems. In the mid-term we will have and use multispectral obscurants.

When gleening through that webpage it seems that multi or bispectral blocking smoke (other then phosphorous rounds) is not in use for artillery delivered smoke (yet), at least by the US.