T-72B3 has overpowered optics ingame (IRL commanders optics is terrible)

[VladimirTarasov]

15 minutes ago, Sublime said:

All 20 of them

Don't quote me but I think it's like 10 or so  still it is a very capable machine,.

[John Kettler]

Machor and Oleg,

According to the CMBS Manual, page 112, the BTR-4E does have thermals. They are listed just as such things are shown on other AFVs so equipped: IR Optics. Nor is this speculation on my part, for in my disastrous first outing vs BadgerDog, playing at night and in rain in an attempt to offset his thermals, only my BTR-4es could see much of anything. My BTR-70s were effectively blind. This video on the BTR-4 family shows the thermal display unmistakably in use at 2:02.

I found the video embedded in a useful survey of Ukrainian defense products. I would also note the BTR-4E has absolutely no active IR system installed.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

[John Kettler]

Machor and Oleg,

Further search turned up a video of excellent quality. At 0:42, the display for the thermal is quite clearly seen in use. Additionally, I would point out the Bar is a 5 km missile, and it would be rather stupid to fit it to a vehicle which couldn't see that far through dust and smoke, at night or adverse WX, especially against a foe known to have thermals to an ever increasing degree and able to engage to 5 km with various TLGMs and such.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Oleg]

17 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

They are listed just as such things are shown on other AFVs so equipped: IR Optics.

"IR Optics" tag in game does not equal to thermal imaging. Its more like "any night vision capability" and almost every vehicle in game has this tag

Here is quote from manual

Almost all armored combat vehicles such as APCs, IFVs, and tanks are equipped with either night

vision or thermal vision. Because the imaging units on these vehicles are much larger, they
have a higher resolution and zoom, and thus can typically spot better and further than manportable systems. You can tell whether a vehicle has night vision systems by opening the
BLACK SEA 39
subsystem tab in the vehicle info panel (it is the middle tab). "IR Optics" will be listed here if
the vehicle possesses such technology
 

[John Kettler]

Oleg,

Okay. I got that part wrong. But I am dead certain the BTR-4E does have thermals fitted. I've shown the proof in two different videos.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

8 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Don't quote me but I think it's like 10 or so  still it is a very capable machine,.

Haha i almost said ten at first but I figured Id give em the benefit of a whole nother squad or two.

[Oleg]

14 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Oleg,

Okay. I got that part wrong. But I am dead certain the BTR-4E does have thermals fitted. I've shown the proof in two different videos.

Regards,

John Kettler

I think its just high-contrast black and white picture. Here site of the manufacturer of its sight system there is nothing about thermals http://www.chezara.com/catalog/special-equipment/trek/

[VladimirTarasov]

6 hours ago, Sublime said:

Haha i almost said ten at first but I figured Id give em the benefit of a whole nother squad or two.

Hehe, being a gentleman.

15 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Okay. I got that part wrong. But I am dead certain the BTR-4E does have thermals fitted. I've shown the proof in two different videos.

It's a TV-optical sight. It's not a thermal, maybe as Oleg said, it is black and white picture.

[Haiduk]

17 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Oleg,

Okay. I got that part wrong. But I am dead certain the BTR-4E does have thermals fitted. I've shown the proof in two different videos.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

@Machor

BTR-4 really doesn't have thermals. It equipped with optical-elerctonic device (OEP) wich gives to it capability to detect targets in conditions of reduced lightning. On our forum one soldier told that this system is of course better than nothing, but in really dark nights almost useleess - its detects targets, but identification is very hard - image on BW screen looks like 8-bit "square pixel"  graphic. 

BM Bulat has more advanced NV capabilities, than T-64BV. Gunner has OEP sight TPN-4CR with "tank" target detection on 1400 m (400-600 m in T-64BV) and commander has the same TPN-4CR channel, but reduced - detection up to 800 m (up to 400 m in T-64BV)

UKR "Tunguska" hasn't thermals.

 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Haiduk

[Oleg]

On the other hand. BM Bulat and BTR-4 both have possibility to install thermals - its only cause of financial issue they dont have it IRL. But in this game this virtual Ukraine side has enough money to en-mass such expensive equipment as Oplot tanks, Skif atgm(with thermal sight and remote control(not modeled ingame)) and so on. So why this virtual Ukraine does not have money for thermal sights for Bulat and BTR-4? Also in this game Ukraine has very close co-operation with US, and in manual even told that Ukraine side has platoons of US troops (they just not buy-able ingame cause they meant to be of-field for radio, ew, coordination and other indirect support). So why in game Ukraine does not have US-made drones, night vision googles and other equipment. Since now, at this moment In Real Life - US actually provided Ukraine army with US-made drones(ravens), night vision googles(AN/PVS-14), and counter-battery radars(AN/TPQ-36). And in terms of gameplay this will be balance as ingame US has more advanced than "raven" drones, more advanced than AN/PVS-14 night vision googles and so on.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Oleg

[Haiduk]

22 minutes ago, Oleg said:

 So why in game Ukraine does not have US-made drones, night vision googles and other equipment. Since now, at this moment In Real Life - US actually provided Ukraine army with US-made drones(ravens), night vision googles(AN/PVS-14), and counter-battery radars(AN/TPQ-36). And in terms of gameplay this will be balance as ingame US has more advanced than "raven" drones, more advanced than AN/PVS-14 night vision googles and so on.

Because equipment list for base game was made in 2013. I hope, new module some change this. But will be no thermals on Bulats and BTR-4. Only OEPs with limited capabilities.   

[John Kettler]

Haiduk,

Can anyone here read what the display notations say on either, or better, both of the videos? If the readout says either White Hot or Black Hot, then this is a telltale of a FLIR display. The OEP information is certainly of interest, but I'd really like to know what the text on those displays say. In any event, a search turned up this military technology show, which has considerable coverage of the BTR-4E starting at ~10:59. Covers the ugly (rejected BTR-4Es are Iraqis found defective welds), ops in the ATO and quite a lot about the various versions. My Ukrainian is even worse than my microscopic Russian, so everything I'm saying is based on watching the video and paying close attention to what's shown. The segment has excellent clarity and resolution. Believe the host's cammies will give the modders a bit of a headache.

Oleg,

You raise excellent points about Ukraine weaponry and equipage. I haven't kept up with what the US has supplied lately, so can't speak to that. I do know the initial US response was pretty ugly in terms of what Ukraine got quickly. Would hope that once the US nonlethal aid effort got cranked up, things would've improved dramatically. The US did supply two LCMR countermortar radars, one of which the Russian proxies unfortunately captured.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Oleg]

14 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Can anyone here read what the display notations say on either, or better, both of the videos? If the readout says either White Hot or Black Hot, then this is a telltale of a FLIR display.

 

Here i found picture (unfortunately low quality) of BTR-4 aiming display

All notations i can see are "АВТ" (auto fire), "ПКТ" (PKT coaxial mg), "ГР" (grenades for coaxial AGS-17), "OФ"(HE shells for 30mm cannon), "БТ"(AP shells for 30mm cannon), and in bottom corners "УП" and "УВ" (aiming angles)

[Machor]

Oleg, Vladimir, John, and Haiduk,

Many thanks for your help, and I appreciate the extra info on the PRP-4M thermals. That vehicle wasn't in Avalon Hill's MBT (a boardgame from 1989 that was the CMBS of its time) and I never knew the Soviet Union had fielded an AFV with thermals. Now, if I can ever understand where the PRP-4M fit in conceptually in Soviet thinking between the BRM-1K and the MT-LBu 1V14 (both of which were in MBT), I'll consider myself a wiser man. 

If my research is correct, BRM-1K has only a GSR whereas PRP-4M has both GSR and thermals, so the latter should in theory spot better.

All this means, though, is that the Ukrainian side is massively disadvantaged when it comes to thermals. I assume, then, that playing as the Ukrainians offensively in QB requires truly 'out of the box' thinking using Oplots as recon vehicles and whatever thermals are available to infantry (Do they have any other than Skifs?). I'm all ears if you have any advice. 

[John Kettler]

Machor,

As you've probably read by now, I was an intelligence specialist at both Hughes and Rockwell on the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact militaries. My employment period included the release of the eagerly anticipated by me MBT, for which I had high hopes, for I delighted in modern tactical warfare. To my shock, MBT turned out to have no reality at all when it came to the true armor/anti-armor situation of the SU vs the US. I've written on the Forums about this fundamental terminal flaw. To give you an idea of just how astronomically far AH was from the credibility mark, please see the below thread in which I hold forth on what was presented to hundreds of defense analysts like me back in the no notes classified 1985 Soviet Threat Technology Conference. Suggest you have blood thickeners on hand, since yours may well turn to water when you read what the CIA's armor and anti-armor experts briefed us on the true horrifying state of matters and look at some links I dug up, including what had previously been a SECRET level assessment of the matters by Major General Gorman, US Army in 1980. Open source material was full of articles on how bad things were, so AH had no excuse.

AH's MBT was so far past ridiculous that after trying to play it a bit with my nephews to see how it worked I handed my almost brand new game over after informing them just how bad its key aspects were. To give you some idea how bad, I recall I couldn't get any damage at all frontally on an XM1 in the adjacent hex! Hexes were 100 meters across. That was the absolute last straw for me. There was no point, in my view, of playing a game in which the essential relationships were so stupendously off. If you believed the designers, the US was top dog, when in fact the US was more like a teacup poodle if a dog at all! I also tried to knock some sense into AH by composing a careful dissection of the game cast in the form of a GRU critique of it. Article was declined. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited September 11, 2016 by John Kettler

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, Machor said:

using Oplots as recon vehicles

Not possible in game,  due to a bug with the commander where he starts constantly rotating instead of spotting. 

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Machor,

As you've probably read by now, I was an intelligence specialist at both Hughes and Rockwell on the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact militaries. My employment period included the release of the eagerly anticipated by me MBT, for which I had high hopes, for I delighted in modern tactical warfare. To my shock, MBT turned out to have no reality at all when it came to the true armor/anti-armor situation of the SU vs the US. I've written on the Forums about this fundamental terminal flaw. To give you an idea of just how astronomically far AH was from the credibility mark, please see the below thread in which I hold forth on what was presented to hundreds of defense analysts like me back in the no notes classified 1985 Soviet Threat Technology Conference. Suggest you have blood thickeners on hand, since yours may well turn to water when you read what the CIA's armor and anti-armor experts briefed us on the true horrifying state of matters and look at some links I dug up, including what had previously been a SECRET level assessment of the matters by Major General Gorman, US Army in 1980. Open source material was full of articles on how bad things were, so AH had no excuse.

AH's MBT was so far past ridiculous that after trying to play it a bit with my nephews to see how it worked I handed my almost brand new game over after informing them just how bad its key aspects were. To give you some idea how bad, I recall I couldn't get any damage at all frontally on an XM1 in the adjacent hex! Hexes were 100 meters across. That was the absolute last straw for me. There was no point, in my view, of playing a game in which the essential relationships were so stupendously off. If you believed the designers, the US was top dog, when in fact the US was more like a teacup poodle if a dog at all! I also tried to knock some sense into AH by composing a careful dissection of the game cast in the form of a GRU critique of it. Article was declined. 

Regards,

John Kettler

No idea how this is relevant. 

[Oleg]

4 hours ago, Machor said:

All this means, though, is that the Ukrainian side is massively disadvantaged when it comes to thermals. I assume, then, that playing as the Ukrainians offensively in QB requires truly 'out of the box' thinking using Oplots as recon vehicles and whatever thermals are available to infantry (Do they have any other than Skifs?). I'm all ears if you have any advice. 

 

Use "elited" BRM-1K(not sure about IRL, but in game im sure they have thermals) and PRP-4M. Oplot is currently bugged in game, it cant spot. BRM-1K and PRP-4M are best spotters ukraine side in game currently has, they spot a little less then russian tanks, but not much little, and BM Bulat does not have thermals so he cant spot anything outside of bright day.

[John Kettler]

kinophile,

It is directly relevant in that it addresses his characterization of Avalon Hill's MBT as

6 hours ago, Machor said:

That vehicle wasn't in Avalon Hill's MBT (a boardgame from 1989 that was the CMBS of its time)

I presented my case that MBT, unlike CMBS, got all the key stuff wrong. My expectation was that MBT was going to be my kind of low level tactical wargame, but it turned out instead to be a combat simulation that wasn't. Simply put, if the fundamental weapon-target interactions are modeled so badly that reality is reversed, then what's the point? Live fire tests showed conclusively Russian MBTs could penetrate us but we couldn't penetrate them at tactical range. The 105 mm gun tanks, which were practically the entire NATO tank force, were useless frontally. Worse, even the experimental DU projectile for the 105 couldn't cut it. Now, let's look at infantry ATW in a frontal engagement. LAW and everything like it? Useless. Dragon, infantry's man-portable tank smiter? Useless. TOW was planned to be the great equalizer against the Russian tank horde, but it was useless, too. Ditto HOT and other ATGMs of that class. There were two and only two then operational US ATGMs still deemed viable: the marginal Hellfire and the pretty much all-powerful Maverick. The great stuff the US has today is because this country spent billions on a crash basis to fix things: M829 series projectiles fired from upgunned Abrams, DU armor on the Abrams, AT-4, Javelin, a string of TOW versions, culminating in the TOW 2B and TOW 2B Aero, and a very nasty DU lined warhead version of the Hellfire. From the TOW 2 until the TOW 2B, the missile was fitted with a DU lined warhead as well. You have no idea how grateful I am no war broke out with the Russians in this period, for they would have crushed us in the armor-anti-armor engagements. The above is why I'm so strenuously objecting to equating MBT with CMBS. MBT came out in 1989. Years before that there was all manner of coverage, including major newspapers and magazines, not just defense related ones, showing the US was in dire straits.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Oleg]

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

You have no idea how grateful I am no war broke out with the Russians in this period

US have and always had superior Naval Fleet. In that period(and any other period) US could got in land war(where all flaws you described could metter) with Russians only if US attacked them first on their land.

[Haiduk]

10 hours ago, Machor said:

Now, if I can ever understand where the PRP-4M fit in conceptually in Soviet thinking between the BRM-1K and the MT-LBu 1V14 (both of which were in MBT), I'll consider myself a wiser man. 

All simply. BRM-1K is using in tactical recon units, 1V14 is just a small part, represented in the game, of artillery SP-battalion fire control complex 1V12 "Mashina". 1V12 consists of one 1V15 - SP-battalion commander control post,  one 1V16 - battalion staff and fire direction vehicle, three 1V14 SP-battery commander vehicles, three 1V13 senior battery officer vehicles. All vehicles of 1V12 complex are MT-LBu based and diifers between each other only by equipment and some hull details. 

By Soviet field manals, 1V14 is a portable command and spotting post of battery commander. Equipped with obsolete devices - now all these armored coffins are substitute on frontline with pair of spotters with PDA with special artillery soft and interactive tactical map. They use HMMWV or civil jeeps for work. 1V14 mostly uses only as carrier and communication vehicle.

PRP-4 is a part of special artillery recon platoon of SP-guns or ATGM battalion. Unlike 1V14 which mostly has position near command center of tank or infantry battalion, which battery has been given, PRP-4 is mobile recon post of frontline and nearest tactical deep of enemy positions. It maintains determination of target coordinates and command of battlion's batteries fire in any weather in any time. As a rule is using as so called by Soviet artillety terms "side spotting post". Can establish itself additional spotting and targeting post.

Soldiers, whcih were serving on BRM-1K and PRP-3/4 told, that radar of these vehicles need very qulified operator and that constructive features didn't allow to use its effectively in dynamic combat situations. In the game radars of these vehicles are overmodelled and show accurate locations and name of enemy units, but in real this radars are detecting moving targets only with principle "something moving in this area". What "something" need to define operator by changing of sound beeps or by primitive osciloscope type indicator.   

Edited September 11, 2016 by Haiduk

[akd]

9 hours ago, Oleg said:

 

Use "elited" BRM-1K(not sure about IRL, but in game im sure they have thermals) and PRP-4M. Oplot is currently bugged in game, it cant spot. BRM-1K and PRP-4M are best spotters ukraine side in game currently has, they spot a little less then russian tanks, but not much little, and BM Bulat does not have thermals so he cant spot anything outside of bright day.

Can someone link me to the thread where it has been demonstrated that the RWS rotating issue actually effects spotting.

[danzig5]

3 hours ago, akd said:

Can someone link me to the thread where it has been demonstrated that the RWS rotating issue actually effects spotting.

I have previously done a look at this which confirmed the Oplot has some irregularities with its spotting abilities. I am uncertain if this is the most definitive post on this issue.

[John Kettler]

Here's another BTR-4E video I found. Looks like Poligon footage to me.

This one confuses me a bit, for the weapon station shown early in the video doesn't look at all like what I'm used to seeing. Later on, the other ones shown do. This also has some of the unglamorous side of AFV ops.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

In watching the second video, the BTR-4E piece is followed by some material on RWS fitted ACs. There is a sequence, starting at 6:36, in which it sure looks like to me the operator is working a FLIR, because the display's polarity is flipped from white screen with dark objects to black screen with white objects. To me, this does not look like the OEP previously described, though I could be wrong yet again. In any event, the screen change makes it quite easy to see where the projectiles are hitting and where the target is, whereas under the first setting, this was quite difficult to determine.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited September 13, 2016 by John Kettler