Jump to content

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


Oleg

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

There is a sequence, starting at 6:36, in which it sure looks like to me the operator is working a FLIR

Yes, there is a notationĀ in ukrainian at top part of aiming display saying that this is thermal image. But its not BTR-4E, its KrAZ "Spartan" armored car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oleg,

While I appreciate the confirmation that my technical assessment was right, you apparently missed a distinction I made in which I said after the BTR-4E segment was a segment on ACs. But that's of far less interest to me than why is it that an AC with a 12.7 mm /HMG armed RWS rates thermals yet the 30 mm auto cannon and Bar ATGM armed BTR-4E doesn't? Seems an insane set of choices to me.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

why is it that an AC with a 12.7 mm /HMG armed RWS rates thermals yet the 30 mm auto cannon and Bar ATGM armed BTR-4E doesn't?

Maybe cause KrAZ "Spartan" is made in co-operation with Canada, and BTR-4 is solo Ukrainian product?

40 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Seems an insane set of choices to me.

Dont try to find logic sense where corruption is involved. And cause of BTR-4 is solo ukrainian product - it sure has alot of corruption in it.

Edited by Oleg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

Oleg,

While I appreciate the confirmation that my technical assessment was right, you apparently missed a distinction I made in which I said after the BTR-4E segment was a segment on ACs. But that's of far less interest to me than why is it that an AC with a 12.7 mm /HMG armed RWS rates thermals yet the 30 mm auto cannon and Bar ATGM armed BTR-4E doesn't? Seems an insane set of choices to me.

Regards,

John Kettler

This is features of our different force structures. These KRAZ "Spartan" are for National Guard. Design bureau "Luch" (designers of ATGMs "Stugna-P", "Korsar" etc) in 2013-2014Ā have designed RWS "Sarmat": 12.7 mm HMG, 2 "Korsar" ATGM, SLX-HAWK IR sight (can be mounted on "Stugna-P" ATGM) and proposed it on our weapon market and esprcially for KRAZ armored cars. KRAZ haveĀ accepted and, thus, in short time variant of AC with RWS "Sarmat" have appeared, built and went to service mostly to "Azov" regiment (two were lost in battle for Shyrokino in 2015). National Guard subordinates itself to Ministry of Internal Affairs and by our laws can to buy all weapon and equipment, which want atĀ any manufacturer w/o procedures of adopting. Ministry of Defense can't do that. In order to such "Spartans" will go to army, need tonns of papers, hundreds of tests, dozens of committees and 1-2 year of time. Because of in National Guard much more new toys then in Army. Army to this time didn't adopted BTR-3, KRAZ ACs, and IR sights. All what they could to to formally "take these specimens in test expluatation".Ā 

RWS Parus,Ā Shkwal, Shturm for BTR-3/4 and otherĀ were designed much earlier in 2000-2009 by other design bureaus, when we havn't modern IR technologies and instead IR, OEP devices were mounted. Of course IR can be integrated, but this will lead to new wave of documentation changing, tests, committees etc. Also MoD and Ukroboronprom company always wants to make own production more cheaper and as result they say to army, for example:Ā  "IR too expensive, use existing variant of RWS with OEP". Or "Use Chinees details instead German". As result new APCs can't execute own tasks more effectvely and often fail. For example, from 16 BTR-4, which were given to 92th brigade, now only 4-6 can move. Without war.Ā This is Ukrainian reality...

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haiduk,

Really terrific info, which I much appreciate. In light of what you've told me, may be there should be a fundamental reorganization, with the entire Ukrainian ground force all designated National Guard. It's a crying shame your NG has better and more advanced weaponry than the UA. Perhaps your president could institute a DX-BRICK-BAT program to get the thermals into the frontline AFVs?

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Haiduk,

Really terrific info, which I much appreciate. In light of what you've told me, may be there should be a fundamental reorganization, with the entire Ukrainian ground force all designated National Guard. It's a crying shame your NG has better and more advanced weaponry than the UA. Perhaps your president could institute a DX-BRICK-BAT program to get the thermals into the frontline AFVs?

Regards,

John Kettler

Of course,Ā many people, especially in army, very angry, that all most of new equipment is going to NGU, which now just stay on checkpoints in deep rear. But from other hand in this present a logic. Our leaders think that strategy ofĀ western economic and politic pressure will forcet Russia toĀ go away from Ukraine. In this way conflict will be switched from hybrid war with Russia and their backed separatists armyĀ to inner conflict and by our law main functions of constitution order establismentĀ will cross to National Guard. Army than will take part only as support frorce, like this was in April-June 2014. But for destroying of local armed groupsĀ and controlling over territory need well armed security force. National Guard was established from Internal Troops, which by conseption wereĀ summoned only for order support tasks, and only three regiments in 300-500 men have tasks to resist to not big extremists groups with light armament. Typical Internal Troops battalion before war has 1-2 old BTR or BRDM and almost hasn't combat tactical skills. Special Internal Troops regiments have one armored company with BTR-80. So, new-established National Guard for new tasks have demanded full re-training and rearmament, especially with armored vehicles and heavy weapon. Alas, despite on new vehicles and intensive trainings, motivation of NGU still not high, excepting units, formed from volunteers and some special units.Ā Ā Ā Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@John Kettler

Thank you for informing me about the inaccuracies of MBT. That the Abrams was so all conqueringĀ in game was not really an issue for me as I never brought themĀ to the fight (and still don't in CMBSĀ :P), but you have robbed my 16-17 year old self of bragging rights for having come up with the tactic of spamming the map with smoke and partying in it with LEO1s or M60s with their thermals - evidently irl, the party would've gotten real ugly real fast as the smoke cleared.Ā :DĀ Given the Ukrainians' shortage of thermals in CMBS, I'm obviously concerned aboutĀ getting served my own medicine when playing them.

You've inspired me to try a QB playing Stryker MGS vs. T-64BV.Ā :D

@kinophile

Thank you for reminding me of the Oplot bug. My understanding from reading the thread that danzig5 linked to above was that the bug may kick in only after the Oplot commences firing, so my plan was to order it to hold fire and act as a sensor platform. Alas, I think Oleg's advice makes more sense. Moreover, in my last QB I had an entire Oplot platoon all with crack crews obliterated in less than two minutes while ambushing T-90AMs with regular crews in heavy fog and daylight; the Oplots didn't even get a single suspected contact and their commanders weren't rotating.

@Oleg

Many thanks for your advice and I will heedĀ it.Ā :DĀ I normally shun the elite rating for AFV crews in CMBS, saving it for storied tank crews in WW2 titles. In the case of the BRM and PRP, however, the importance of operator proficiencyĀ for realizing the potential of their GSR systems, and the lack of intensiveĀ training in regular units, imo justifies elite crews to represent highly trained operators (please see Haiduk's reply to me above and my reply to him below).

@Haiduk

Fascinating stuff on the BRM and PRP radars. While I know nothing about the subject professionally, what you're describing with the competent operation of these radars sounds a lot like "Non-Cooperative Target Recognition" (NCTR), which is modeled in CMANO for much larger systems. Quoting directly from the CMANO manual addendum:

"Interestingly enough, even some quite old radar systems (like Square Pair on SA-5 batteries) have an NCTR ability. However, because of its manual/semi-automated nature (the operator literally looks on raw radar return modulation data on an oscilloscope) the classification time varies highly with operator proficiency. In modern systems the highly automated nature of the process (point the radar at the target and wait) means that crew skill is irrelevant."

I highly appreciate you taking the time to differentiate the roles of the BRM-1K, 1V14, and PRP-4, but I'm still not quite clear on the tactical employment of the PRP-4. Would it be calling in fire missions independently and not in subordination to a battalion tactical group? If so, what would be a realistic scenario featuring the vehicle in CMBS? If you could provide the Russian term for "side spotting post," I might be able to do some research on my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Machor,

Happy to help. Would further observe that my nightmare scenario was large scale Russian use of broadband obscurants, probably combined with heavy fires on readily identifiable points allowing long range TOW fires and such, to bring forward the dreaded tank horde without all the planned attrition necessary to deal with it once it closed. That would've left the US/NATO in a knife fight, where the Russians could use battle sight gunnery, and with the former heavily outnumbered. That would've been been awful even in the CMBS universe, but outright catastrophic given the huge imbalance in the armor/anti-armor situation which was terrifyingly the case.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 11, 2016 at 11:38 AM, danzig5 said:

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.

This test is in no way sufficient to draw conclusions about relative spotting abilities. Ā Just look at some of the numbers: 0:08Ā and 14:05 in a single sample of 9. Ā Trust me, you do not want to conduct valid CM spotting tests. They are brutal.


Confirmed bug: RWS station on Oplot attempts to rotateĀ continuously. Ā The may not even be a bug, but just an artifact of the limited firing arc of the RWS.

Totally unknown: whether or not this has an effect on vehicle vision. Ā I would assume not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, akd said:

Totally unknown: whether or not this has an effect on vehicle vision. Ā I would assume not.

If this bug is not source of Oplots poor spotting - then its just Oplots spotting characteristics in game is seriously under-powered. Oplot has same second-generation thermals as russian tanks, and they both make their thermals sights from imported french thermal sensors. Nor Russia Nor Ukraine has its own full cycle production of thermal imageres - they both import key parts for their thermals from abroad.

Edited by Oleg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I have not seen a serious test that actually demonstrates Oplot spotting divergingĀ from Russian tank spotting. Ā This all seems to be driven by anecdote and shallow testing, which has proven again and again to be wrong when it comes to spotting in CM. Ā The core problem is that there is fairly large degree of randomness (subbing for humanness) in CM spotting, which makes it very prone to both confirmation bias and errors from small samples.

There may very well be an issue, but it is not a "known bug," AFAIK.

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17.09.2016 at 4:00 AM, Machor said:

I highly appreciate you taking the time to differentiate the roles of the BRM-1K, 1V14, and PRP-4, but I'm still not quite clear on the tactical employment of the PRP-4. Would it be calling in fire missions independently and not in subordination to a battalion tactical group? If so, what would be a realistic scenario featuring the vehicle in CMBS? If you could provide the Russian term for "side spotting post," I might be able to do some research on my own.

To the battalion tactical group as a rule is giving one SP-battery. PRP-4 is a part not of the battery, but artillery recon platoon of artillery battalion. So it works in interests of whole artilleryĀ battalion or in sector, determinated by artilery battalion commander (including in subordination or support of battalion tactical group if this need).Ā  As I have said, PRP-4 is a portableĀ recon post.Ā It can conducts tasks of additional exploration of previously detected targets (also in night and bad weather), targeting and all other what usually doing stationary spotter post. But better appropriates for work in conditions of "first trench" and closest enemy rear.Ā Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...