Spotting fired ATGMs

[Euri]

Is in real life so easy to immediately spot an ATGM which has just fired from a relatively concealed position as in this game? In CMBS the ATGM is basically dead after it first shot most of time.

[gnarly]

Just to be a devil's advocate here Euri (since it seems that I've started a thread elsewhere looking for hints and tips, that seems to be degenerating rather badly...  ), having been on the receiving end of plenty of ATGMs in game, I have noted that where the opponent has placed his ATGM teams deeper in 'clutter' (e.g. in a treeline, higher than (or with LOS through a gap in a closer treeline) and behind one or more treelines, or in buildings above and behind other buildings) I have generally not been able to ascertain the firing location immediately. I may have a solid appreciation of its likely vector/linear alignment, but not which treeline/line of buildings the damn thing is parked in.

 

At least for a shot or two.

 

So I immediately task multiple units with area fire into each 'band' of successive treeline/etc.

[VladimirTarasov]

44 minutes ago, Euri said:

Is in real life so easy to immediately spot an ATGM which has just fired from a relatively concealed position as in this game? In CMBS the ATGM is basically dead after it first shot most of time.

Not so easy... Especially with recent clips of a M1 in Iraq being shot at with a ATGM, even with the thermal systems on board, the tank wasn't able to engage back. Most of the times I'd assume the crew would be focused on something else. Of course it's not impossible but the in game spotting of the ATGM position is pretty crazy IMO. Plus there really isn't a general rule lot's of variables that could allow the position to be spotted quickly or not so quickly. 

[Michael Emrys]

I don't know if it is still the case, but it used to be that a fired ATGM left a pretty big visual signature of smoke and dust that would linger for quite a while, wind conditions permitting. That would be a big giveaway to where the missile originated.

Michael

[HerrTom]

There also should be a fairly significant flash (at least in the case of Russian ATGMs).  Here's a slowed-down gif of a Konkurs (AT-5) firing.  The backblast and the fire in the tube doesn't seem too inconspicuous!  With modern rocket propellants, you won't produce that much smoke, though if you fire it on dry ground, you'll kick up a sizable amount of dirt and dust that will hang in the air.

I think if you're not looking in the direction of the launcher when it fires, you may have trouble spotting it.

[John Kettler]

Euri,

Very good question. I would answer: It depends. After the Israeli Army's 190th Tank Brigade got torn up so badly by AT-3s and RPG-7s at the Bar Lev Line during the first days of the Yom Kippur War that there was a great hue and cry "The tank is dead," the IDF adopted what were known as anti-SAGGER tactics. The AT-3/SAGGER, as used in that war, practically was on the ground, and when it launched, it created quite a sand cloud. the battle drill was to immediately open fire, not so much in the expectation of hitting the operator, but of causing him to break concentration--fatal for an MCLOS system, since it caused an immediate crash. This was combined with a dash to cover or hard jinking if the missile was sighted, in order to throw off the missile operator and break visual lock. An eye blink or so of distraction is a miss, and there were plenty of tanks which emerged from battle festooned with guidance wires from shots that went over. Unsure if Israelis had smoke launchers.

The launch in Iraq takes place on far harder ground, but it gives some idea of the AT-3's launch signature. See ~1:32 below. I like this video's catchy music, the AT-3 stuff, the SPG-9, and the US 106 mm RR. The AT-3 launch signature is radically different from that of the Kornet E. for starters, the former emits no flame that I can see. If there is one, maybe it's buried in the dust cloud. The Kornet E, as HerrTom's most informative GIF shows, is much higher than the AT-3--with both in ground launcher configuration. Should also mention the AT-3 is considerably slower than the Kornet E, Javelin, TOW, etc., which means most ATGMs give very little time between launch and impact.
 

 

Notice the Javelin's by way of comparison.

Now you know why I used such a hedged expression. Once airborne, the problem changes dramatically. There it comes down to relative size, speed, optical contrast and what the propulsion system is putting out, depending on distance from launcher. In the case of the AT-3, if looking in the right direction at the right time, you'd see the impressive launch signature, then this black dot coming at you and growing by the second. Dark missile and very light desert. Am not up to speed on how long engine burn lasts on these various ATGMs, so am unsure how much rocket trail there is and for how long (continuous burn vs boost-coast, for example). Things are different, of course, with thermals, in that generally the missile will contrast strongly with the background, making it a great deal easier to spot than would be the case for eyeball observation under many conditions. Realistically, your odds of seeing the launch are many times higher than of seeing the missile once its really en route.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by John Kettler

[Euri]

Jesus Christ. This game makes you believe that M1s are practically undestructible even from AT-14 and then you see this:

 

 

[John Kettler]

Euri,

3 hours ago, Euri said:

This game makes you believe that M1s are practically undestructible even from AT-14 and then you see this:

Four points. The first is that the hit is in the rear of the tank by a very potent ATGM. As a general rule, every tank is vulnerable to a rear hit, and it wouldn't take a Kornet-E to do it, either. In fact, the AT-3 is almost certainly capable of such a kill, considering one with a warhead that could go through 0.8 meters of armor was fielded in 1992 and that one capable of going through a meter was fielded subsequently.  The second is that most hits in the game are from front and side, not the rear. This is true in real main force combat, too. See, for example, the hit distribution histogram in Figure 3.1 of  Technical Challenges of the U.S. Army's Ground Combat Vehicle System. The third is that the Iraqi M1s lack the DU inserts our Abrams have. Consequently, regardless of where they are hit, they are much easier to penetrate than ours are. The fourth is that in the mid 1980s, the US discovered, to its horror, that because it only static tested HEAT warheads, it understated their penetration by ~40%! I was present at a S/NOFORN/WNINTEL threat extravaganza conference conducted by the CIA's top specialists in every important field. The presenter for HEAT was Dr. Joseph Backofen, the dean of all things HEAT. He wrote an article for Armor, with citations running two full pages on what he said in a very short article on the history of the shaped charge. The citations were in small type and tight;y spaced, too.

The Russians specifically designed their HEAT warheads to take advantage of this reality. There were about 200 threat analysts of one stripe or another there, and that 40% remark caused first gasps, then stunned silence throughout the bubble auditorium you may've seen in shows and films which showed CIA's HQ. I don't know how good the Iraqi composite armor is relative to what the original Abrams had, but let me give you a frame of reference from that same conference. Circa 1967, the Red Army fielded a 76.2 mm HEAT round designed to counter an emerging threat. After those had been declared obsolete, the only way they could be exported under draconian regs, Egyptians got them. The Israelis captured some in 1972 during the Yom Kippur War and finally, after we'd saved them from outright destruction then, we got some in 1984. Guess what? Testing found the PT-76's HEAT round, fired from the same gun of the WW II T-34/76, would go right through the front of our shiny new wonder tank! How did that happen? The emerging threat was the T95 Medium Tank, which was canceled by the cheaper cast steel armored M47 Patton tank. The T95 would've had composite armor consisting of a steel and fused silica/glass sandwich. Thus, a weapon designed to defeat a canceled threat from the 1950s was a mortal threat to a a brand new tank in the early 1980s, a tank using much the same armor scheme. I saw the declassification notice for the original Abrams armor. The phrase used was "siliceous core" armor. Glass is made of what? Silica.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Spotting missiles

A lot will depend on weather conditions, environment, and the weapons system.  Older Soviet era missiles will have a pretty big signature, and larger ATGMs like the TOW will often have more significant ones while smaller Javelin style missiles will have a fairly modest one.

And again, a lot will depend on the environment.  Heavy wet ground isn't going to betray as much (although in darker environments the flash from the missile will be more pronounced both visually and thermally), while dry powdery ground will have "setting up the missile's tripod" signature, let alone firing it (but the launch and missile hide a lot better in hot surfaces).

In an ambush role, like a true ambush out of no where the launch signature likely would not be enough.  However in an environment against a tactically deployed enemy who's oriented on your forces, it's not going to be an especially stealthy event.

Re: Iraqi Abrams

I would challenge you to find any tank in the world that would react especially well to an ATGM strike to the rear.  

[Kinophile]

23 hours ago, HerrTom said:

There also should be a fairly significant flash (at least in the case of Russian ATGMs).  Here's a slowed-down gif of a Konkurs (AT-5) firing.  The backblast and the fire in the tube doesn't seem too inconspicuous!  With modern rocket propellants, you won't produce that much smoke, though if you fire it on dry ground, you'll kick up a sizable amount of dirt and dust that will hang in the air.

I think if you're not looking in the direction of the launcher when it fires, you may have trouble spotting it.

You kidding? That kind of a flame intensity would flare nice and bright on any decent thermals. 

[HerrTom]

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

You kidding? That kind of a flame intensity would flare nice and bright on any decent thermals. 

Yes, but only if you're looking in its direction while it launches.  The flames from the starter motor dissipate pretty quickly - on the order of a second or two.  Then, if it's shot at you, the sustainer is going to be pretty well hidden by the missile itself.  All you have left at that point is a small chunk of metal flying towards you at almost Mach 1 and a small amount of smoke (more if its cold outside) and a dust cloud if the environment is right.

[JUAN DEAG]

3 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

Yes, but only if you're looking in its direction while it launches.  The flames from the starter motor dissipate pretty quickly - on the order of a second or two.  Then, if it's shot at you, the sustainer is going to be pretty well hidden by the missile itself.  All you have left at that point is a small chunk of metal flying towards you at almost Mach 1 and a small amount of smoke (more if its cold outside) and a dust cloud if the environment is right.

I doesn't matter that it dissipates quickly. The sudden flash will instantly attract the eye. That's why when I'm playing as either Ukrainians or Russians I tend to avoid long-range ATGM systems like SKIF or KORNET and instead favor CORSAR or METIS-M.

[antaress73]

I saw m1a2s react instantly many times to an At-13 (saclos) fired from behind .. enough that the tank could turn around and prevent à rear/side armor hit. Many times where the launcher was deployed in a reverse slope position with the targeted tank moving into lOS presenting it's big fat ass to my forces. frontal aspect . yup I can believe it. BUT from the rear while moving .. to instantly react 60-70% of the time..  nope.. the commander must be looking at the right direction.at the right time . detect the launch and warn the driver to turn around ..thats takes a least a 2 seconds delay. Not enough to prevent à rear aspect hit especially at the short range featured in the game.  I agree that The commander will do a 360 from time to time with the panoramic CITV.. but most of the time he will try to detect threats to the front , not the rear or sides.

[Muzzleflash1990]

I am not sure I understand how the sudden flash instantly attracts the eye if you are not looking in the right direction. I assume the observer is looking at a thermal image, either on a screen, or through optics. Does a launch 2km away "blink" the entire display/optics? And, if that is the case, how do you know whether to rotate left or right to pick up the launch in 2s before the flash fades - is that even feasible? After that you would have to pick up the smoke and dust, but could that blend into the background?

To give, an admittedly poor reference, I was playing the recent update to Steel Beasts (tank simulator) with includes upgraded graphics (especially with respect to ATGMs). A BRDM-AT fired at me, and the only reason I discovered it was because I was looking at it and could see the launch smoke, which dissipated very quickly. It should be mentioned this was not with thermal, but with zoomed "natural" optics. I also could not see the incoming missile, even when I know exactly where it was coming from, until it was within 500m - but this could be because of the low field of view when playing on a computer screen.

All those tanks being destroyed in the Middle East, almost none seem to react in the sometimes 8+ seconds before impact. Do they lack thermal, or can it be explained by poor crew?

Edited November 12, 2016 by Muzzleflash1990

[Euri]

I believe the game strongly misrepresents the time reactions (if there should be any) of tanks to ATGM attacks.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

45 minutes ago, Muzzleflash1990 said:

I am not sure I understand how the sudden flash instantly attracts the eye if you are not looking in the right direction. I assume the observer is looking at a thermal image, either on a screen, or through optics. Does a launch 2km away "blink" the entire display/optics? And, if that is the case, how do you know whether to rotate left or right to pick up the launch in 2s before the flash fades - is that even feasible? After that you would have to pick up the smoke and dust, but could that blend into the background?

To give, an admittedly poor reference, I was playing the recent update to Steel Beasts (tank simulator) with includes upgraded graphics (especially with respect to ATGMs). A BRDM-AT fired at me, and the only reason I discovered it was because I was looking at it and could see the launch smoke, which dissipated very quickly. It should be mentioned this was not with thermal, but with zoomed "natural" optics. I also could not see the incoming missile, even when I know exactly where it was coming from, until it was within 500m - but this could be because of the low field of view when playing on a computer screen.

All those tanks being destroyed in the Middle East, almost none seem to react in the sometimes 8+ seconds before impact. Do they lack thermal, or can it be explained by poor crew?

1.  My guess is the game abstracts that the tank crew is trained and part of a larger set of observers.  Like a real tank platoon doing it's job to the fullest extent will have assigned sectors for each crewman to observe.  So even with every tank gun tube forward, on line, the reaction time is still based around the assumption that "actually" tank 12 is watching the right half the objective, 11 the left half, 13 is on the low ground in front, and 14 has the right flank, and to the left is 2nd platoon.  

Or at least that'd be my guess.  Broadly it's how the infantry works too I imagine, regardless of direction of travel it assumes someone is watching and checking in order directions.

I do think if I had to be critical what's not quite right, is the return fire is a bit too accurate.  The game doesn't handle suppression as well as I'd like (in as far as you have to tell the AI to shoot at someone that's not a good firm target), IRL if a missile came from a stand of trees, it's going to have a massive amount of MG fire and maybe a main gun round or two dumped into it to suppress/maybe kill the ATGM gunners vs a laser precision sure shot to the face like CMBS seems to err to sometime (on the other hand, it does match the reality that an ATGM is pretty dangerous to operate).

2. Middle Eastern tanks are a bad example because:

a. Tank-infantry cooperation within the Iraqi and Syrian military has been very poor.  A lot of the shots you see made are ones made against tanks sitting out in the open without any sort of effective screening or cover.  More professional military forces use infantry extensively in urban type settings precisely because it can root out the enemy AT teams, or contain them while the tank moves into position to kill.  The various middle eastern countries at play tend to lead with armor, and operate armor without close infantry support, both of which makes for much more vulnerable tanks in an urban setting.

b. Given the lack of effective screening and poor armor tactics, ISIS has been able to exploit this to build very specialized, very intricate AT ambush teams and positions.  Basically they've been able to operate using tactics, positioning and the like that would be profoundly stupid facing the Americans, Israelis or most of NATO (like setting positions with fairly close, very narrow fields of fire without supporting positions), but that very effectively exploit the way the Syrians/Iraqis handle armor.  

c. Most Syrian/Iraqi crews operate completely buttoned up at all times (or at least, completely within the turret).  Given the generation of armor they operate, this is not effective for spotting enemy forces most of the time.  It goes back to my first point, that in a "good" Abrams platoon, it's 16 or so sets of eyes looking out (more honestly 12 sets of eyes, the loader's optics are nothing especially awe inspiring, and him hanging out of the hatch isn't always practical), while in a Syrian/Iraqi tank unit it's closer to 3-4 sets of eyes looking out (while a "Good" Russian equipped unit could at least manage 9)

[Muzzleflash1990]

About #1. In CM people sometimes move units forward alone and not as a platoon. Yes tank has a sector to observe, but that does not mean the entire sector is always observed by optics. So if the wide-field observers, e.g. the driver detects brief "flames", can he manage to orient the commander/gunner before the flames are gone? All that is left is smoke and dust probably obscuring the launcher? But all of this is of course abstracted in CM.

About #2. Sure infantry cooperation is necessary for effective operations. But, for a surprise launch, can infantrymen inform the tank quickly enough for it to be relevant for the first incoming missile? But my intent with that inquiry was more with respect to reaction on ATGM launch from the only tanks, and very few of the tanks shot in videos on the interwebs seems to react at all. For western and more modern russian tanks, their reaction will likely be much better, but wouldn't it still be more suppression against a (partially) smoke/dust-obscured target than an fully-accurate return fire.

I think that is what you are also saying. The more "proper"/"realistic" reaction would be a tentative contact for units with visual (and the abstracted spotting), and then speculative suppressive fire in that area, rather than a complete contact with immediate accurate return fire? Of course, speculative return fire is not likely be coming to CM since it may also cause other problems. But I do share, although with inexperience, the sentiment that maybe ATGMs are a bit too vulnerable, and are taken out too quickly by an accurate first-shot-response.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1. When you build any sort of game that attempts to simulate reality, you wind up using unrealistic systems to simulate realistic outcomes, or you place a management burden on the player.  Sometimes this burden is unavoidable, BF's AI isn't too shabby, but it can't do berm drills unattended.  Other times, do we really want to set sectors of observation for each optic on the tank?  

Basically the spotting system will have some level of abstraction based upon how a tank should work that will generate unrealistic outcomes sometimes.  Or at least that's my guess

2. It's not surprise launch spotting, it's that when you're working with infantry close it's difficult for an AT team to operate at close range because they'll get shot/suppressed by the tank's infantry support.  I don't really need to go into the employment of armor in urban terrain, but Syrian/Iraqi forces do not integrate their armor/infantry operations to the degree that protects either especially well, generally resorting to firing at likely enemy positions with the armor somewhat indiscriminately, and then infantry attacking more or less on its own once it looks safe enough.

As far as lack of reaction, do think about this, who's filming the attack?  Is it a neutral observer?  Or is it part of the ISIS propaganda wing that has no interest in showing failed attacks?

Re: Return fire

I'd like to see immediate suppression return fire become a thing against tentative contacts one of these days.  I don't feel ATGM teams are especially vulnerable though, it's more of a sequencing thing.  What happens now is launch spotted/tank engages/ATGM team gets killed.  What I'm advocating is launch spotted/team suppressed/team gets killed by follow on shots.

[MikeyD]

You check stats on ranges of the bigger ATGMs and often they're being used far inside their optimal range in the game. Firing an ATGM from 4km, the firer shouldn't have to worry about returning small arms fire or MG fire on his position. Its rare in the game that we can attempt to fire (or even spot) from that far off, though. I recall hearing (decades ago) that for typical LOS from central Europe is likely to be restricted to 1km or so. There's always going to another tree line, another village, another intervening hill (unless you get a primo spot looking down the length of a river valley). If you're firing your missile from one tree line to the next your position's going to be pretty obvious.

[Muzzleflash1990]

 @panzersaurkrautwerfer  1 and 2: I am actually completely fine with the abstraction governing the various aspects of spotting. I was more inquiring about the high output of the spotting abstraction; the effectiveness - or reliability - of spotting.

You are right, we mostly only see the tanks that get hit in videos. But I think the video still shows that for a "green/regular" crew with an older tank, spotting a launch is not a guarantee. How that project to more modern tanks, with well trained crews, I do not know, but I would still guess it is possible that you do not spot a launch. Or to say it in other terms: even if in RL a platoon of tanks can reliably 98% spot any ATGM launch on one of the tanks due to assigning sectors, many times I see people do not use them in full platoons (I occasionally do not - especially as US), and I do not think the abstraction should give them any such "platoon"-benefit  -- not saying they do. (In a too simplified probabilistic model, giving each tank a ~62% spotting probability would mean a platoon would spot a launch with 98% percent chance). Anyway, I am not saying anything is wrong at all - I am not qualified to do that - I was merely inquiring and disputing whether to notion that ATGM launch detection is a practical certainty as have been argued here, even with well trained crew with full complement of eyes and thermal equipment.

I fully agree with you on the "sequencing thing" and follow on shots.

@MikeyD About central Europe. That is also what I have read: that the average maximum visual range is ~1.6km. But from my interpretation of "war games" and manuals, you would find the non-typical, non-average engagement distance for you ATGMs and sniper tanks. There might not be many such positions covering an avenue of approach, and they may be tricky to find, specially on a map (although now a days with digital maps and digital LOS tools it is easier), they would still be there. Of course with fewer suitable locations, you decrease the number of artillery targets to hit.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Muzzleflash1990

[lapdog33]

maps are bad. try playing on maps that have more grass and heavy woods,trees and lots of bushes, difference is noticable. 90% of maps in cmbs are lacking grass/bushes so the cover is considerably reduced. tank crew set to normal would help too

try Ambush map, from a scenario,  its maybe even best cmbs map in the game. do not bother with QB maps (maybe few work)

[IMHO]

Guys,

What's the current status on this? Is a change in plans? I remember in CMSF the tanks would instantaneously acquire targets, turn, aim and start shooting if still alive at this moment. As far as I understand in CMBS tanks immediately learn the direction (and position themselves relative to the threat) but do not acquire the targets per se. Will a fix make tanks unplayable easy preys?

[Artemis258]

Re the video: Wow that's a hell of a hit... @panzersaurkrautwerfer would I be right in assuming those objects that go flying off and up either side are the blow-out panels...? The M1 stores it's ammo in the rear of the turret, yeah? hence the immediate burn? Would such a hit necessarily be a crew kill or is it possible the cook-off and the pannels would work as some sort of last-ditch ERA (IF the fire doors in the turret are down) ? 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That is indeed an ammo cook off and blow out (design doing its job) If the doors between the ammo stores & turret were open, the crew & tank is almost certainly toast, if they were closed it will need some work, but it will be back in the field in due course.....Here's one from Yemen, in this one I think the ammo-store doors may have been open, so it doesn't look at all good for the crew (or tank)

This one from Iraq demonstrates the blow-out panels working quite well:

This video, again from Iraq, is quite instructive, even though it doesn't show the effects of the hit on the unbuttoned tank (too splattery, I'd imagine):

Note though how the Abrams turret does not, in the blink of an eye, slew to face the threat and put an uncannily accurate HE round straight onto the Kornet launcher. 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sgt.Squarehead]

This is a great video from Ramadi in 2015:

You actually see the blow-out panels hit the overhead screen/shade and fall back down. 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead