Blind T-64A and armor question

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, Armorgunner said:

T-80U With Thermals

T-80UA?  Same as they sold to Cyprus (maybe S. Korea)?

[Codreanu]

From what I know the T-80U used in the Swedish trials was specially fitted with a thermal sight but it didn't become standard until the T-80UM a few years later. Zaloga's book on T-80s does show a picture of an Agava thermal sight inside of a T-80 and the caption just mentions it as a T-80U so maybe some were retrofitted with it in the mid 90s without fully upgrading them to the T-80UM standard? Precise information on it seems unclear.

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

You literally said this:

Now you ARE feeding the trolls

Clearly the guy is spouting off. Nearly all of what he said was just silly the only thing that could have potentially been a new data point was data on that the Swedish trial (Greek now - I'm confused). I mean I didn't think that BFC had not already reviewed it but hey new stuff gets declassified all the time so you never know.

[holoween]

While CMs spotting system is generally a great approximation there are some weakensses.

It fails to visually communicate just how much the los is obstructed

It doesnt update every second (IIRC it updates every 15s someone please correct me)

Units geneally see way too much

 

Looking at the screenshots im surprised any tank actually got los at all. Such heavy dust is quite capable of fully obscuring tanks even from thermal imagers no less normal day optics. Also the gunners ability to spot targets as close as this is severely diminished by the low fov of the optics.

 

The one point where id have to agree with NATO being possibly overly advanteged is that i think thermal imaging is overrated by CM:

Especially older TI where the gunner has to manually adjust the settings should loose quite a bit of its capability in inexperienced crews.

TI should be far more significantly impacted by heavy dust and smoke.

Weather conditions can have a significant impact on TI spotting ability. In bad conditions you might still get some heat signature but be unable to discern what it actually is.

 

[The_Capt]

One point that I think has been missing from this discussion are the broader C4ISR factors.  CM models not only point to point LOS but also factors in overall C4ISR quality via the C2 modelling along with soft factors like leadership and morale.  Here, in CMCW timeframe anyway, the US has the advantage as it had begun to really invest in C4ISR as an offset strategy to the Soviet overmatch in mass.  

So when a group of tanks "see" in game, it takes into account inputs that would be coming via C2 and comms.  

I think the whole "BFC = US/NATO fanbois!" is wholly undeserved.  They certainly do not model this way in the WW2 titles, CMSF2 is asymmetrical by design and CMBS might be a snap shot of the back end of US superiority - this game engine is aching for a Taiwan or Baltics 2040.  For CMCW, well the (louder) critics need to make up their minds, we have seen as much "The Soviets are broken!" as we have seen "WFT happened to the US?!"  No model is perfect but I suspect that in CMCW timeframe both sides are evenly matched at the tactical level and players need to learn the strengths and weaknesses of both sides...kinda why we went with 79-82 in the first place.  

[BeondTheGrave]

On 10/14/2021 at 2:30 PM, domfluff said:

To model that with arbitrary values - we could give the US tank a 50% chance of getting the first spot in a given engagement. We'll arbitrarily make the Soviet tanks half as good as that - a 25% chance of getting the first spot.

One vs One, clearly the US tank will have a major advantage, but if there were three Soviet tanks, then the chances of *one* of them getting the first spot is 58%. Understanding this is absolutely fundamental to understanding how to play Soviet and Soviet-derived forces, and it's something the Tutorial scenarios do a really good job of teaching.

I saw a document with a funny twist on this concept. In How to Win Outnumbered (1974, pdf warning) Paul Gorman tries to sum up the lessons of the Yom Kippur War. Really hes trying to convince the Army brass to push through objections and buy the MILES system. But first he tries to set up the importance of firing first versus second, as many felt that was a MAJOR advantage the Israelis had. He presents an amazing graph:

This, apparently, was derived from studying WWII era tank engagements in France. He does not specify which period in France, perhaps that didn't make a difference. I will leave it up to you to decide that. Anyway in the following paragraph he makes the stupendous claim that a force outnumbered 2:1 and firing first will have the same chance of winning as a different force outnumbered 8:1 but firing second. Someone should test this in CM, 1v2 but the 1 gets the first round, vs 1v8 and the 8 fire second. Somehow I think at 8:1 odds, that one tank is boned no matter what....

RE the main topic, something I feel strongly about is that CM at some point ought to include a better LOS tool than just using the 'target' button to scan the horizon. I know that fog of war is a real thing, and I cant just beam my consciousness into the brain of my units to get a perfect vision of the battlefield BUT I also think there has got to be a better way of expressing that information. Its frustrating to put down a tank and think you can see a hill or ridge, but the commander decides he cant. Or the other way, you think your good and suddenly a tow sneaks through two counties away and blows your company commander up. I like the system Eugen has developed where you can hit a hot key and see a shaded region for LOS, and I personally would like to see that modeled in CM. Even if that is too much info, or too difficult to render visually, there ought to be a better way of expressing it for the player. The Cold War era is all about maximizing terrain and distance, and to do that it really helps to know who can see what. A commander could walk the field or call up his men and find out, but I cant do that. I like (mostly) the actual spotting mechanics, I just would like the information delivered better to me. Perhaps that could also be a difficulty thing? 

RE the Cold War Era and thermals, IDK if theyre all that unrealistic. I think @IICptMillerII hits the nail on the head, the Gulf War and other actual experience has suggested that even NATO's rudimentary (compared to today) thermals were a major advantage in armored combat, as well as infantry. By the 1980s NATO really did dominate nighttime combat. But I'll also that in CMCW they feel really powerful. I have been fiddling with a small nighttime scenario, a Soviet attack on an American field barracks. But I realized that basically NATO has a decisive advantage at night and can spot Soviet infantry as if it were daylight, while the Soviets struggle to do the same past 50m. It made the scenario pretty unfun for the Soviet player. It also means that the Soviets will be seriously disadvantaged in scenarios involving bad weather, fog, haze, etc against thermal equipped US troops. Its a hard problem to work around and probably means that most maps will be noon, sunny maps rather than use the bad weather options. Im not sure tho how to balance those two issues. On the one hand its historic, on the other its not as exciting. Unless youre the US player. I wonder if perhaps weather, smoke, and haze should impact thermal sights more than they currently do? But I have not seen any documentation about how impactful weather was to that equipment IRL at the time. So thats a tough one. 

[Centurian52]

So, with the accusation that US/NATO tanks spot better than red tanks. My experience so far is that this is only true provided you have an M60A3 or better. And this is, as far as I know, entirely realistic. An M1 Abrams does spot better than a T64A. And an M1A2 SEP Abrams definitely spots better than a T72M. But I don't think the "Blue always spots better than Red" accusation holds up when you look at anything that predates an M60A3. I have not so far noticed a significant spotting advantage for M60A1s over T62s. And M48s definitely don't seem to have a noticeable spotting advantage over T55s. We can't directly test the WW2 equipment since the US/Commonwealth and Soviet WW2 forces are confined to separate titles. But comparing them by proxy with how they perform against German forces, they feel like they are probably about on par with each other.

One thing that could be skewing the results in favor of the US in CMCW is that the Soviets are more likely to be on the attack. And a stationary and partially concealed defender definitely has a huge spotting advantage over an attacker that is only making short stops and frequently has to cross over open ground, even given identical training and equipment.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Centurian52

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, BeondTheGrave said:

This, apparently, was derived from studying WWII era tank engagements in France. He does not specify which period in France, perhaps that didn't make a difference.

US 3rd and 4th Armored divisions, August '44 to March '45.

https://www.amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062

[MikeyD]

One thing that is (in my opinion) badly underutilized in the game is Red electronic warfare. Late 70s/early 80s the Russians had a tremendous brute force EW capability. It doesn't get used much in scenarios because not being able to call in air and artillery or keep your units in contact is... not fun, gamewise. I haven't tested it in-game but I would assume an on-map tank unit unable to communicate with anything but hand signals when unbuttoned would find its target acquisition abilities degraded somewhat. If US observers took away anything from the Ukraine conflict it was that we are not prepared to wage war in a heavy EW environment.

About comparing cross-platform WWII equipment, Red-on-red battles in the CMRT module can pit Russian armor vs Lend Lease armor. 

[dbsapp]

I've made a comparison between visibility in CMCW and Steel Beasts.

Perhaps it could shed some light on the discussed issues. 

 

 

 

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

So, with the accusation that US/NATO tanks spot better than red tanks. My experience so far is that this is only true provided you have an M60A3 or better. And this is, as far as I know, entirely realistic. An M1 Abrams does spot better than a T64A. And an M1A2 SEP Abrams definitely spots better than a T72M. But I don't think the "Blue always spots better than Red" accusation holds up when you look at anything that predates an M60A3. I have not so far noticed a significant spotting advantage for M60A1s over T62s. And M48s definitely don't seem to have a noticeable spotting advantage over T55s. We can't directly test the WW2 equipment since the US/Commonwealth and Soviet WW2 forces are confined to separate titles. But comparing them by proxy with how they perform against German forces, they feel like they are probably about on par with each other.

One thing that could be skewing the results in favor of the US in CMCW is that the Soviets are more likely to be on the attack. And a stationary and partially concealed defender definitely has a huge spotting advantage over an attacker that is only making short stops and frequently has to cross over open ground, even given identical training and equipment.

This. I've been searching the TO&E for seeing eye dogs for my M60A1 unbuttoned TCs when fighting at night. Alas, they die to T62s w/o ever seeing what killed them. 

 

H

Edited October 16, 2021 by Halmbarte

[Armorgunner]

15 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

T-80UA?  Same as they sold to Cyprus (maybe S. Korea)?

T-80U equipped with Agava sights. And interestingly equipped with ARENA aps. Was offered by the Russians.

The ability to fight in the dark, proved insufficient to the requirements for tanks in the mechanized brigades. This applied to both active IR, and the tested IRV camera.

 

Edited October 16, 2021 by Armorgunner

[Armorgunner]

15 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

T-80UA?  Same as they sold to Cyprus (maybe S. Korea)?

Double post

Edited October 16, 2021 by Armorgunner

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That sounds rather like the T-80UM-1:

[IICptMillerII]

As far as the Cold War is concerned, it was only the T-80UK, which existed in extremely small numbers. Per the source I listed. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Just now, IICptMillerII said:

As far as the Cold War is concerned, it was only the T-80UK, which existed in extremely small numbers. Per the source I listed. 

Ahah.....Gotcha! 

I'm taking that as an official announcement of T-80Us for a future CM:CW release! 

Very good news it is too, when can I place my pre-order? 

[BeondTheGrave]

14 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

This. I've been searching the TO&E for seeing eye dogs for my M60A1 unbuttoned TCs when fighting at night. Alas, they die to T62s w/o ever seeing what killed them. 

 

H

This seems accurate to me. In the Yom Kippur War (IIRC the Israelis used unmodified A1s, plus Cents) the T-62 initially had a MAJOR advantage at night simply because most Israeli M60s lacked serious night sights. Here were not talking TTS sights like the A3 has but rather those xenon lamps you see on the turret. To use them you need a lens coated with a special film. According to Abraham Rabinovich on the first night of the war no tanks had the right sights, and only a few commanders had binoculars with the coating. This led to major losses to Israeli tank crews. I've read a number of accounts which talk about shooting at moving but unidentified shapes, of camping out near burning vehicles for light, and of aiming at the ubiquitous 'cats eye' glow of the Syrian lamps. But once commanders realized the issue, they flooded the theater with these binoculars. I think they may have also started replacing the gunners sights in maintenance depots, I know that happened after the war, but not 100% about during the fighting. Anyway with the right sights the Syrian tanks looked like they were projecting a spotlight from the turret and that reversed their advantage into a serious disadvantage. 

So the question about the model in that particular pairing is how well stocked American tankers would have been with the right kinds of sights. Going of recent combat data (Yom Kippur) would suggest the T-62 would have a general advantage. I have not seen any documents either way about reequipping A1s to have the lens coatings, and the emphasis after the YKW seemed to be on procuring A3s with thermal sights and, of course, getting in the M1s. 

Anyway I suspect these lights arnt modeled in game and so that advantage/disadvantage is represented in the unit's soft stats, leading the T-62 to have an general nighttime advantage. 

[MikeyD]

I recall someone had posted, or I had seen somewhere else, that Russian tank night sights for infrared spotlight fighting had utility even without the IR spotlight being turned on. I recall nothing beyond that, it may have given the night sight's useful passive rage. All I remember is exclaiming 'Oh!' when I read it. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Didn't the sight include an image intensifier alongside the IR system?

@MikeyD  Here you go (TKN-2 Commanders Scope as fitted to T-62):

"The original 1961 model of the T-62 featured the TKN-2 surveillance device mounted in the rotating cupola. The TKN-2 was the successor to the TKN-1S monocular night vision periscope, differing in that it provided a combined day-night capability rather than a night-only vision capability. Work on "Karmin" began in 1956 at the Zagorsk Optical and Mechanical Plant. In 1957, the TKN-2 was tested in an experimental T-55 test bed at the testing grounds of factory No. 183, now known as Uralvagonzavod. TKN-2 later went on to be installed on the original T-62 upon its introduction in 1961, thus becoming the first combined day-night periscope to be installed in a Soviet tank. The TKN-2 was a sufficiently modern surveillance device for its time. It had a target cuing feature, was compact, and had a relatively advanced passive light intensification system supplemented by an IR spotlight. On the other hand, it wasn't stabilized and featured only rudimentary rangefinding capabilities."

My emphasis.

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html

Edited October 16, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[akd]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Didn't the sight include an image intensifier alongside the IR system?

@MikeyD  Here you go (TKN-2 Commanders Scope as fitted to T-62):

"The original 1961 model of the T-62 featured the TKN-2 surveillance device mounted in the rotating cupola. The TKN-2 was the successor to the TKN-1S monocular night vision periscope, differing in that it provided a combined day-night capability rather than a night-only vision capability. Work on "Karmin" began in 1956 at the Zagorsk Optical and Mechanical Plant. In 1957, the TKN-2 was tested in an experimental T-55 test bed at the testing grounds of factory No. 183, now known as Uralvagonzavod. TKN-2 later went on to be installed on the original T-62 upon its introduction in 1961, thus becoming the first combined day-night periscope to be installed in a Soviet tank. The TKN-2 was a sufficiently modern surveillance device for its time. It had a target cuing feature, was compact, and had a relatively advanced passive light intensification system supplemented by an IR spotlight. On the other hand, it wasn't stabilized and featured only rudimentary rangefinding capabilities."

My emphasis.

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html

T-62s in game should have TKN-3 commander’s day/night sights, and this is overstating their passive capability.  They were very poor without IR illumination.  Its passive capability would be mostly to pick up other active IR emitters (irrelevant in game, since vehicles are assumed to not be using active IR).  It is correct, however, to say that TKN-2 was an advanced sight in 1957.

I put together this list on night observation capabilities for a bug report (that is not resolved, so don’t take it as reflecting exactly how things work in game):

All below listed as: Vehicle model (gunner's sight / commander's sight)

---

Day optics or active-only IR (should not have "IR optics" night vision since active IR is not modelled)

T-55 (TPN-1 active IR / TKN-1 active IR)

T-55A (TPN-1 / TKN-1)

T-62 1972 (TPN-1 / TKN-3 active IR)

T-62 1975 (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

T-64A (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

T-72 (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

T-72A (TPN-1 / TKN-3)

BMP-1/1P/1K/PK (1PN22M2 active IR / TKN-3)

BTR-60PA/PB/PAK/PBK/PU (TKN-1)

BTR-70/K (TKN-1)

BRDM-2/U (TKN-1)

MT-LB (TKN-1)

9P133 BRDM-2 AT-3 (9S446 day-only ATGM sight)

9P148 BRDM-2 AT-5 (9S451 day-only ATGM sight)

9P149 Shturm-S (9S823 day-only ATGM sight)

---

*Day or Active IR only buttoned for both gunner and commander, but unbuttoned STANO at night for commander. The NVGs are, I believe, assigned directly to the crew via TO&E, but may not currently be working in game. Capability of AN/PSV-5 NVGs under light from a quarter moon is 300m tank-sized targets, 150m personnel targets (TM 11-5855-238-20)

M48A5 (M32 active IR, unbuttoned AN/PVS-5 passive)

M60A1 (M32 active IR / M36 active IR + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A1 RISE (M32 / M36 + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A1 RISE+ (M32 / M36+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

All other US vehicles not otherwise listed, I think

---

Soviet passive night vision (image intensification)

Actual capabilities of these systems (not performance in game):
500m starlight, 850m moonlight target recognition; 5.5x magnification for TPN-3 gunner's sight (T-80 1979 manual)
400m starlight, 600m moonlight target recognition; 5x magnification for BPK-1-42 gunner's sight (BMP-2 manual)

T-64B1 (TPN-3 passive / TKN-3 active)

T-64B (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-72A 1980 (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-80 (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-80B1 (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

T-80B (TPN-3 / TKN-3)

BMP-2/2K (BPK-1-42 passive / TKN-3) NOTE: the Konkurs ATGM (AT-5) uses a separate 10x 9Sh119 optical sight without night vision.

---

US (and one Soviet system) passive night vision (image intensification)
Actual capabilities were: 1000m starlight / 1200m moonlight target recognition; magnification varied, see below (TM 11-5855-214-24; FM 17-12-4 M60A2 Tank Gunnery)

M60A2 (M50 10x / M51 10x + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A1 RISE Passive (M32E1 7.1x / M36E1 7.1x + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M60A3 (M32E1 / M36E1+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M113A1 (AN/TVS-5 5.6x on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

M113A2 (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

M163A1/A2 Vulcan (AN/TVS-5 on gun mount)

M106A1/A2 mortar carrier (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

M125 mortar carrier (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only)

Dismounted M2HB HMG team (AN/TVS-5)

Dismounted Mk19 grenade launcher team (AN/TVS-5)

1V14 (6.2x 1PN44)

---

Thermal

M60A3 (TTS) (2.67x/8x TTS thermal / commander M36E1 passive + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M1 (3x/10x TIS thermal / gunner's primary sight extension for commander + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5)

M2 / M3 Bradley (4x/12x ISU thermal / gunner's primary sight extension commander+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) 

M901 ITV (4x/12x AN/TAS-4 thermal, usable by gunner buttoned)

M150 TOW carrier (AN/TAS-4, usable unbuttoned only)

M151A2 (TOW) (AN/TAS-4)

Dismounted TOW team (AN/TAS-4)

M47 Dragon team (4x AN/TAS-5) 

---

Radar / Soviet Passive unbuttoned

BRM-1 (1PN22-M2 active IR / commander buttoned and not moving PSNR-5K radar / commander unbuttoned 1PN33B passive binoculars with 500m tank detection range, 200m personnel detection range) NOTE: this should be BRM-1K if it has radar.

Edited October 17, 2021 by akd

[domfluff]

I was under the impression that none of the tanks in CM with active infrared use them actively, for fairly obvious reasons (i.e., in this kind of peer conflict, you're making yourself far more visible to the enemy than you're making them visible to you).

From memory, the T-62's passive IR functions out to 100-200m or so, and it's not great. It's a lot better than nothing, but it's not good.

Night fighting wasn't the doctrine of either side at the start of the CMCW period, and as such in CW, night fights are either as confused, ridiculous and random as they are in the WW2 titles, or they're dominated by the later US gear.

[MG TOW]

16 hours ago, domfluff said:

I was under the impression that none of the tanks in CM with active infrared use them actively, for fairly obvious reasons (i.e., in this kind of peer conflict, you're making yourself far more visible to the enemy than you're making them visible to you).

From memory, the T-62's passive IR functions out to 100-200m or so, and it's not great. It's a lot better than nothing, but it's not good.

Night fighting wasn't the doctrine of either side at the start of the CMCW period, and as such in CW, night fights are either as confused, ridiculous and random as they are in the WW2 titles, or they're dominated by the later US gear.

I'm going to ask because I don't know. Haven't been able to find a reference for this period. But, did the soviets practice using one tank as an IR spotter, with other forward tanks firing at the painted targets. It seems to me with all this IR gear, a survivable tactic would be paint and scoot, letting a silent mate fire before before the enemy does.  I might be way off but was curious.

[domfluff]

I definitely wouldn't want to be that guy. As soon as you turn an IR spotlight on, everything can see you, and you're still going to be revealing less than you give away - I don't think that's really a viable option for anything.

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

I definitely wouldn't want to be that guy. As soon as you turn an IR spotlight on, everything can see you, and you're still going to be revealing less than you give away - I don't think that's really a viable option for anything.

Vladimir, your tank is the worst performing to norms so you're the designated active IR tank. The remainder of the platoon will fire on the American muzzle flashes and ATGM launch signatures. 

Comrades, you have your orders!

H

[Armorgunner]

On 10/16/2021 at 3:45 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That sounds rather like the T-80UM-1:

I´m not saying you are wrong. It´s almost 30 years ago, and I only remember T-80U. The 2 tanks sent for trial, had K5 on the turret and no ARENA. Wich probably would have been evaluated separately. But they had Agava Thermal sights, for the gunner! I´v tryed to searsh every Swedish site. But everyone just say T-80U, and nothing else.

 

Found one interesting article. From the first Swedish delegation to Russia, to the trials in Sweden. A lot of pictures (one on the gunners monitor from the AGAVA thermal sight), but unforunatly in Swedish. So you have to use Google translate. Its the second half of the long article. The first half is about the 5 T-72M1, 800 MT-LB, and 350 BMP 1 Sweden bought from Germany in the early 90´s.

 

Still only say T-80U though!

När fienden kom till Sverige (ointres.se)

"The Russian openness surprised the Swedish group, who were free to photograph and examine details on tank T-80U. Here is the gunners sight. below and to the left is the monitor for the nightsight AGAVA."

 

"Shooting tests were carried out at FFK in Karlsborg against protection modules representative of T-80U ballistic protection"

Just google translated from Swedish, of the text under the pictures I posted from the article.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Armorgunner