Laser Range Finder, Flamethrowers and Super Soldiers

[Scheuer]

I have been thinking about three things regarding TacOps lately.

First question: Tank Guns rely on laser range finders to measure distance to target. Will this laser beam be blocked by smoke? If so, the gunner will then need to manually figure out the range (provided he sees the target in his thermal sight), and the tank will suffer from reduced accuracy and rate of fire. Is this assumption right? (Real tankers are welcome to answer) And is it reflected in TacOps?

Next question: According to the documentation that comes along with TacOps, as well as other sources, OPFOR infantry is liberally equipped with flamethrowers (about one per platoon). This would in modern units be the devastating RPO, capable of firing thermobaric (fuel/air explosive) rounds. Certainly this would have a great impact in a TacOps scenario, and actually I think I´m glad it isn´t included, but what is the exact reason flamethrowers are not included?

Last queastion: When a full-strength squad is reduced to just one man, this solitary soldier manages to fire, in fifteen seconds: his assault rifle; the attached grenade launcher; the squad automatic weapon; a disposable anti-tank weapon; and the squad´s rocket launcher. Pretty impressive. Does a squad always have the same fire power regardless of how many casualties it has taken?

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

I have a note that normal battlefield smoke does not unduly hinder laser range finders. I don't have a citation for it though and a quick Internet search did not confirm or deny that.

TacOps penalizes the firing accuracy of any unit that is firing out of smoke or into smoke but does not currently penalize for firing through smoke that is between the firer and target. Changing the latter item is on the "think about it" list.

I need to qualify that a bit. Smoke that is between the firier and target does prevent firing (breaks the line of sight) if the shooter does not have a thermal sight.

If a unit is not equipped with thermal sights then it can not shoot from, into, or through smoke unless the target is at point blank range.

> ... what is the exact reason flamethrowers are not included?

To the best of my knowledge no one has actually used a flame thrower in combat since the early days of Vietnam. I am pretty sure that the U.S. has not used a flame rocket in combat since the departure of the 3.5" rocket launcher in the 70s. Flame throwers and flame rockets (and napalm) tend to be tactically counterproductive except in a wet jungle environment. It is seldom tactically helpful to start large fires on a dry battlefield.

The U.S. developed a shoulder fired flame round in the mid 70s, perhaps to replace the white phosphorus round of the abandoned 3.5" rocket launcher. However, I don't think it was used much even in training. My weapons platoon had the launcher for the round in the mid seventies but we were not allowed to carry or fire the round due to safety and reliability issues. The Navy did not want the round on its amphibious transports because it would be almost impossible to put out the fire if one should accidentally be set off.

>Last queastion: When a full-strength squad is reduced to just one man,

>this solitary soldier manages to fire, in fifteen seconds: his assault

>rifle; the attached grenade launcher; the squad automatic weapon; a

>disposable anti-tank weapon; and the squad´s rocket launcher. Pretty

>impressive. Does a squad always have the same fire power regardless of how

>many casualties it has taken?

Yes, that is the abstraction for a dismounted infantry squad or team. It speeds up combat resolution significantly and a one or two man marker doesn't usually survive long enough in contact for the simplification to cause significant harm.

[ April 26, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: MajorH ]

[Scheuer]

Thank you for your quick and clarifying answers. Don´t get me wrong, from a hobby user point of view I think flamethrowers and termobaric rounds would disrupt gameplay, but here´s an account of russian troops using flamethrowers in the battle for Grozny 2000:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/fuelair/fuelair.htm

[Intruder13]

I have found online many flame weapons that OPFOR countries possess. I uploaded a few of them to my website: Chinese flamethrowers.

It seems to me that, under the right conditions, burning down a forest would be a good way to get infantry out of defilade.

[minmax]

Intruder,

It has been my experience (circa late 80's early 90's) that flame throwers are really only dangerous to the poor slob that is using it. First is the humping of volatile chemicals into its best firing envelope (about 25 meters on a very calm day) Next stand up and squirt away. Again, you are going to be hammered before you get close. Current inventory uses FAE (Fuel-Air Explosives) a nice dense cloud of JP-5 or 6 that covers about 30 meters and then whoomp! it either burns you to death, sucks all the oxy out of your lungs so you suffocate, or concussion makes your internal organs cheese spread. These can be air or artie delivered but most of the cannon-cockers I knew hated working with the stuff again very volatile.

Twice in Central America I saw flame throwers used. First was off an old T-54, not very good for anything but clearing brush. Flame shot out about 50 meters which is well within the deadly range of AT-4, M-203, LAAW, and a decently placed grenade. The fuel tube ran along the outside of the barrel so shratnel (spelling?) could rupture it and make the tank an easy bake oven. The other occasion was a set up on an old 6x6 chassis which was used to clear brush in Brazil for grazing land. Again dangerous and not very survivable.

Given the choice a personal favorite is the willie pete round. It burns as long as there is oxygen present pouring water on it fails unless you submerge the affected area. I think they have been eliminated from the inventory for the same reason land mines are being frowned upon by the politically correct types.

[Coyote]

Originally posted by Scheuer:

... First question: Tank Guns rely on laser range finders to measure distance to target. Will this laser beam be blocked by smoke? If so, the gunner will then need to manually figure out the range (provided he sees the target in his thermal sight), and the tank will suffer from reduced accuracy and rate of fire. Is this assumption right? (Real tankers are welcome to answer) And is it reflected in TacOps? ...

In practice this isn't a problem. The infrared laser rangefinder can "see" through fog and smoke somewhat better than the gunner can through his thermal sight and much better that a simple daylight sight. It is very rare that you can see something but not range to it.

Coyote

[Scheuer]

Originally posted by Coyote:

It is very rare that you can see something but not range to it.

Thank you for the information. Do you have personal experience of this?

[Coyote]

Originally posted by Scheuer:

I was active in the early 80's when 8th ID changed to the M60A3 with laser rangefinders and thermal sights. It was dramatically better than the passive night vision, seachlights, and coincidence rangefinders on the M60A1.

[Spotless]

re: smoke and lasers:

From what I understand, "normal" smoke and such are not a problem. Particulate smoke, or heavy dust, can clutter the laser for accurate ranging. These conditions are rare, however. Some vehicle systems use a "bispectral" smoke which helps spoof visual and IR imaging. It's a last ditch effort not to get a sabot stuck in 'ya.

[Undaunted]

Apparently the Chinese Army used flamethrowers in border skirmishes with Vietnamese during the 80's. The following pics are captures from a footage about the so-called "Operation Bluesword Plan B" in 1984, a company-sized attack on vietnamese positions. This was one of the first combat footage of the PLA, and was (ineptly) edited into a propaganda. You may find this mpeg (poor graphic quality!) floating around on the web.

[Sir Kozakh Dragonfire]

Truly, hand held flamethrowers are not very effective in modern battlefield. Much more effective proved to be the HFS (heavy flamethrower systems) like Soviet-built HFS-1 "Buratino". It fires 30 220 mm. unguided missile rounds fitted with FAE on a distance from 400 m. to 3500 m. The flames cover an area of about 1 sqr. km. and reach even infantry covered in entrenchments. This system proved to be very effective in Afganistan and Chechnya.

[Coyote]

Originally posted by Sir Kozakh Dragonfire:

. . . like Soviet-built HFS-1 "Buratino". It fires 30 220 mm. unguided missile rounds fitted with FAE on a distance from 400 m. to 3500 m. The flames cover an area of about 1 sqr. km. . . .

This is a common misconception. FAE and the newer "thermobaric" weapons both produce a very large blast overpressure as their primary casualty causing mechanism. The secondary effect is the consumtion of much of the local oxygen supply causing dealth by asphyxiation to people in small spaces. Although both types of weapons produce a large visual fireball, this does not last long enough to be a significant source of ignition (i.e. a flame weapon). That and anyone inside the fireball has already been pulverized by the shockwave.

Nice pictures though.

[Sir Kozakh Dragonfire]

So, you are claiming that a barrage of this missiles won't ignite the forest massive?

[Tory the Magnus]

But what does it matter if it doesn't burn anything? The original reason for flame throwers being created was to make it easier to clear out trenches in WW1 if I'm not mistaken. And this HFS-1 "Buratino" seems to do the job with the added benefit that you don't have to wait for the fires to burn out before you capture the position.

[Rattler]

Originally posted by Spotless:

re: smoke and lasers:

From what I understand, "normal" smoke and such are not a problem. Particulate smoke, or heavy dust, can clutter the laser for accurate ranging. These conditions are rare, however. Some vehicle systems use a "bispectral" smoke which helps spoof visual and IR imaging. It's a last ditch effort not to get a sabot stuck in 'ya.

BTW, you have the possibility in TacOps to simulate the vehicles to use bispectral: In the preferneces set "Vehicle smoke defeats thermal sights" or the same for arty.

Rattler

[Coyote]

Originally posted by Sir Kozakh Dragonfire:

So, you are claiming that a barrage of this missiles won't ignite the forest massive?

It may or may not. In the few moments it will take oxygen levels to return to normal after the blast, the impact point will be cooled considerably. Consider the way in which explosives are used to extinguish oil well fires only on a much larger scale. In any event, anyone close enough to be burned will already have been killed by the blast wave and will no longer care about forest fires.

[Sir Kozakh Dragonfire]

Well, in the Buratino's facory passport there is a string, which says: "Can be used to... ignite large forest areas...". I always thought that the missiles contain napalm-like fluids.

There is a way to take benefit of forest fires if the forest massive spreads for several square kilometers and contains enemy units within. If you ignite one sqr. kilometer, the fire will spread to the other parts of the forest, burning or smoking out the enemy.

[dhuffjr]

I always thought that the missiles contain napalm-like fluids.

[/QB]

Check out Global Security.org's site. They have a TOS-1 listed which looks like the photo's posted. It also lists a 200x400m area of "ensured" destruction from one salvo.

Dennis

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by dhuffjr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I always thought that the missiles contain napalm-like fluids.

Check out Global Security.org's site. They have a TOS-1 listed which looks like the photo's posted. It also lists a 200x400m area of "ensured" destruction from one salvo.

Dennis [/QB]</font>

[dhuffjr]

I just guessing but my take is that (you pick a percentage greater than 50) of the force within that area would be killed/disabled. With some effects felt outside the area. My best comparison is with the bombs in v4.0 You have an effect at a 50% radius and a lesser one beyond that.

Dennis

[paleto]

Flamethrowers were used also in Grozny in 1996, in fact, it seems it was the only effective weapon of the Russian Army to get rebels out of the buildings.

It's a shame they aren't modeled, the Chechen Wars (and the assaults on Grozny) are very representative of future battles.

I think they have been eliminated from the inventory for the same reason land mines are being frowned upon by the politically correct types.

I don't think the two can compare. Landmines are an indiscriminate weapon, they kill and maim more people unrelated to a battle than soldiers, who are the legitimate target.

If you come back to your village after been forced to leave by a heavy battle and your kids are blown up because they were playing in an area that's been heavily mined and nobody has bothered to clean afterward, you wouldn't think of it in terms of pc or un-pc.