Night Combat

[pad152]

There's night battle, when playing Syria, US vehicles drive right by Syrains force and the Syrain s can't fight because they can't see them.

I know the US owns the night but this just doesn't seem right. Don't Syrain tanks have optical sights that work at night?

[Sgt.Rock of Easy Company]

By the looks of them, it seems a few syrian tanks have Infrared spotlights, but those would make the Syrian tanks like beacons of light through the eyes of the U.S..

Im not sure how rugged the current US night optics are, but the best I could see to counter would be to try to blind the Night vision (flares, bright lights, cities for background cover, full moon?), but even then, theres not much to defeat Thermal optics. Best you could do would be to try diffuse the infrared signal, or scatter it, but even then you would still be giving it off to the degree that you would still be suspect as being enemy combatants. Or if you could match the infra-red signals (human body or vehicle), then it would be the same tactics as with night optics. Course I dont think the Syrians have anything to do that.

I dont know, dont fight at night against the US?

[dan/california]

See link below for how a machine gun stands out on thermal optics. Then say ouch!

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/200773113011.aspx?comments=Y

[Pandur]

ok, this arcticle is from 2005, and things most likeley advanced a bit from there. but it gives an interessting picture about what "normal" opposition could do to help themselfs and their vehicles.

i dont talk about peasents wich mount their PK in a toyota type pickup

This article was Originally Published on Dec 14, 2005 in Volume: 3 Issue: 8

Don’t Be Seen

Ever since vehicles were exposed to combat during the First World War, there’s been two ways of camouflaging them: paint or screening with nets and foliage. As detection systems—particularly man-portable ones—become increasingly sophisticated, so too have the methods for hiding potential targets.

With the American military’s transformation to a lighter force there is an even greater emphasis on avoiding detection, not only from the human eye but any number of optical and thermal surveillance systems now available to anyone who has the cash to buy them. While it’s easy for an individual soldier to fade out of view (see SOTECH 3.2) hiding SOF-type vehicles (GMVs, ground resupply vehicles, fast attack vehicles, etc.) takes a bit more effort.

According to FM 5-103 (survivability), modern sensing devices detect reflected short-wave and radiated long-wave infrared (IR) energy. Special video devices “read” IR energy and detect dead or dying vegetation as well as objects painted similar to their surroundings. As a counter, special camouflage paint having a short-wave infrared response much like natural vegetation is available. The long-wave or thermal infrared energy radiated by a surface depends on the surface temperature. Hot surfaces radiate much more energy than cool surfaces; thus, hot surfaces are normally easier to detect with thermal infrared or heat-sensitive devices.

The spectral region covers the visible (.4 to .75 mm), near IR (.75 to 4.0 mm), mid-IR (4 to 13 mm), and far IR (14 to 100 mm). Optical and night sights work in the visible range, while targets in the mid-IR range are visible to laser designators/range finders. Those in the mid-IR range are visible to passive thermal sights and far IR to thermal imagers.

The simple disruptive patterns of paint used during the first and second world wars proved fairly effective then and even now against the human eye. To obscure vehicles in both the visual and infrared wavebands, these patterns were replicated using a range of variable emissivity paints. An example is the UK firm Colebrand International which offers a range of variable emissivity paints that work in both visual and infrared wavebands. Colebrand has also developed TriLom, a tailored composite cover which minimizes IR, radar and visual signatures, simultaneously.

Dr. Timothy R. O’Neill, formerly a professor of engineering psychology at West Point, was one of the first to note the “digital camouflage effect” in the 1970s, that was briefly used on some U.S. Army armored vehicles. While the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment experimented with a test pattern from 1978 to the early 1980s, the Army wisely decided to adopt a standard NATO pattern (the 3-color scheme still in use). Having a separate camouflage for each country and each service would have a critical intelligence signature. Dr. O’Neill also noted that “the test used to select the standard NATO pattern was methodologically flawed in several respects; it is still taught at West Point as a failure of test design.”

Another technological leap surpasses the old brush or spray-gun method of paint application with a sticky film, like a decal. In the civilian world, these coatings are often seen as rolling billboards on public transportation buses. O’Neill now works for HyperStealth Corporation, that, in cooperation with 3M and the Military Office of His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan, is working to develop this new military concealment application technology using new anti-thermal and anti-infrared coatings. The initial trials of KA2 digital vehicle camouflage was completed on a Chevrolet Suburban with the help of 3M Commercial Graphics Division with Scotchprint and ScotchCal window coating. This vehicle was featured with Jordan’s Counter-Terrorism Battalion (CTB 71) at the World SWAT Challenge in Nevada 2005.

An interesting variation of this technology is offered by the Australian firm Camtech, which is similar to civilian window tinting. The Camoglaze Appliqué Camouflage for Transparent Surfaces (ACTS) is Camtech’s one-way vision system that presents a camouflage surface to observers outside the vehicle without obscuring crew vision. Touted as extremely effective in cutting glint from vehicle windows and turret vision blocks, it comes in a removable version for windscreens. Camoglaze product is not in use, although it had been specified for a number of new military vehicles, the specification was changed before manufacturing commenced.

“Camtech did a lot of camouflage pattern testing before settling on the Barracuda MB19 pattern in various color combinations which matches existing vehicle liveries well,” said Owen Graham, Camtech’s managing director. “The MB19 pattern does not have to match bodywork stripes exactly to extend disruptive lines over the glassed areas and is popular for truck tarpaulins.”

Camouflage netting has been in use for most of the 20th century, but its disadvantages are well-known—it takes time to set up (which made it useful only in defensive applications) and it was cumbersome, easily catching on the countless projections found on any vehicle. Stowing nets onboard a vehicle either meant they were neatly packed up (which meant they were of no camouflage value) or left hanging on the sides of the vehicle, possibly becoming a hazard for the crew.

A number of international firms offer multispectral camouflage nets, where customers pick the fabric colors, geometry of the patterns and even the size of the mesh as well as the radar reflecting material. When combined with the irregular surface of the net, this causes scattering of radar energy over the entire range of frequencies and therefore decreases the platform’s radar detectability. The United States military uses SAAB Barracuda’s ULCAN (Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Net system), with over 70,000 woodland and 13,000 desert systems in use.

GMA Cover Corporation, whose soft top and cargo cover systems, designed specifically for the HMMWV, FMTV, MTVR, trailers and older light, medium and heavy wheeled platforms, are coated to provide a low-gloss finish and reduced infrared signature. Within the near-infrared spectrum (700-900 nms), GMA’s camouflage soft top and cargo covers are coated to deliver 25 to 60 percent reflectance.

When asked about the issue of camouflage net setup has always been a time-consuming hassle in the past, Brian Keller president of GMA, pointed out that “GMA’s integrated mobile vehicle signature management systems were designed to provide a more effective and efficient method to increase vehicle camouflage and concealment, in comparison to the traditional use of pole-supported screens. Camouflage panels are custom-designed to fit to the surfaces of the host vehicle, with panels fastened to the vehicle with simple hooks, tension-adjustable straps and Velcro. Pull-out screens offer additional camouflage, concealment and multi-spectral signature reduction when the vehicle is halted for longer periods.” Installation times vary: for the HMMWV, the system can be fully installed by two soldiers onto a vehicle within 15 to 20 minutes. Deploying the pull out screens takes only a couple of minutes, fully retracting and stowing the screens can be completed by two individuals in five to 10 minutes.

Furthermore, GMA SIGMA systems are constructed using multiple layers of polymer materials, specifically chosen to suppress multi-spectral signatures emitted by the host vehicle. The signature management materials also feature specially-formulated coatings and embedded aluminum threading to help thwart detection by visual, thermal, infrared and radar sensory technologies.

Keller also clarified GMA’s product designations, “GMA Delta is our commercial product, GMA Alpha is our category of premium vehicle camouflage, soft top and cargo cover solutions, and GMA SIGMA is our category of integrated mobile vehicle signature management systems.”

Patterns offered by GMA include monotone green, tan, white and the three-color woodland scheme. According to Keller, “GMA’s product engineering team continues to work with different designs, including those similar to digital patterns, to meet the evolving requirements of our military clients”. Keller also noted that “GMA is planning to formally introduce a new lightweight bow and cover kit for the FMTV, additional reversible camouflage covers for medium truck platforms and a camouflage cargo cover to support the up-armored MTVR troop carrier. GMA is also currently focused on leveraging experience in multi-spectral camouflage to develop and bid for the U.S. Army’s ULCAN contract.”

SAAB Barracuda’s Mobile Camouflage System (MCS) is also an example of the netting solution updated for the 21st century, where some of the vehicle-associated problems are solved. The MCS, originally designed to protect armored vehicles both during movement and in combat, utilizes different materials to obscure in the visual/near infrared, thermal, and radar wavebands. Further enhancement of the system includes the application of heat transfer reduction materials, to conceal the heating of the vehicle by solar radiation.

SAAB’s general approach for MCS is to hide glossy or flat surfaces into non-glossy three dimensional surface structures, with color and near-infrared values similar to the environmental condition of the region. Significantly recognizable parts of the vehicle (like gun turrets or weapons mounts) will also be concealed with contour disrupters. An ideal camouflage will also obstruct laser reflections to affect the enemy’s range measurement accuracy.

Counter Camo

As in any arena, there is a constant battle of technology and counter-technology. For instance, Los Alamos National Laboratory has filed a patent for a three-laser system that can differentiate between natural and man-made camouflage. Working at 635 nm, 700 nm and 830 nm, the lasers’ combined beam illuminates at a target and the image is then captured by an electronic camera. Since synthetic versions of leaves reflect light of different wavelengths in the same way, the reflectivity of natural vegetation is considerably higher at 700 nm and 830 nm. The Los Alamos design also proposed modulating or tuning the light beams with a lower frequency signal, so that the system could remove distortion caused by mist, rain or smoke. As with many technological leaps, it’s only a matter of time before potential adversaries have something similar (if not identical).

A potential countermove to this detection method sounds like something straight out of a science-fiction movie, where the targeted object is “cloaked” from observation. The most promising technology to date is organic light-emitting diode (OLED), where the flexible version of tiny screens can be narrower than the width of a human hair, potentially capable of creating an image other than what’s actually there.

Composite fused carbon nanomesh holds great promise for improving many signature management functions, including night vision cloaking. Laboratory tests have shown the material has significant laser light diffusion capabilities. Alan Cummings, CEO of Seldon Laboratories, one of the firms involved in developing this technology, noted that they “are working on signature management materials under an R&D contract with SAAB Barracuda which incorporate our proprietary signature management materials and technology. We have made materials which show satisfactory performance for radar attenuation; we are now combining a thermal solution. These products are intended for initial use on SOF vehicles. We are excited about the progress to date and anticipate further advancements in the coming months.”

...

[Speedy]

Do the Syrians have illumination rounds in the game?

[Pandur]

dont think so, but would help against all the "classical" night vision infantry(i dont mean the thermals with that)

[Sirocco]

I thought we were going to get illum in the game? I have a vague recollection of a discussion on that point from some time ago.

[Pandur]

really!? that would be sweet if it comes with the corresponding effect on night vision googles or scopes.

[winkelried]

One point which could be considered to improve the probability of survival on the Syrian side is deception. Seems to have worked pretty well in Kosovo for the Serbs. Although i am not sure if the Syrian terrain leaves lot of room for deception (e.g. mock-up tanks, guns, ...).

[Pandur]

i read about "thermal" decoys wich work more or less...

those things you can warp in yourself wich can be heated by "camping grade" electicity, warped around a scarecrow. can give a man decoy...

also refridgerators or other similar devicec with produce relatively much mild heat(target wont glow 1KM becouse of heat ) can be placed in knocked out tanks, cars or other stuff to simulate a taget at night.

everything wihc can make heat and can be batteried by a distant electricity mean or a few car battereies "can" work.

problem is to place them effectively and to make em look that similar to the real thing that a shot is fired at them.

obviously easier with vehicle decoys than man sized.

[winkelried]

Looking a the camouflage and protection of individuals maybe we should take a look at the war between Israel and the Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon last year. This conflict was fought in an almost purely "asymmetric" manner. where the Hezbollah fighters relied on well prepared defensive positions often "embedded" in a civilian environment (also true for the katjusha positions). On the other hand Israel relied too long on its airpower and the ground units were committed in a sub-optimal way - despite the fact that the Israeli have also some impressive technology deployed.

[winkelried]

it is also true, that vehicles can be more easily camouflaged in towns or cities. as a Syrian in CM:SF one should therefore consider NOT to fight the armored battle in the open, but in town. E.g. having a tank well camouflaged within a building (or rubble) firing down a road with short engagement distances. I don't know, how a M1 would behave when being shot at by a T-72 at a distance of 300 to 500m or so.

[pad152]

I think you guys are missing the point. Something is a miss with night combat when playing the Syrian's. Yes, US units should be able to see and fire at longer distance, but if a Syrian unit sees a US vehicle and doesn't fire at it, why? If my unit sees your unit, it should be able to fire at it.

Something is a miss with night combat when playing the Syrian's.