Guest Guest Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMoria Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 The Canadian Forces in Afghanistan use a handheld Thermal Imager called TigerEye but they are expensive and not widespread and I don't know how they are distributed out. Thermal Imagers can discern a difference to 1/10 of a degree Celcius, if I recall correctly, so they are still effective in hot weather. The chief drawback is range - with handheld units being good out to a kilometer or less. Which means they are useful if you have static position and you are wanting to see approaching hostiles. Less so if you are in the attack (handheld doesn't necessarily small and light) and even less so if you are trying to do survelliance over a large area. Afghanistan is just too big and spreadout for effective survelliance. Taliban dead have been found with current generation nightvision equipment on them, so the poppy money means they can afford to get the best, so they are likely using their night vision devices to avoid Nato troops. It is no longer the case that western forces 'own the night'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I know that there aren't thermal optics among the infantry in CMSF, but are they being used among infantry (not vehicular) in Afghanistan? The AN/PAS-13 Light, Medium and Heavy variants. I got to play with some (light and medium) a few days ago as part of a 240 shoot. The light and medium were good out to about 300 and 600m, respectively. The Heavy version apparently has longer range. That being said, the light version is like four pounds, and the medium is five or six and both are large, unwieldy and eat batteries like a fat kid eats cake. Would they help a lot in these instances? Some yes, but remember that the countermeasures to IR sensors can be as simple as throwing a blanket over yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Thermal Imagers can discern a difference to 1/10 of a degree Celcius, if I recall correctly, so they are still effective in hot weather. TOW2's thermal (maybe same as M1 Abrams had/has) which weighted about 10 kilograms has 0.3 degree in Celsius as minimum (footprint in snow should be visible for short while... i never tested it). I remember one light few kilograms weighting hand held thermal camera which i had opportunity to test might have had smaller 0.1 or 0.2 degree and smaller zoom, but it was very much okay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I haven't been over there personally (yet), but the concept of a far (300m+) ambush isn't lost on the Taliban. Not the majority, by any stretch, but another tool they'll use. One big thing they emphasized was how good the Taliban are at concealment. One of the instructors had just come back and said in seven months and probably fifteen bad firefights, he never once "saw" the Talibs that were shooting at them. At most, at very most, you'd see some small amount of dust kicked up, a tree branch swaying crazily or the glitter of shell cases falling nearby. Instead you had to "sense" ("That's where I'D be") where the shooters were or put suppressive fire towards anything that could conceivably hide a grown man. This matches up with what other forum members who have military experience have said and with what I have read about many firefights going back to WW2 (...and even the battle of the wilderness and Cold Harbour in 1864), on a modern battlefield it is very hard to spot enemy soldiers who know that being spotted means being killed, that realization tends to make you more careful . The spotting in CMSF 1.11 reflects this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Hello Adam: Nice pic of the chicken...send along the save file of your QB with a note on which guy to look at. my email is above. Thanks for taking time to post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 They couldn't be spotted even using the camera and zoom. But the game gave my team a full spot (not a "?") in less than a minute. The enemy fired maybe 5-6 shots in total, all single aimed shots. Sound is loud when rifle says BANG. Question marks seems very suitable for situation. There even might be muzzleflashes because forest might be dark enough. But sound should be enough for question mark. Also even small movement might reveal location. I think atleast i do spotting things so that when i hear something i focus my eyes to direction from where i think sound came from. If producer of sound moves even bit i might catch that. Sure i haven't got real lead shot at me, so that situation might be bit different and i might focus my eyes to soil... From very close distance. Bit longish example: I remember one instance when i was with my platoon were forming platoon's base of operation (we were practicing of fighting in "querilla" style) and we idiots used ready path thru wide open marsh surrounded by forest to get there while hauling thousands of rounds, tents, food, etc to base area. We hadn't loaded any blank-rounds to our mags yet as we didnt' know that exercise already had kicked running. Idea was to fill mags and belts while getting into location of base as we thought that is how higher up wanted us to proceed with exercise. I was just in middle of marsh as Opfor opened fire from maybe 150-200 meters away. I saw all 6 of them (or their muzzleflashes and bit of body's silhouette to be exact) at same time i dropped tent's equipments to ground and strated to fall onto my foot steps to get cover from lasers "ripping" air. I knew exactly where they were immediatly... Only if my LMG's belt would have had ammo :mad: To be honest opponents weren't very smart them selves. They were firing from standing position so whole marsh could see their location, maybe they were just welcoming us to exercise (as i dont' remeber any casualities from that fire) Sure blank-adapters we used have tendensy to make muzzleflashes more loud in audio and in visual sense, but still. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Apocal great stuff, thanks very much. No problem. Aircraft seem to be able to use their thermal imaging equipment from altitudes exceeding 9000m. Is that correct? If true, do you know if that's because the units are heavier or is it something to do with being at altitude instead of range over horizon? The aircraft pods weigh hundreds of pounds and are quite a bit bigger than anything I've seen carried. Horizon is too much of a factor, assuming you have line of sight, it's around ten miles away. But you so very rarely have line of sight that far unless you're at an elevated position. Wow, that isn't hard at all. What about a foxhole with some brush over top? Or a bit of urban building material, or cardboard? If you look around a bit, you can find pictures of T-series tanks with fresh cut vegetation attached to the turret and hull. That's because they cut down on the IR signature a bit. Not perfect camo, but the effect is noticeable from what I've heard. Regarding urban environments, here's a fun fact about IR: It can't see through glass. For the same reason shutting the window helps keep your house warm, a thermal imager looks at glass the same way it does a wooden door. Once the firing starts though, I imagine the heat from the muzzle would be a give-away that isn't easily concealed, is that correct? A muzzle is pretty small and resolution on most thermal systems leaves a lot to be desired. I could see if the guy was going absolutely nuts and his barrel was glowing white it'd be more discernable. Thanks, it's really good to have a professional around to answer this stuff. Heh, it's not a huge deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 A muzzle is pretty small and resolution on most thermal systems leaves a lot to be desired. I could see if the guy was going absolutely nuts and his barrel was glowing white it'd be more discernable. More likely one would see his face or hands before barrel gets change to heat up to be visible :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 More likely one would see his face or hands before barrel gets change to heat up to be visible :cool: Maybe. On the other hand, that muzzle will be a lot hotter than anyone's face or hands would probably ever be and possess a halo in the thermal sight. Unfortunately, I'm having problems getting volunteers to stand down range and let me test that theory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Maybe. On the other hand, that muzzle will be a lot hotter than anyone's face or hands would probably ever be and possess a halo in the thermal sight. Unfortunately, I'm having problems getting volunteers to stand down range and let me test that theory. Both are so true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSY Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 That is a quote found on the PBS "Frontline" website for a special they did this past Fall. For those of you with Netflix, you can get it sent to you or, cool as can be, watch it for free online. Thanks for the link Steve. I just finished watching it on Netflix -- an interesting if rather depressing documentary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 That's the O RLY owl. I didn't think to save it, the behaviour is common enough. I'm sure you could see it if you setup a battle with similar conditions. Play some "Forest" type QBs using the medium and large map sizes, light infantry for both sides. How can I test the efficacy of what you say if I am not looking at exactly what you saw? I have to first find the specific map, check the tree types of the EXACT area in question, and check all the various LOS, ect, ect.... I take the task seriously. Your comments are far too vague and my own testing of forest QB Maps (that I authored) don't seem off the mark. Perhaps I should mention to you that The QB Forest maps use a mix of tree types that vary the LOS from wide open to somewhat closed. I rarely use a 3xtree of the dense variety. While they do tend to block vehicles they are graphically obscuring to the game board. I rely on those 3xdense trees to block pathing on the opposite side of a forest (the players side of the map, if you will) so obscuring enemy LOS won't come into play. Something to keep in mind from your long experience in playing CMx1. I took two 3xtrees 20 Meter grids to effectively block vision So that's a minimum 20 PLUS Meters into a forest CMx2 gives a far more "realistic" chance of spotting in forest (including dense) But hitting the target is another thing all together...I do love how the forest in front of my unit often gets shredded. But like I said, you give me a specific save file and I'll be happy to tear into it. Just like you I want to improve the game 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 One thing we are definitely going to work on is introducing more uncertainty into the spotting/identification system. There aren't enough "shades of gray" in the system as it is now. That's because the CMx2 is so much more literal than the CMx1 code it's actually more difficult to be imprecise. Counter intuitive, I know, but 'tis the truth Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Secondbrooks, Are you saying you think it is reasonable that you would be able to locate an enemy down at an 8x8 area of uncertainty after merely *hearing* them fire 5-6 single shots from a range of 300m? That is what happened. But it wasn't merely a "?", it was a full spot, in under a minute. No, I don't think this is the answer we're looking for. I think it is more likely the game just needs work. Hard to say so my answer is: i might, i might not. If forest is dark enough muzzle flashes might give positions away even from those ranges... That doesnt' mean that shooter himself is spotted by he has marked his location. [one can skip if he likes. Nothing very important] I myself for example have been in similar situation during exercise where i had perfect spot (could use small sprunces as visual cover, and crunch behind top of ridge to gain cover) to take shots at heads and shoulders of opponents from range of 200 meters. I gave away few short bursts (6-10 rounds spent) at one head. Next thing i knew was that my vests were signaling about me being shot at and shot going near miss. Other times i managed to control area from similar situation and remain concealed from 100-150 meters (opponents didn't have glue where i was, they just knew that when they move on ridge i will shoot). Once we managed to see figures of opponents thru trees, distance was maybe 100-150 meters, forest in between that distance. During same firefight one guy crawled inside long grass to 30-40 meters from us. Once we advanced at enemy's base in forest with very low visibility of dense young sprunce-forest, i spotted very well hidden enemy (maybe he slightly moved young sprunce i can't tell, something just moved) and i took few snap shots at him and scored a hit. From 10-20 meters, him not knowing about me (i'm quite a sneaker clearly as they were waiting for us to come :cool:). [/one can skip if he likes. Nothing very important] And list goes on and hopefully you dont' try to make any conclusions other than random factor are always effecting. Reason why atleast i cant' say is CMSF in right or wrong path when it comes to spotting. EDIT: Yeah. I'm not trying to pretend to be veteran in combat, as i'm not. Most of those examples are with MILES-kit, and there is one paintball example as it seems to be appropriate (the last one). Just trying to bring "wisdom" i've gathered along the road. EDIT2: Yeah. And there could long lull moments before and after those examples. Me just scratching my passive arse (with left hand, right is holding weapon) and not seeing or doing anything other than trying to spot opponents, which don't show themselves up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 One thing we are definitely going to work on is introducing more uncertainty into the spotting/identification system. There aren't enough "shades of gray" in the system as it is now. That's because the CMx2 is so much more literal than the CMx1 code it's actually more difficult to be imprecise. Counter intuitive, I know, but 'tis the truth Steve Schwing! Looking forward to this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRC Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 One thing we are definitely going to work on is introducing more uncertainty into the spotting/identification system. There aren't enough "shades of gray" in the system as it is now. That's because the CMx2 is so much more literal than the CMx1 code it's actually more difficult to be imprecise. Counter intuitive, I know, but 'tis the truth Steve What are plans regarding very short range "Sound detection" in urban terrain ? It is quite unrealistic ( and unpleasant ...) for a squad to bump into a tank hiding around the corner... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 What I meant by range over horizon was the interference from the ground in terms of stuff like haze. Visibility looking straight down is less obstructed by thermal absorbents than over a horizon. But, I'm not sure how much of a factor it really is if any. Oh, got you. I'm sure that is a factor as well, but I have to say I have very little pratical experience with airborne thermal imaging systems. It's one thing to read a specs sheet that says "FOV X, can detect Y at Z altitude", it's quite another to actually see it for yourself and say, "Hey this is really clear, I can see that guy picking his butt." Are the units on the tanks and other AFVs as good if not better than the ones on the aircraft? (Since they can carry more weight, right?) No. The thermal imagers on vehicles are pretty old. I'm just curious why planes seem to be able to spot men on the ground using thermal equipment from ranges well in excess of 1km and ground forces can't. It doesn't make sense to put a $5 shoe (imager) on a $100 horse (aircraft), so we're getting what we pay for in that regard. Not to mention the aircraft systems get plenty of TLC that ground versions don't. What if you were looking at the area when it fired, would the hot gas from the shot stand out much? Actually I don't know. I'll ask next time. ty No problem. Back to the virtual world, I have to second an enhanced audio spotting for tanks. Tanks are goddamned loud, that kind of rumbling loud that you can almost hear under gunfire (I'm having trouble describing it in words). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.