ATGM detection by tanks

[stikkypixie]

A quick question:

Does having your tank commander unbutton make a big difference to spotting? I always keep by crews inside their vehicles.

Ta

It does in general (buttoned good for modern tanks, bad for older T-55 like tanks). No idea for the ATGMs.

[gibsonm]

Well if you are talking RL then good for all types.

Observation closed down is better in newer vehicles than older but still not the same degree of situational awareness as opened up regardless of vehicle type.

[stikkypixie]

Well if you are talking RL then good for all types.

Observation closed down is better in newer vehicles than older but still not the same degree of situational awareness as opened up regardless of vehicle type.

Can you have a look at the save file posted earlier?

[Hairy Pie]

Well if you are talking RL then good for all types.

Observation closed down is better in newer vehicles than older but still not the same degree of situational awareness as opened up regardless of vehicle type.

Thanks, but I was talking about in game.

[jnt62006]

Most of the US Armys actual experience with ATGMs and their employment comes from the National Training Center in California. It is not uncommon for an ATGM team to launch a missile and have their target shooting back at them before the missile strikes. Now, this is a training environment so there is no actual missile but the on board computers in each vehicle and weapon system calculate the flight time of the missile before it registers a kill.

What makes it possible for the tank and IFV crews to respond so quickly is the signature that a launching missle creates. There is always a huge plum of smoke and dust that paints a huge arrow right to the firing unit (also simulated with a smoke munition at NTC). And since most ATGMs are wire guided they require the gunner to maintain a steady sight picture of the target throughout the engagement. So the most effective response for an armored vehicle is to conduct area fire at the firing point as soon as one of those plums of smoke appears, hopefully distracting the gunner. If you have a tank platoon that is moving with each tank watching its required sector, it would be very difficult to conduct a ATGM strike without being spotted immediately.

This is one of the most interesting things about weapons and warfare. There is always a counter-balance to every system, tactic, etc.

As a side note the Javelin was designed specifically to counter these short falls of the average ATGM. It is fire and forget which means that the computer in the missile tracks to the target, allowing the gunner to seek cover immediately after firing. Each missile has a small booster which pops it out of the launch tube and into the air before its main motor engages, which significantly reduces the tell-tale plum of smoke and debris. It is also a top-down round which means it pops into the air over the target and tries to achieve a hit on the top.

So from my experience real world, albeit in training, it is not unfeasible at all for an armored vehicle to be able to suppress an ATGM crew as soon as they fire and expose themselves.

[IMHO]

Well if you are talking RL then good for all types.

Observation closed down is better in newer vehicles than older but still not the same degree of situational awareness as opened up regardless of vehicle type.

I guess for an Abrams in an urban environment it should be both gunner and commander pop out at the their respective MGs and loader handles the coaxial MG? In an open environment loader may pop-out, commander and gunner stay at the sights?

Regards,

Roman

[IMHO]

Most of the US Armys actual experience with ATGMs and their employment comes from the National Training Center in California. It is not uncommon for an ATGM team to launch a missile and have their target shooting back at them before the missile strikes. Now, this is a training environment so there is no actual missile but the on board computers in each vehicle and weapon system calculate the flight time of the missile before it registers a kill.

What makes it possible for the tank and IFV crews to respond so quickly is the signature that a launching missle creates. There is always a huge plum of smoke and dust that paints a huge arrow right to the firing unit (also simulated with a smoke munition at NTC). And since most ATGMs are wire guided they require the gunner to maintain a steady sight picture of the target throughout the engagement. So the most effective response for an armored vehicle is to conduct area fire at the firing point as soon as one of those plums of smoke appears, hopefully distracting the gunner. If you have a tank platoon that is moving with each tank watching its required sector, it would be very difficult to conduct a ATGM strike without being spotted immediately.

This is one of the most interesting things about weapons and warfare. There is always a counter-balance to every system, tactic, etc.

As a side note the Javelin was designed specifically to counter these short falls of the average ATGM. It is fire and forget which means that the computer in the missile tracks to the target, allowing the gunner to seek cover immediately after firing. Each missile has a small booster which pops it out of the launch tube and into the air before its main motor engages, which significantly reduces the tell-tale plum of smoke and debris. It is also a top-down round which means it pops into the air over the target and tries to achieve a hit on the top.

So from my experience real world, albeit in training, it is not unfeasible at all for an armored vehicle to be able to suppress an ATGM crew as soon as they fire and expose themselves.

Well, suggest we separate in-game behavior and real behavior.

To sum up in-game - I believe, it's a bug because:

1. Even a lonely tank facing away from the launch site and with IR/Optics knocked-out immediately spots the launch at a 1Km of distance.

2. Instant spotting works only for the computer side. For the human side launch site is not revealed in the very same situation.

3. Instant spotting works for ATGMs but does not work for BMP guns.

4. Instant spotting works only for the first ATGM to launch - ATGMs that are fraction of a MOA away and fraction of a second later to launch are not spotted. But if the first ATGM is trashed by the tank and the rest of ATGMs launch a second volley - the first one and only the first one of them will be immediately spotted just like in the first round.

5. Instant spotting works only if the tank is directly designated as a target for the ATGM. If ATGM area-fires and hits the tank instant spotting does not work.

Real-life questions to those that have hands-on experience (abstract "believes"/"not-believes" have no value, I trust - everyone can read wikipedia). To narrow down discussion I assume Abrams crew layout, no APS and AT-14 here but all data is welcome (Merkava guys in Lebanon?). Spotting an RPG launch 100m away on a dusty plains with the commander/gunner opened up is easy, I believe (but may be I'm wrong). So how the following conditions affect the resulting probability to spot (expert guess / real life data sets):

1. Lonely tank vs tank platoon?

2. 360 degrees observation vs. 180 degrees?

3. Two crew-members (commander+gunner) opened up vs. one-crew-member vs. all looking into sights/thermals/panoramic?

4. Dusty launch vs. wet grass?

5. Trenched vs. untrenched launch?

6. 1Km vs. 2Km. vs. 4Km. launch?

7. Angle at which ATGMs is launched - frontal arc, side, back?

That looks like an all too ideal menu but may be we can get at least some bits. Again real-life experience is welcome (we all can divide 360/180 for degrees and 4 by 1 for tanks).

Regards,

Roman

[gibsonm]

Can you have a look at the save file posted earlier?

Sure but it wont make any difference as no one is looking at the CM:SF patch at the moment and even if they / we were this isn’t on the “fix list”.

Perhaps CM:SF 2 will address it.

Just saying don’t get your hopes up for an instant fix.

[gibsonm]

I guess for an Abrams in an urban environment it should be both gunner and commander pop out at the their respective MGs and loader handles the coaxial MG? In an open environment loader may pop-out, commander and gunner stay at the sights?

Regards,

Roman

I’m guessing you aren’t too familiar with tank crew positions.

The gunner is in fact on the same side as the commander and in front of him.

For them to both “pop out” the commander would need to be sitting on the turret roof with the gunner standing in the hatch they both use.

Further the loader just loads the coax MG. Its sight, fire controls, trigger etc are at the gunner’s position.

[IMHO]

I’m guessing you aren’t too familiar with tank crew positions.

The gunner is in fact on the same side as the commander and in front of him.

For them to both “pop out” the commander would need to be sitting on the turret roof with the gunner standing in the hatch they both use.

Further the loader just loads the coax MG. Its sight, fire controls, trigger etc are at the gunner’s position.

Not too much familiar As far as read two roof mounted MGs are for the commander and the gunner. It seemed not too smart (no one is able to fire the gun) but that's what I read So am I right that one MG is for the commander and the other is for the loader? Then loader is the first to take security watch station opened up and the commander is second in line? The gunner always stays inside and manages the gun, coaxial .30 MG and 0.50 MG that is to be mounted on top of the gun in TUSK?

Regards,

Roman

[Magpie_Oz]

A quick question:

Does having your tank commander unbutton make a big difference to spotting? I always keep by crews inside their vehicles.

Ta

My tanks are currently opened up but I am not sure if that is why I can see you and you can't see me.

Don't use this helpful and altruistic post as an excuse to bring down some airburst arty btw

[LJFHutch]

Sorry, just read that you said save, I posted the scenario. I tried the save just then but it's too big for an attachment - and not really necessary, the scenario is just two ATGM teams on a ridge 2km away from an abrams facing almost directly away from them.

[Hairy Pie]

My tanks are currently opened up but I am not sure if that is why I can see you and you can't see me.

Don't use this helpful and altruistic post as an excuse to bring down some airburst arty btw

Ha ha, actually it was the sight of your unbuttoned tankers that made me ask.

[Damian90]

Not too much familiar As far as read two roof mounted MGs are for the commander and the gunner. It seemed not too smart (no one is able to fire the gun) but that's what I read So am I right that one MG is for the commander and the other is for the loader? Then loader is the first to take security watch station opened up and the commander is second in line? The gunner always stays inside and manages the gun, coaxial .30 MG and 0.50 MG that is to be mounted on top of the gun in TUSK?

Christ, learn something first before You wrote such... weird things.

Overall most western tanks with 4 man crew have such crew positions configurations.

Right side of turret is occupied by gunner sitting just behind frontal armor backplate in front of FCS block, behind him and sligthly abovie gunner is sitting TC (Tank Commander), on the left side of turret there is loader position.

So mounted near hatches are TC heavy machine gun and loaders machine gun.

Gunner operates an FCS (Fire Control System) of main gun and any coaxial weapon for main gun, also TC have limited possibilities to operate FCS, main armament and it's coaxial armament. Loader operates it's machine gun + it's reloads main gun, reloads coaxial weapons (not all, only inside mounted) + he is additional observer.

As for TUSK, in standard configuration TUSK kit have only one additional weapon, an second heavy machine gun mounted outside over gun mantle mask and it is connected to FCS as second bigger calliber coax weapon.

However for M1A2SEP variant, a heavy machine gun for TC will be replaced by CROWS-2 remote weapon station with Mk19 Mod3 or M2HB, it is not currently one of TUSK kit elements but a separate element mounted if needed.

If You wan't to learn more about main battle tanks, visit this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90432

[Magpie_Oz]

Christ, learn something first before You wrote such... weird things.

Steady on, the fellow is just asking questions.

I might add that the referenced thread does not include an enormous amount of easily accessible useful information.

[Damian90]

Steady on, the fellow is just asking questions.

We slavs are teached that first we should learn and search informations by our own, if we can't find these informations then we ask how things look without talking about how we think how it can look because we know that we can think wrong. Different mentality perhaps.

I might add that the referenced thread does not include an enormous amount of easily accessible useful information.

I think that thread include enormous amount of informations about main battle tanks and other armored fighting vehicles that can be used in game, because when You know how tanks are designed, how they should be used or not used you have an edge in that game that is preatty realistic in that term. Heh I playing blue forces knowing what are strong and weak sides of AFV's on both sides, in campaing I actually never lost a tank and very small amount of lighter vehicles. So definetly a good knowledge about AFV's design is usefull.

[Magpie_Oz]

Well what ever the motivations I suggest that understanding that people think differently is important and admonishing them for being different is wrong.

There may be information in the thread that you mentioned but having read the thread numerous times I have not been able to find anything useful. I note that much of the information concerns real life analysis which doesn't have a lot of bearing on CMSF unless the game has been modelled on the same data.

[IMHO]

We slavs are teached that first we should learn and search informations by our own, if we can't find these informations then we ask how things look without talking about how we think how it can look because we know that we can think wrong. Different mentality perhaps.

Damian superiority, heh

[Magpie_Oz]

Damian superiority, heh

Not in English grammar and spelling though.

[Damian90]

Not in English grammar and spelling though.

Well, it is normal for persons that have other primary language than English, try to learn Polish, You this seems to be a very difficult language for westerners.

There may be information in the thread that you mentioned but having read the thread numerous times I have not been able to find anything useful. I note that much of the information concerns real life analysis which doesn't have a lot of bearing on CMSF unless the game has been modelled on the same data.

Nothing usefull? Playing in CMSF I was surprised that many games features regarding armored fighting vehicles protection are very close to reality, so data in that thread is usefull.

[Magpie_Oz]

Well, it is normal for persons that have other primary language than English, try to learn Polish, You this seems to be a very difficult language for westerners.

Well I think if we have to take into account that English is your second language, which I do, I think you need to take into account that not everybody is the same as you when it comes to asking questions. Otherwise you are being bigoted.

The point is there may be data in the thread but it is not written or organised in a form that makes that information easily accessible.

[IMHO]

Magpie,

Easy going one here. Let's call it a day now. Don't want to be the fire starter And many thanks for your hand in this, indeed.

Regards,

Roman

[Magpie_Oz]

Fair enough

[gibsonm]

Fair enough

Yes, “Rest”.

I have also been tempted but put it down to a cultural / language thing.

On a brighter note - in terms of maybe getting the thing looked at.

Recent guidance (within last 12 hours) on the short term development goals are:

1. CM:BN 1.01

2. CM:SF patching

No definitions as to how long “short term” is or when each products’ patch was due to come out (as usual work off the “when its ready” timeframe).

[Magpie_Oz]

Any idea what is being addressed in the patch for CM:SF ?