Jump to content
Rotareneg

Thermal depth of field

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

 

Engaging targets at ranges over 2000 is reckless, you can't ID the target, one could be engaging friendlies of civies.

 

Anyone who have ever looked through sights of that time frame, and pretty much up to the last 10 years can attest to this.

Its just not possible with the human eye at those ranges given that most if not all would be cammed or obstructed by dust.

 

I can see it on a range, but in real life targets over 1500m are getting really hard to positive ID. 

 

That said,if your SOP is to shoot anything that moves, well......

 

if your in defense, and you know the enemy jujst launched the offensive then you would be safe to assume that whats coming over the border ( east germany) over the fulda gap en masse towards you,  aint friendlies.

 

roe only becasue nessary to me when it comes time to push beyond defensive lines and go on the offensive.

 

 

7 hours ago, GSprocket said:

You can't fire 3km when the covered approaches to your position are averaging significantly less than 2km - down to less than 500m in many cases. The relatively few locations with really good lines of sight are also obvious and likely to appear prominently in artillery fire templates, plus may be easily flanked. ATGM can have longer ranges than tank guns - up to 5km for land based systems of the cold war and up to 8km for helicopter systems which can be a threat to tanks occupying positions with long range lines of fire.

SB maps are simplified (and distant clutter is hidden) to that lines of fire are artificially longer than reality and covered approaches are scarcer, but in the real world it isn't a given that long range fires will be possible.

 

 

That still doesnt really make the availability of a FCS and Rangefinder pointless vs sighting system. The soviets did eventually fit coincidence rangefinders on tir next gen e t64/a/T72 Ural, with the t64  having a real FCS  series before availability of LRF.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kev2go said:

if your in defense, and you know the enemy jujst launched the offensive then you would be safe to assume that whats coming over the border ( east germany) over the fulda gap en masse towards you,  aint friendlies.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

What if its your Screen or Covering Force coming back to do a rearward passage of lines or a flanking unit coming back through you because their planned withdrawal route is no longer viable?

 

You can't just assume that the blob in the TI is a target. That's why we spend hours on AFV recognition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

What if its your Screen or Covering Force coming back to do a rearward passage of lines or a flanking unit coming back through you because their planned withdrawal route is no longer viable?

 

You can't just assume that the blob in the TI is a target. That's why we spend hours on AFV recognition.

 

well i never doubted that tankers dont  get trained on AFV recognitio, hence why im sure theyd proably start identifying differences in silhouettes., was also mostly talking about older tech without any TI, and reffering to the very first wave assault.  But yeah in the gulf war there were cases of fratricide due to m1 gunners  not identifying targets properly. in thier TI, but again to be fair that was mostly in offensive circumstances.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the same logic applies.

 

Just because you are defending, you can't assume that whatever is in front of you is a target (regardless of the sighting system used).

 

Hence why we practice tanks coming back with the gun at 6 O'Clock. The driver can see where he's going, the turret crew can engage targets and the friendlies you are approaching can see that the gun is not pointing at them.

 

That gives you as bunch of visual cues (as well as radio chatter) to help to determine friend from foe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Well the same logic applies.

 

Just because you are defending, you can't assume that whatever is in front of you is a target (regardless of the sighting system used).

 

Hence why we practice tanks coming back with the gun at 6 O'Clock. The driver can see where he's going, the turret crew can engage targets and the friendlies you are approaching can see that the gun is not pointing at them.

 

That gives you as bunch of visual cues (as well as radio chatter) to help to determine friend from foe.

 

I know but i dont think advancing enemies( soviets) would have turrets turned around with thier guns backwards.  wouldnt somthing along the lines  of a mass invasion like over the fulda gap would be quckly reported and passed on among the radios, so there would be info to go on and not mere assumptions. i guess ir really depends on ROE issued, as ROE could or can be regularly changed, based on orders passed down from the chain of command.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

I know but i dont think advancing enemies( soviets) would have turrets turned around with thier guns backwards.  wouldnt somthing along the lines  of a mass invasion like over the fulda gap would be quckly reported and passed on among the radios, so there would be info to go on and not mere assumptions. i guess ir really depends on ROE issued, as ROE could or can be regularly changed, based on orders passed down from the chain of command.

 

Radio's fail, troops get lost. We as a rule ID targets before firing. Thats where the crewcommander earns his pay, and he is the senior person in the tank. Again , even in the Fulda gap there would be confusion among even the best of troops, engaging a blob out there is just a bad play, and most commanders wont auth the firing command to the gunner. Thats why we train and train some more, getting lost is all part of it. Anyone who has done any amount of training has seen friendly's on the wrong end of the tube. It happens.

 

Most of the time there is a few set of eyes to confirm the blob out there..

Edited by 12Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

 

Radio's fail, troops get lost. We as a rule ID targets before firing. Thats where the crewcommander earns his pay, and he is the senior person in the tank. Again , even in the Fulda gap there would be confusion among even the best of troops, engaging a blob out there is just a bad play, and most commanders wont auth the firing command to the gunner. Thats why we train and train some more, getting lost is all part of it. Anyone who has done any amount of training has seen friendly's on the wrong end of the tube. It happens.

 

Most of the time there is a few set of eyes to confirm the blob out there..

That what I miss a wee bit in the SB-AI. They see a roadwheel from2km between the trees and right then ID it as enemy target..."bamm"

But I guess "guessing" and "uncertainty" as well as "confusion" is hard to implement in a software :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confusion is very easy to create in code. But you wouldn't accept just any confusion, it's got to be confusion of the right kind. That, as it turns out, is rather hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2016 at 9:25 PM, Kev2go said:

 

I know but i dont think advancing enemies( soviets) would have turrets turned around with thier guns backwards.  

 

They wouldn't. Friendly Troops would be the ones with their turrets turned to their six o'clock to aid other friendly forces in visual identification. This is VERY helpful in near-side recognition when a unit is conducting a Rearward Passage of Lines, and helps to prevent fratricide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mirzayev said:

 

They wouldn't. Friendly Troops would be the ones with their turrets turned to their six o'clock to aid other friendly forces in visual identification. This is VERY helpful in near-side recognition when a unit is conducting a Rearward Passage of Lines, and helps to prevent fratricide. 

 

Ah, as SOP for Retrograding units would still carryout local protection drills, that being the rear AFV would have the tube over the rear deck, the rest of the troop their assigned arcs, which would be , lead 12, second right, third left, and  rear to the rear. Retrograding drills are well practiced with in the units for such a situation, well at least in our army. I would think most of NATO does likewise.

Other friendlies would know by orders, and a confirmation (comms) would be held prior to the passage of lines, like I stated this is practiced.

 

Tubes over the rear deck is a new one to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, at least in my experience in the US Army, a unit conducting an RPOL will keep their guns roughly oriented towards the six o-clock. The rationale is that the enemy is located towards the unit conducting the RPOL's rear, so there is no enemy presence between that unit and the friendly forces they are to pass through. An additional benefit is that it makes visual identification considerably easier, since no enemy force is ever going to approach with their guns facing away from their direction of travel. Obviously, six o-clock is a rough direction; the rear vehicle will be oriented towards the six, while other vehicles might be oriented towards the 4, 5, or 7, depending on SOP. 

 

As stated previously, this is based on my experience and how I have seen RPOLs typically executed. It has worked for me, but that doesn't mean it is the only (or the best) way. What is the logic in your Army for vehicles maintaining their assigned arcs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mirzayev said:

What is the logic in your Army for vehicles maintaining their assigned arcs? 

 

Who knows - crazy Canuks.

 

I, like you, would have fired on them if there wasn't some Canadian LO at the co-ord point warning me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Who knows - crazy Canuks.

 

I, like you, would have fired on them if there wasn't some Canadian LO at the co-ord point warning me.

you know it works 2 ways. you have to be sure that what your are "passing into" is a picket of your own security line...and not an observation post from OPFOR recon :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

Generally, at least in my experience in the US Army, a unit conducting an RPOL will keep their guns roughly oriented towards the six o-clock. The rationale is that the enemy is located towards the unit conducting the RPOL's rear, so there is no enemy presence between that unit and the friendly forces they are to pass through. An additional benefit is that it makes visual identification considerably easier, since no enemy force is ever going to approach with their guns facing away from their direction of travel. Obviously, six o-clock is a rough direction; the rear vehicle will be oriented towards the six, while other vehicles might be oriented towards the 4, 5, or 7, depending on SOP. 

 

As stated previously, this is based on my experience and how I have seen RPOLs typically executed. It has worked for me, but that doesn't mean it is the only (or the best) way. What is the logic in your Army for vehicles maintaining their assigned arcs? 

 One can never be sure where the enemy is. LRP's , Ambush ptls, etc. Troop must maintain 360 protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Who knows - crazy Canuks.

 

I, like you, would have fired on them if there wasn't some Canadian LO at the co-ord point warning me.

Thats what LO's do. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2016 at 6:29 AM, Ssnake said:

Confusion is very easy to create in code. But you wouldn't accept just any confusion, it's got to be confusion of the right kind. That, as it turns out, is rather hard to do.

 

Most of our on-line battles we create are own confusion, so no need to interduce it in the code thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/09/2016 at 8:00 AM, Mirzayev said:

Generally, at least in my experience in the US Army, a unit conducting an RPOL will keep their guns roughly oriented towards the six o-clock. The rationale is that the enemy is located towards the unit conducting the RPOL's rear, so there is no enemy presence between that unit and the friendly forces they are to pass through. An additional benefit is that it makes visual identification considerably easier, since no enemy force is ever going to approach with their guns facing away from their direction of travel. Obviously, six o-clock is a rough direction; the rear vehicle will be oriented towards the six, while other vehicles might be oriented towards the 4, 5, or 7, depending on SOP. 

 

As stated previously, this is based on my experience and how I have seen RPOLs typically executed. It has worked for me, but that doesn't mean it is the only (or the best) way. What is the logic in your Army for vehicles maintaining their assigned arcs? 

 

On 12/09/2016 at 6:36 AM, 12Alfa said:

 

Ah, as SOP for Retrograding units would still carryout local protection drills, that being the rear AFV would have the tube over the rear deck, the rest of the troop their assigned arcs, which would be , lead 12, second right, third left, and  rear to the rear. Retrograding drills are well practiced with in the units for such a situation, well at least in our army. I would think most of NATO does likewise.

Other friendlies would know by orders, and a confirmation (comms) would be held prior to the passage of lines, like I stated this is practiced.

 

Tubes over the rear deck is a new one to me.

We do both in France...

360° security march until we reach the identification and recept line, where we have to keep the gun over rear deck to cross the relief line, under the protection of a other unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got meself 4.0 a week ago and have to say, the thermal DOF improves the 'game' side for me greatly. Now, unless it's M1A2 SEP, I often have to jump between thermals and daytime sights, which while requires more actions, gets rid of almost mandatory green view, which before was the only way to play SB in a most efficient way.

 

It still takes me an effort to get used to, but at least some color is back to the game world for me. In fact I also find it fun and intense how when a tank is dug in in a hilly, grassy area or is simply hull down - it's almost impossible to spot in thermals unless tweaking DOF, but can be seen in a daytime sight, sometimes resulting in an unexpected ambush if overly relying on thermals.

 

However what bothers and sometimes annoys me - is that while to me, as a player, the game has become more interesting, with much less downtime while seeking enemy - AI seems to not really be bothered. Back in 2.x and 3.x with pre-M1A2 thermal sights resolution the enemy was hard for me to identify, let alone target and track effectively, often looking like a few pixels in thermals - for AI it was not a problem and using exactly the same vehicle AI was engaging the enemy with good aim. Now it has become even worse - especially when taking bad weather conditions in consideration where thermals is often the only way to spot the enemy. Meaning AI friendlies just steal all the hits and kills too easy.

Edited by kraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were playing in an all-human crew (driver, gunner, commander), I don't think that the AI would outperform the human crew. Your "problem" is that you're trying to do multiple jobs at the same time, trying to do a bit shooty stuff and maintaining situational awareness. So the computer-controlled gunner tries to assist you to the best of his abilities, and now he's "stealing your kills". ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2016 at 6:52 PM, thewood said:

I am just asking where you draw the line.  A general statement like making it as realistic as possible is an extreme by itself.  So my question stands?  Where do you draw the line with an extreme statement like "as real as possible"?

 

Three months late but...

 

We don't yet (and will probably never will) require you to do an MRS update as a gunner, which in real life is required quite regularly, so don't worry: we already (and always have) drawn a line. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Volcano said:

 

Three months late but...

 

We don't yet (and will probably never will) require you to do an MRS update as a gunner, which in real life is required quite regularly, so don't worry: we already (and always have) drawn a line. ;)

 

What no service after firing, no updating EFC records, ... - outrageous! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Volcano said:

 

Three months late but...

 

We don't yet (and will probably never will) require you to do an MRS update as a gunner, which in real life is required quite regularly, so don't worry: we already (and always have) drawn a line. ;)

Too bad that; it's such a simple process too...oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×