Thermal Imaging and Smoke Dischargers

lansoar · #1 February 26th, 2023, 11:16 PM

A question I've had for a long time as a SP2/SPMBT player.

How effective in reality were TTS systems when used in a specific way in game. A tactic I noted right away from both players and the AI, was when a TTS equipped AFV is fired on, smoke dischargers are fired.

As far as the game is concerned, this is the equivalent to deploying Star Trek shields. Even the best OPFORCE cannot counter it if they do not also possess TTS. The smoke discharging unit can simply sit in a 3 hex shield of smoke and fire away with immunity.

I once asked an 80s tank veteran if this was a taught tactic and got.....a cryptic answer. Not sure why. It may have come down to that person not understanding the context re: game vs real life.

I've been enjoying a series of MBT late 80s Cold War era scenarios recently and the challenge of facing a dug in NATO force (delay or Assault) was highlighted in regards to TTS. So I'll toss the question out there again.

zovs66 · #2 February 27th, 2023, 07:35 AM

Not quite sure what your question is, but I am an combat veteran and we used both night vision periscope for the driver and the TC the gunner had thermal night vision devices for shooting. As far as smoke discharges, they were/are not fired when being fired upon, the TC has to engage that weapon system.

This is my remembrance from 30 years ago.

lansoar · #3 February 27th, 2023, 07:51 PM

thank you.

To elaborate, my question would be, is using smoke dischargers offensively to create a "smoke shield" (which in the game is typically the 3 frontal arc hexes in relation to the unit's front axis), a valid tactic? (aka allow the tank to sit behind the wall of close in smoke and continue plugging away at the enemy until it dissipates while the enemy is unable to reply if they are not equipped with TTS)

My impression as far as the game SP has always been concerned, is that it's a bit of an absolute and thus represents a huge advantage to the side that has TTS. If the depiction is 'accurate' I would assume that such a tactic would be taught/used in real life.

Thx!

zovs66 · #4 February 27th, 2023, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lansoar

thank you.

To elaborate, my question would be, is using smoke dischargers offensively to create a "smoke shield" (which in the game is typically the 3 frontal arc hexes in relation to the unit's front axis), a valid tactic? (aka allow the tank to sit behind the wall of close in smoke and continue plugging away at the enemy until it dissipates while the enemy is unable to reply if they are not equipped with TTS)

My impression as far as the game SP has always been concerned, is that it's a bit of an absolute and thus represents a huge advantage to the side that has TTS. If the depiction is 'accurate' I would assume that such a tactic would be taught/used in real life.

Thx!

We used it or were trained to use them more for defense purposes against ATGM or a bunch of grunts creeping up or if really out numbered by enemy tanks and running low on ammo. That’s how I remember our training on the M1A1. For offensive purposes we’d call in for battalion smoke screen, to mask our movements and shoot n scoot to the mlr using speed, we only used our thermals in the day if there was a lot of smoke.

geoff · #5 February 27th, 2023, 08:25 PM

I don't have personal experience, but thermal sights can see through smoke, so if you are in a modern AFV up against an enemy without thermal imaging, you could pop smoke and shoot through the smoke. You'd have to be stationary, and every enemy in sight would be lined up on the big cloud of smoke waiting for a glimpse of you as the smoke dissapates.

lansoar · #6 February 27th, 2023, 08:26 PM

awesome. Thank you.

As a contrast to, your real life recounting, I'm currently playing a typical late 80s NATO scenario, only in this case as the Russians vs. AI. (most tend to be Russians are AI). Having a hell of a time. Case in point my current turn. A M3 Bradley has revealed itself by knocking out an AFV with a TOW. I threw some wild shots at it on the move and of course, as described....it popped smoke and created a 3 frontal hex wall of smoke.

It didn't retreat, it just then sat there behind the smoke "shields" and proceeded on the next couple of turns to lob TOW after TOW at my forces as I tried to maneuver around it. (sitting still was not an option). It was completely invulnerable as none of my forces had a TTS between them.....including the attack helicopters, so I couldn't fire at it.

This situation was just one example of many over many scenarios played over the years from SP2 to today. There was a reinforced M1 platoon on the hill.....they all ended up popping their smoke dischargers and sat behind their "shields." Many SP2/MBT scenarios play out this way, esp when NATO is on defense or delay.

lansoar · #7 February 27th, 2023, 10:10 PM

Just to throw emphasis on this. I'm now playing the NATO companion to the same battle. Not only did I pop smoke offensively to give my M1's and M3's a free for all fire-fest, but after the smoke from the dischargers cleared.....I took advantage of several adjacent INF units dug in by my AFV's to pop smoke in from of the AFV's, again providing them with a shield from any return fire.

Just seems to me that it's a bit much. Not sure what can be done about it. Smoke and specifically smoke dischargers on AFV's worked fine in the original SP1 as they do in SP:WW2. That's because no OPFORCE has a means to "see thru the smoke" hence it is a defensive tactic.

But when SP2 came around, and this has carried on to SP:MBT, you get units that have a vision rating of 40 or above (TTS), then for those units smoke simply does not exist, regardless of source or proximity etc. Hence....it's an exploit as I would define it.

zovs66 · #8 February 27th, 2023, 11:55 PM

Well in the first scenario you mentioned that is completely valid tactic.

On the M1A1 those smoke discharges were full of Willis peat as I recall and we had to be buttoned up to fire them.

One tactic we used in the first Gulf War was we knew the T-55s max range was 1200 meters so we parked at 1800 meters and smoked em. We adjusted to 240-3000 meters for the T-72s.

So folks adjust tactics on what they know if they are trained properly.

What we see with the current situation in Ukraine is not well trained Russia s getting massacred and they have resulted to human wave tactics. But I digress.

Suhiir · #9 February 28th, 2023, 03:31 PM

Keep in mind the Soviet/Russians use smoke differently then NATO.

Soviet smoke dis-chargers laid their smoke further in front of the vehicle with the intent to temporarily mask movement. For the Soviets smoke was a offensive tool not a defensive one.

lansoar · #10 February 28th, 2023, 08:48 PM

Looking at it from another angle, can any Tank vets comment on TTS in different situations? The game basically portrays two. You can see thru smoke, you can't see thru smoke. Were there degrees of "seeing" (and thus targeting) for TTS in different settings and/or ranges?

Examples would be, thick smoke popped in near proximity to the AFV vs. distant. Is there any cumulative effect when distance and # of "hexes" filled with smoke between the targeted and the unit are considered?

Not referencing special smoke that might be designed to degrade vision devices. Just generic smoke.