|
No infantry, just the tanks. They were told to expect opposition down the route, but they couldn't see anything, due to the background temperature.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Told ya about the friend in the Leo. They can't see poo poo with the thermals if it's not winter or decently cold. If it's warm, you don't see anything at all. While on excercise they ran a convoy through the woods and the whole thing got wiped out completely by a single ATGM team. I can't find a link now but I know I've seen interviews of people who participated in the fighting during GW1 where they described engaging Iraqi formations at night, during dust storms, and in other low-visibility situations and basically shredding them to poo poo. Maybe I'm just horribly misremembering something. Maybe the thermals on Bradleys are configured differently than Leos or have different capabilities. v  vedit: poo poo, people in the US use thermal optics for hunting hogs in pretty mild N. American weather. Somehow I figure there has to be a military equivalent to what everyone knocking down hogs in rice paddies are using. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I can't find a link now but I know I've seen interviews of people who participated in the fighting during GW1 where they described engaging Iraqi formations at night, during dust storms, and in other low-visibility situations and basically shredding them to poo poo. Yeah, but I think at night in a desert during winter, like in GW1, counts as 'decently cold.' That's like the perfect environment for thermal sights, you could not hope for better, so even with relatively lovely thermal optics they'd be a hell of an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Hey guys! Eurocentricism.txt Man, such an interestingly designed graph that conveys so little meaningful information. Also India keeps criss-crossing over Russia for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Ah yes, that Kievan Rus/Mughal Alliance I've heard so much of.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Speaking of Russia, I note that even at its greatest height it was still only slightly more powerful than Bulgaria. Or Normandy. Or Denmark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Speaking of Russia, I note that even at its greatest height it was still only slightly more powerful than Bulgaria. Or Normandy. Or Denmark. Even at Russia's height, they never conquered England. So it don't count as much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Modern FLIR sights are really, really good in practically all conditions including in high ambient temperatures. They can detect extremely small differences in temperature and since practically all things have different thermodynamic properties it is practically impossible to defeat unless you have some sort of conclusive temperature-absorbing thing between you and the sensor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
That seems more of a physics issue. Vehicle engines and other moving parts are very hot so you aren't likely to encounter an environment where they blend into the ambient heat. But a human body is around ~37 degrees; if it's an extremely hot, muggy day I can see humans blending into the background on IR. Think how hot sand on the beach is on a sunny day. Trees in a forest will have a different temperature to shrubs/rocks/dirt/grass etc so I don't see how any sensor that can discriminate between individual degrees' worth of difference would be able to single out a mostly-concealed human.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:That seems more of a physics issue. Vehicle engines and other moving parts are very hot so you aren't likely to encounter an environment where they blend into the ambient heat. But a human body is around ~37 degrees; if it's an extremely hot, muggy day I can see humans blending into the background on IR. Think how hot sand on the beach is on a sunny day. There are two issues with trying to defeat FLIR on an individual. First, you're not naked. If you're a soldier, you're carrying a weapon, wearing a helmet, uniform, boots, web gear, etc. All of those things have different thermo properties and all are very easy to identify against all manner of backgrounds, particularly if you're moving around. Second, even if you were naked, you'd have to be exactly the same temperature as the surrounding environment. Exact performance of military FLIR is classified but you can buy cameras and scopes right now that are good to around +/- 2 degrees F.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Yeah, but doesn't vegetation block thermal radiation almost as well as it blocks visible light? I mean, IR sights don't completely defeat soft cover, do they?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
IR is still LOS just like all other electromagnetic sensors, so if you block the thermal image from view it isn't any different from blocking a radar or visual light. The only difference is if the thing you're blocking with has very little thermal mass compared to the obscurant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
One thing to note about IR is that it isn't like visible light. Visible light comes from the sun, bounces off you, and then goes into the camera. IR is emitted by you, then goes into the camera. Results in some counter intuitive results because we are all accustomed to thinking about 'the light from the sun' as the source of all light.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Experience from infantry training against things with thermals (Leo 2A4, CV90): they will murder you without remorse unless you're behind a big rock or something else that completely blocks your heat signature. Thermals will see through things that block normal line of sight completely, like thick undergrowth. They also pick out muzzle flashes really well. From a recon perspective, man-portable modern thermals are basically cheating. Take this kind of shirt.  With the right settings, the thermals we used could see those individual "stripes" when it was being worn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 07:46
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's the basic difference between cover and concealment. A dude with an LMG hunkered under a bush on a treeline 100 yards away can plink at the viewports and generally annoy a WW2 era tank all day long because the visibility for the tank is poo poo and he's pretty hard to see under his bush. That said, if someone figures out where he is he's kinda hosed because bushes don't stop bullets. Same for the guy blasting away from a slit in a wall in an urban setting. He's in more-or-less true cover (at least relative to small arms) and it's going to take a small miracle for the tank to find him, but boy is he in trouble if they get annoyed enough and get a good enough fix to lob an HE round his way. I understand that. I didn't understand his question. Machine guns force the tc to button up which degrades his situation awareness. Modern optics, while amazing and powerful, do not offer much more than a pinhole view of the world. A lot of target identification is done by the vehicle commander.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
That's all nice and good, but you're falling for the "this works so and so in the vacuum or ideal conditions". The place where they were ambushed was a forrest, with bright spots and rocks were the sun warmed them up. It's not like a desert, where you have almost perfect contrast. How are you supposed to filter out under pressure what's a warm rock or the heads or whatever sticks out of the dudes that are dug in with the Milan, when you neither know the direction of the attack, nor the distance. The leading vehicle get's the destroyed, the clock starts ticking, the trailing vehicle gets knocked out
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:That's all nice and good, but you're falling for the "this works so and so in the vacuum or ideal conditions". The place where they were ambushed was a forrest, with bright spots and rocks were the sun warmed them up. It's not like a desert, where you have almost perfect contrast. How are you supposed to filter out under pressure what's a warm rock or the heads or whatever sticks out of the dudes that are dug in with the Milan, when you neither know the direction of the attack, nor the distance. The leading vehicle get's the destroyed, the clock starts ticking, the trailing vehicle gets knocked out This is what I was thinking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:That's all nice and good, but you're falling for the "this works so and so in the vacuum or ideal conditions". The place where they were ambushed was a forrest, with bright spots and rocks were the sun warmed them up. It's not like a desert, where you have almost perfect contrast. How are you supposed to filter out under pressure what's a warm rock or the heads or whatever sticks out of the dudes that are dug in with the Milan, when you neither know the direction of the attack, nor the distance. The leading vehicle get's the destroyed, the clock starts ticking, the trailing vehicle gets knocked out The software does it for you. Don't underestimate the power of modern optics. They're rad. Maybe they can't see you. But probably they can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Thermal vision can also see through smoke and dust, so if you don't also have thermal sights, the tank can dump a smokescreen and then he can see you but not vice versa. That being said don't a lot of ATGMs these days also have the option of thermal sights? Chances are if the infantry is well equipped and prepared, he'll still see you first, so being in a tank is still pretty dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Is this a Swedish 90-shirt with velcro and a Private First Class insignia patch? I can hear my commanding officer having an aneurysm from over here....
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_concentration posted:Traditionally it is accepted that a defending force has a 3:1 advantage over an attacker. In other words, a defending force can hold off three times its own number of attackers. Accepted by whom, in what circumstances, etc? Was it just an saying coined offhand in some 19th century strategy manual that has since been accepted as gospel?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Question: Afaik that's what the US army manual recommends. War has never been about 16v16 shootouts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Question: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-War-History-Theory-Combat/dp/0963869272 Kaal posted:The software does it for you. Don't underestimate the power of modern optics. They're rad. Maybe they can't see you. But probably they can. You don't understand the problem. You have to know where to look. It's the same like in an urban environment. If you have half an hour to check every slit and sliver of something, yea, you will find them. The dudes picked the right place for the ambush and blocked up the convoi and picked them off. How long does it take to recharge the Milan? Power Khan fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Afaik that's what the US army manual recommends. My LTU army friend said that at platoon level and such, ya have to attack with 2x dudes. Obviously, the general idea probably works for forces with somewhat equal tech level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You don't understand the problem. You have to know where to look. It's the same like in an urban environment. If you have half an hour to check every slit and sliver of something, yea, you will find them. The dudes picked the right place for the ambush and blocked up the convoi and picked them off. How long does it take to recharge the Milan? Yeah, I don't know why we are arguing about this. The fact of the matter is, modern tech helps but ambushes still happen. They happen in exercises and in reality. It's rather silly to suggest that they are impossible now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:That's all nice and good, but you're falling for the "this works so and so in the vacuum or ideal conditions". The place where they were ambushed was a forrest, with bright spots and rocks were the sun warmed them up. It's not like a desert, where you have almost perfect contrast. How are you supposed to filter out under pressure what's a warm rock or the heads or whatever sticks out of the dudes that are dug in with the Milan, when you neither know the direction of the attack, nor the distance. The leading vehicle get's the destroyed, the clock starts ticking, the trailing vehicle gets knocked out Quite the opposite, I've used thermal sensors in combat and in a really wide variety of operational conditions. If the guy in your anecdote couldn't tell the difference between people and rocks, he must have been using a much older generation of thermal sensor. His image probably looked like the one here on the right, or worse:  More modern military sensors have fidelity that is significantly better than this:  In example, take this name tape:  The threads of the lettering have very slightly different thermal properties from the backing fabric. Through a a modern sensor you can clearly read the lettering from hundreds of meters away. Believe me, you can tell the difference between people and rocks. All that being said FLIR isn't like a magic ambush-defeating hearbeat sensor x-ray thing or anything, in daytime natural light is still superior 99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Is this a Swedish 90-shirt with velcro and a Private First Class insignia patch? I can hear my commanding officer having an aneurysm from over here....
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:More modern military sensors have fidelity that is significantly better than this: Net benefits of being unfit for military service: at least you're not getting shot at by military's cutting edge poo poo. And yeah, that image looks a lot like stuff you can see in drone videos. Surprising fidelity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Quite the opposite, I've used thermal sensors in combat and in a really wide variety of operational conditions. If the guy in your anecdote couldn't tell the difference between people and rocks, he must have been using a much older generation of thermal sensor. His image probably looked like the one here on the right, or worse: Leopard 2A4 it is, upgraded from the A3. Not every military is rocking the newest toys, like the US
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
100 Years Ago It's a rather French day. To begin with, they were planning to renew First Champagne today, but a rather large snowstorm has blown in and blinded the guns. The plan is mostly unchanged from last time, so I'm sure that when the battle does go off, everything will go absolutely swimmingly. We also have the extremely French story behind the formation of the Camouflage Committee, whose remit appears to be "do awesome and hilarious things in support of the war effort". And the staff of the Detachment of the East has just finished outlining a plan to cut off the St Mihiel salient and thereby re-open the southern roads into Verdun. Meanwhile, some Ottoman reinforcements have just arrived in Erzurum to stabilise the situation in the Caucasus. Sadly, they begin by bringing a typhoid epidemic which soon claims the life of the army commander. Good start, chaps. And, in London, singularly bizarre paramilitary group the Legion of Frontiersmen has just convinced the War Office to let them form their own battalion. Also, the paper has extensive coverage on a Parliamentary debate about the cost of living; for now, no price controls will be enacted on food.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Vanilla Leo 2A4 is a shocking 30 something years old. Imagine running Panzer IVs or Lees in 1970, or OG M60s/T-55s in 1990 (yes lots of countries did but still). The peace dividend is a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Question: I think it was Napoleon that first said it? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I think it was Napoleon that first said it? I suspect it came about as a result of lots of failed attacks and dead soldiers. Of course it depends on circumstances, but I doubt it's a ratio somebody just made up out of thin air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Question: Its more of an extrapolation of logic of the most basic sort of scenario you can imagine; imagine 1 dude with a rifle on a hill; you'd need at minimum three dudes with rifles to flush him out with minimal chance of taking losses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Vanilla Leo 2A4 is a shocking 30 something years old. You can buy some pretty substantial modernization packages for T-55s, actually. It's far from a dead platform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Doesn't the US military use the M60 chassis for some specialized poo poo like engineering and radar?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Hence the OG caveat. Of course a T-55M5 is going to work out a lot better than plain old obyekt 155. Though it's not quite the sea-change, there are enough meaningful differences between a Leo 2A4 and Koesj fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I think it was Napoleon that first said it? No Napoleon's was "the morale is to the material as 3 is to 1".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
So basically... ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Doesn't the US military use the M60 chassis for some specialized poo poo like engineering and radar? Isn't there a bulldozer or bridging vehicle or something based on it? Plus the national guard use them AFAIK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:58
|
|