Advice/info needed: how to stop thermals?

[astronemo]

It seems that stopping thermal vision is nearly impossible, (which may well be realistic).

However I had read that smoke generated by injection of vaporized diesel fuel through the exhaust manifold - which was a common way of creating smoke curtains on a vast range of soviet vehicles - could have some TI stopping power due to the high temperature of the exhaust. However it is not clear to me:

• what is their modelled effect in game, both against TI and normal vision?

Also smoke discharges create a thermal obscurants of about ~ 100 TI for the burning time, to be compared with e.g. the -175 e.g. of the M2 Bradley: -100 due to TI and -75 due to the GOOD sighting sensors . Dropping two smoke screens do not add together.

So I'm wondering:

• Does an obscurant level help hiding or reduce incoming fire accuracy?
  
• Is it useful at all to have a partial TI obscurants?
  
• More generally is the obscurants effect included in real time in the info displayed by the LOS tool (visibility%)?

Thanks!!

ghibli

[VeitikkaStudios]

Originally posted by ghibli:

It seems that stopping thermal vision is nearly impossible, (which may well be realistic).

It has been discussed that the Cold War era should not have any TI blocking smoke, and some have proposed removing it from the game. Personally I'm not in favor of removing TI smoke, because it would make some units such as infantry even more vulnerable.

However I had read that smoke generated by injection of vaporized diesel fuel through the exhaust manifold - which was a common way of creating smoke curtains on a vast range of soviet vehicles - could have some TI stopping power due to the high temperature of the exhaust. However it is not clear to me:

• what is their modelled effect in game, both against TI and normal vision?

The smoke from smoke generators? It works like the normal smoke and dust against TI systems. It's not 'TI smoke' in the game.

• Does an obscurant level help hiding or reduce incoming fire accuracy?

It does help a unit to remain hidden or disappear from sight, but doesn't affect firing accuracy, other than when a guided missile was fired and then the LOS is blocked by smoke/dust.

• Is it useful at all to have a partial TI obscurants?

It does reduce the chance of getting detected because it reduces the LOS, if that's what you're asking.

• More generally is the obscurants effect included in real time in the info displayed by the LOS tool (visibility%)?

No, the LOS tool ignores all smoke. The main reason for this is that all smoke is not automatically visible to the opposing side, for example dust from vehicle movement.

[astronemo]

Originally posted by VeitikkaStudios:

• Does an obscurant level help hiding or reduce incoming fire accuracy?

It does help a unit to remain hidden or disappear from sight, but doesn't affect firing accuracy, other than when a guided missile was fired and then the LOS is blocked by smoke/dust.

• Is it useful at all to have a partial TI obscurants?

It does reduce the chance of getting detected because it reduces the LOS, if that's what you're asking.

Thank you for these explanations.

My questions aim at understanding what is the usefulness of dropping smoke or activate smoke
generators for a unit without TI when facing an enemy with TI (e.g. BMP-2 vs M2).
It seems clear to me that in this case TI smoke is not useful for breaking contact, unless in a situation of very bad visibility. It seems counter productive for, say a BMP-2 to drop smoke, since the TI blocking power is generally not enough to break contact (100 TI obscurants vs -175 TI vision of an M2) unless visibility is <25% if I understand correctly what these values mean... However it is enough to block the BMP's LOS; thus the most likely effect would be for the BMP to just blind itself. However it is an automatic behaviour when units are taking heavy fire, but it doesn't seem to be a very sensible choice when facing TI units.

ghibli

[starbuck310]

the most likely effect would be for the BMP to just blind itself. However it is an automatic behaviour when units are taking heavy fire, but it doesn't seem to be a very sensible choice when facing TI units.<<
If I was in a BMP under heavy fire I’d hit smoke and disengage ASAP. I’m unlikely to know what shot at me. Care less about its optics because I’m in a very lightly armoured AFV. I’m battened down peering through my optics and likely see nothing. I’m tired hungry and badly briefed. Seems very reasonable behaviour. I think your assumption that everyone has perfect knowledge of the battlefield situation is unrealistic. Not flaming you but I think the AI ought to take the most likely course of action for the average NCO tank commander. Can you think what it would be like for them?

[astronemo]

Originally posted by starbuck310:

the most likely effect would be for the BMP to just blind itself. However it is an automatic behaviour when units are taking heavy fire, but it doesn't seem to be a very sensible choice when facing TI units.<<
If I was in a BMP under heavy fire I’d hit smoke and disengage ASAP. I’m unlikely to know what shot at me. Care less about its optics because I’m in a very lightly armoured AFV. I’m battened down peering through my optics and likely see nothing. I’m tired hungry and badly briefed. Seems very reasonable behaviour. I think your assumption that everyone has perfect knowledge of the battlefield situation is unrealistic. Not flaming you but I think the AI ought to take the most likely course of action for the average NCO tank commander. Can you think what it would be like for them?

I recognize that the situations I imagine are hypothetical; I pick an M2 company and a BMP-2 company and set them face to face, seeing what happens. True battles are highly chaotic.
However I think that in order to understand the AI logic and game mechanics, restraining to a idealized "laboratory-like" situation is the best thing to do.

The crew you are describing sounds like a panicking crew, which may be throwing their training away and make some mistake. Doing the wrong things in battle is very possible, as I think it would be to drop smoke vs a TI vision opponent, if that doesn't give you any advantage in disengaging. I give for granted that the crew or their commanders are aware of who they are fighting.

Coming back to the game, It seems to me that the TI-smoke blocking effect in game is negligible under practical situations (as it may be in reality), unless it is combined with other factors so to let you hide completely and effectively disengaging. So I wouldn't expect it to be a recommended tactic to be used by a trained, non-panicking tank/IFV crew.

ghibli

[nick93ts]

Vehicles disharge smoke grenades only when using Scout command (spot the hostile contacts, pop-up smoke and reverse) or when damaged, which is in line with panicking troops. In future we will probably have passive protection systems which will pop-up smoke when targeted with laser designator or rangefinder.

[VeitikkaStudios]

I think in real-life the Soviets were planning to use a lot of smoke when assaulting the NATO positions. Why would they do it if it would more likely blind their own troops, and not the NATO counterparts who had thermal imaging systems? I admit that I don't know the answer, perhaps someone here can enlighten me?

[starbuck310]

>> which may be throwing their training away and make some mistake. Doing the wrong things in battle is very possible, as I think it would be to drop smoke vs a TI vision opponent, if that doesn't give you any advantage in disengaging. I give for granted that the crew or their commanders are aware of who they are fighting.

Conscripts had very little training, very inexperienced. Most soldiers are very poor at vehicle recognition and their capabilities. Nearly impossible under fire. Even spotting whos shooting you. In a conscript army, and all army’s to a degree, rely on standard operating procedures SOP.
Your not going to fight it out in a IFV under fire your going to withdraw tactical quickly in dead ground and use anything that might help (pop smokes). Once safe, workout what’s going on, reengage at an advantage. In an assault the tanks a tactical bound ahead and in support would be covering you. Debus on the objective infantry V infantry. BMP supports its infantry. Same tactics for NATO and Warsaw Pact.
You can not assume they know exactly who engaged them. Is that a Chieftain Mk6 or a Challenger or a Warrior with TI in a hull down position 1500m away with cam net? If they missed you with the first shot, top tip don’t wait for the next one 😂

[starbuck310]

On smoke the Warsaw Pact used diesel injected into the exhaust. NATO used smoke grenades. WP would have used a lot of smoke. NATO one shot of smoke per engagement. Someone would have to reload the smoke grenades.