Warsaw Pact and TI
 

I'm tossing this out in the hopes that some of you will have solid information. I'm not really interested in opinion ( nationalistic or otherwise.......) or anyone who starts the answer with ...."I think" unless it's " I think my uncle said he trained on one at his base in Poland/Hungary/Czechoslovakia/Russia etc etc in either 1986 or 1987".....that type of thing.

I'm really only interested in hearing from someone who KNOWSand can back it up with a varifiable source

What year did the nation members of the "Warsaw Pact" start using TI ( what we enter into the OOB's as "40" for vision ) If Anyone has info on China that would be welcome as well

Thanks

Don

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Some export versions of T-72 lacked the laser rangefinder until 1985 or only the squadron and platoon commander tanks (version K) received them.

http://www.answers.com/topic/t-72

Probaly not much help, good luck

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Laser Rangefinders aren't the issue ATM. What I'm looking for is information on thermal imagining (TI)

Don

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

M-84, from Yugoslavia had TI. That was a T72 with a new engine and other tweaks. So this would give a point where the USSR is not using TI, as the Yugoslavians had to add it specifically.

Dunno if it helps.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Someone should post this question on Tanknet or some other similiar site.

As far as I know, by 1981 there where no TI sights on Soviet tanks. I'm curious when do they apppear for NATO type armies?


edit: thermal sights in the game seem to be completly invunreable to any obscurants. I understand that if the smoke or dust is thick enough, thermal sights can't penetrate. Whats the official position on thermal sights in the game?

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

AFAIK the TI's cannot pass through a large field of smoke in SP as well (IIRC 3 hexes of smoke block TI's, right? Don't have game installed right now).

As for USSR, Not even all of the T-90's got equipped with TI's in the 1990's, so I guess it was rather scarce - TI systems were already used for measurements etc. by 1980's in Czechoslovakia but these were scientific/industrial ones, not fit for battlefield service (either by resolution or reliability or ruggedness).
First TI-equipped vehicle Czechoslovakia got was T-72M4CZ.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

"What you see now is what you get" We have no plans to rework the way TI is handled by the game. All I asked was when WP started using it. That's all. I have no desire at this time, a week or two before a patch release, to start a debate about the way TI is handled in the game especially since this wasn't an issue until now. All I want is some SOLID info on when it started to be used by WP.

And BTW, If you really believe "thermal sights in the game seem to be completly invunreable to any obscurants" then you really don't know the game very well and better run some tests. You will see you are incorrect. Line some vision 40 tanks up and drop smoke in front of them. They are NOT "completly invunreable to any obscurants"

Don

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

It varies by how dense the game rates the smoke as. It's not a carved in stone "three hexes" but yes, enough smoke will block LOS to TI equipted tanks and if it's thick enough three or so will do it.

If the smoke barrage is patchy with some thick and some thin areas then the TI vision through it will be patchy as well with some areas obsured and some not.

Don

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

well, then I was wrong about the TI sights. I made that statement based on my experiance with them and not on any tests,apparantly I was wrong, and they can be blocked.

I did not mean for it to sound like an assignment, I added it to my post just for some feed-back about it.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

According to Jane's, and KMDB (the manufacturer of the Buran seriesTI systems, supposedly the first thermal sight installed on a Russian tank) the T-80UM was the first such equipped model (with the Buran), which entered service, in '91/92. Before that the TPN-4(e?) Image Intensification was in use. Of course, that is only MBTs....

A good "Definitive" starting point might be this tool, which no bookshelf should be without. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

IR sights where also retro-fitted to T-80Bs and T-80Us

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

"M-84, from Yugoslavia had TI. That was a T72 with a new engine and other tweaks. So this would give a point where the USSR is not using TI, as the Yugoslavians had to add it specifically."

AFAIK the M84 used the DNNS-2 gunner sight.This was a good image intensifier but not a thermal sight.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

As far as I know and am able to find right now, the first TI tank sights used on Russian tanks were made by Peleng (now as PO1-KO1 model) from Thomson (now Thales) Catherine-FC-series IR cameras and offered as an option on the T-90. That means no TI sights at all before

From what I used to hear at the time, the Catherine was selected because Russian/FSU makers were unable to come up with equivalent TI optics. I admit that this may be Thomson bragging or post-cold-war propaganda, but the fact that the Catherine version itself posed so many problems to the Indians and that they couldn't replace them with some Russian version substantiates that claim.

I'm not sure when the first Catherines were delivered, but for obvious political reasons I'd say not before 1990. It was a highlight of the export T-90 from the start, but actually the baseline T-90 uses the Buran AIR/LLTV derivate of the old TPN series.
On the other hand, the Indian Army is the only certified customer of the TI-equipped version, so I don't even know if Russia has ever used it.

So I'd place a conservative estimate at 1999 for Russia, and 1989-90 as the most optimistic date (first T-90 service date anyway), in small quantities. Retrofitted T-80UM(1) in 1995-97.
And of course no TI capability at all before 1990, same thing for non-Soviet ex-WP upgrades (PT-91, Moderna...) which also used foreign-supplied optics. If someone can prove otherwise, I'd like to know.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Generally, in almost all cases what we had for tanks fit's into that time frame. What we had in the game was a number of Mi-24's equipped with TI long before that was feasible ( There was also an Australian bunker with TI in the 1970's that has now been changed ) The Hinds were the main "offenders" but there were others as well. Things like this multiply in the OOB's because people cut and paste a unit from one nation to the next so if the error exists in the parent then the "children" have it as well

Don

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

No Soviet Era Hind was ever equiped with TI. Only some of upgrades after 1990 like Mi-35M etc.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Right. And now all the Hungarian ( and others ) that had it back as far as 1978 no longer do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Don

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

goodness how charming. i'll answer anyway.

correct about TI, however IR and IR-seachlight (which I believe is 20-25 vision i the game) was standard on all T-72s as well as most other WAPA AFVs from 1979 onwards. obviously IR and TI are NOT the same, different micron level entirely.in RL we call them 2nd GEN IR/IL systems, m60A5 IIRC was equipped with an equivilant system. i believe the menitioned "II systems" are starlight systems and 1st GEN (Vietnam-era), one level below IR/IL and two-three beneath TI.

ALL SOVIET HINDs were equipped with this system of course, as well as most ATGWs that I am aware of.

These sights SHOULD penetrate a weak smoke screen and give night-engagement capability up 2,000m under average conditions.

From Jane's Armour And Artillery (on the T-72 1975 intial batch)

"The other two crew members are seated in the turret, with the gunner on the left and the commander on the right. The commander's contrarotating cupola has a single-piece hatch cover that opens forward with two rear-facing TNPA day vision blocks. In the forward part of the cupola is a combined TKN-3 day/night sight with an OU-3 infra-red searchlight mounted over the top and, to either side of the combined day/night sight, is another TNP-160 day periscope. Forward and slightly below the commander's cupola is an optical stadiametric range-finder.

The gunner's hatch opens forward and has a circular opening for mounting the snorkel for deep fording operations. In front of the gunner's hatch is a TNP-160 day periscope, while a TNPA-65 day vision block is fitted in the hatch cover itself. In front and to the left of the gunner's hatch is a panoramic day/night sight, which is used in conjunction with the infra-red searchlight mounted to the left and in front of the sight. The gunner's sight is the TPD-2-49 while his night sight is the TPN-1-49-23.

According to former Soviet sources, the TPD-2-49 monocular eyepiece stereoscopic range-finder sight enables targets to be engaged out to a range of 4,000 m. It has a field of view stabiliser for its vertical axis. In addition the sight has a ballistic computer that performs calculations based on input data for firing a specific type of 125 mm round, the temperature and density of the air and crosswind speed.

Using this sighting system, maximum effective target ranges are 4,000 m using APFSDS and HEAT rounds, 5,000 m using HE fragmentation rounds and 1,800 m using the 7.62 mm PKT coaxial machine gun.

Using the gunner's quadrant fitted as standard on the T-72, indirect firing can be accomplished out to 9,400 m. For this role, the HE-fragmentation projectile would be used.

The L2AG (Luna-2) infra-red searchlight is mounted on the right side of the 125 mm main armament rather than the left as in the case of the earlier T-64, although it is occasionally mounted on the left side (initial production vehicles)."

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Don, I don't know if you've checked this one yet, but it looks like the MTLB-based Shturm (AT6) SPATGM is also credited with 40 vision in the current Russian OBF.
I haven't found consistent info about its vision system yet, but I'd tend to think it would have at best the same hardware as the Mi24P/V.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Becasuse it's start date is 1990 it could very well have it but I will dig around and see what I can find

Don

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Sorry but you are wrong. IR sights are not LLTV. Soviets were using Active IR reflectors and they were easily to detect if used. Max Range was about 700-800m at max in passive mode 1000 in active mode. not 2000m. LLTV was in 1200-1500m region.

There was even a difference in IR lamps, For Example CzechoSlovak tanks (T-72) had better quality IR eqp than Soviet equivalents.

TI is something in completly different league. You need to try it to understand how big influence it makes on battlefield. US tankers are using TI even in day due to better detection range (identify something in 1.gen TI is problem at longer distances - over 3000m) TI Range is greater than 2000m, 40h can be used as a 1.gen TI, second gen TI are able to reach 4000m easily (Chinesse TI in Type98 tank have range 3000-3200m)

About Mi-24s , In Czechoslovakia we had Mi-24V,Mi-24D. They were not equipped with TI. Some of them had Active IR,but using it in night is suicide for the crew... too short range - all ADA units will know that you are there...

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Addition to the topic, Czech Republic is replacing old IR sights iwth new LLTV sights on BVP-2 IFV's.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

The variant with the AT-9 (MTLB ATGM system) is said to have "low visibility" day/night engagement capability. As to what that means literally... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif If it has none, at least provides a plausible best guess of the previous variant not having the capability.

Also, speaking of AT6, will it get Top attack capability? The missile by design flies above the target point, and dives at final stage. One of the things that made it desirable over the existing ATGM types.

Dunno if that qualifies as "true" top attack in the Tow-2B sense, since the warhead does not nescesarily hit as close to perpendicular, but its certainly a step up from direct LOS aim/impact point.

Most sources describe this characteristic, but just one from a quick search to post something http://www.armada.ch/02-6/complete_02-6.pdf Pg 54

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Here's what one source says

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/shturm/

the missile proceeds on an overfly trajectory until it approaches the target, allowing the gunner to acquire and maintain tracking on the target in limited visibility conditions.

and this gives a diagram of the missles trajectory. It does not appear to be a true "top attack" missle .
http://www.army-technology.com/proje...m/shturm5.html


Don

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

i am aware of the difference between II, IR, and TI, thought the post made it clear, i was actually refering to smersh`s post about "IR sights being retrofitted on T-80s".

The TPN-1-49-23 on the average T-72 is a "night sight" with engagement ranges up to 1,200m. With the LUNA IR-Lamp (there are in fact a number of different IR lamps attached to the average T-72) the range increases, how much I am not sure. In any case Infantry targets can be made out on average conditions WITHOUT Luna up to 600m. The Luna helps penetrate smoke and fog, although prolly not very far.

Not so sure that they were as bad an idea as you suggest. During their time (1975-85) they were the equivilant of the best the west had to offer in AFVs, and the LUNA lamp was very very useful for directing fire. When we had them that was one of their primary functions.

However, all off-topic to the degree that they are not TI systems. Just trying to make sure that when the ORBATs are adjusted they get the 20 or 25 rating vision that these sightes entitel them to.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Going out on a limb here, I'd say that some of the most recent Russian tanks (T-64B, T-72B, T-80, T-90) could be entitled a vision rating around 30. Same for some of the latest non-TI night sights like the German PZB-200 (see Leo1A1A2 etc.).

Back to topic now, has anyone any info about local (e.g. Czechoslovakian, Polish, Yugoslavian pre-'90 thermal sights variants? I think all of the non-Russian 90s upgrade use import thermals, but that's it AFAIK.

Now if you're going to clean the Russian OBF from all the undesired TIs, don't forget that a vision of 40 can also model GSRs, like that on the early BRMs. To my best knowledge the original BRM-1 (model 1976) already had a pop-up GSR with a quoted detection range of 12km.
Also, what about the BRM-2? I couldn't find any data about a dedicated recon version of the BMP-2, where does the idea come from?

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Well, I can say that many WP countries produced their own IR/Nightsight equipment.

AFAIK in East Germany Tanks were equipped during first overhaul with Carl Zeiss made devices, as they had quite some improved performance over the original Soviet parts.#
I'll try to find some more info on that, but it will be hard as this is not widely advertised...

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

The ACRV and PRP "FO Vehicles" that use the "SMALL FRED" radar are untouched. It was primarily the Hinds that were the problem not the tanks. Also, it's not just the Russian and Warsaw pact that is being looked at here. My original question just asked when they started using it because I could not find a source that definitively answered that question and I would have thought 20 -25 years after the fact it would have been better documented

As well, there seems some concern that the IR gear Russian tanks carried will represented correctly. It is. I'm not sure where this concern comes from. All the Russian ( and WP ) tanks ( unless they are old t-34's )have IR gear represented in the 70's in the OOB's you have now.

Don

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Czechoslovakia had 2 TI sights in development in late '80.
The first one was determined for new SP-AAA STROP and the second one for new BPzV based on BVP-2 (the first BPzV Svatava which entered service in 1988 was based on BVP-1 and had GSR). Both project was not completed from obvious reasons (although later Slovakia developed their BRAMS which is in fact continuator of STROP).

However many recon vehicels used GSR like OT-65RL which were part of recon company in tank regiment.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Two remarks about Warsaw Pact's visual observation abilities:

1. You seem to forget about Soviet battlefield radars at all.

2. Lack of TI in WP armies wasn't so important because they could always illuminate battlefield by flares and flash bombs at night. In fact Mi-24s and Soviet armor were to act that way. Moreover Central Europe isn't Persian Gulf desert. Almost all WP-NATO tank battles would be waged here at less than 2 km distance, pretty much enough for IR and LLTV sights capabilities.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Yes I totally agree to that, but in Heavy Smoke (which is a likely battlefield event) TI tanks would still penetrate it further then IR or "Stargoggle" equipped vehicles.

Gamewise the loss of the TI Hinds surely makes it more challenging to play WP campaigns...

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

They were already discussed just several posts earlier http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Besides these were proliferated also in Western armies so either both or none http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif So far they are mated on Soviet side with BRM-1 recon vehicles (that use them IRL) and by FO vehicles, in he West just by late FO vehicles.

The same can be done by NATO (and would be employed with older non-TI units) but cannot make for TI. TI was supposed to be night sight but it is almost as a rule used even in daytime as it offers on most occassions better battle-range target acquisition than daylight branch of the system.
Maybe "pretty much enough" for theoretical acquisition distance, but the TI equipped units would have always edge due to lesser effect of obscurants and better ability to ID what's that in sights. If you're trying to recognise something on the edge of LLTV's envelope or well within TI's envelope, it'll make a difference.
Besides the 2km distance is just an offhand average. Judging by my country, anyone trying to get to the capital or most of other major population centers who'll rely on the 2km average will find himself in big trouble as he'd enter a flat and open terrain around main rivers, controlled usually from both sides by a great overwatch positions. For example a rather minor hill not so far from my home (ca. 2 clicks) offers a great, relatively unobstructed field of view as far as to some 20km distant Prague airport http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Was it really TI? All I can find indicates rather a LLTV system for STROP.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Sgt. Tucan: Please stop twaddling all these rubbish!

PS. If WinSPMBT 3.0 is aimed to be sold primarly to the Western gamers its designers should deprive WP forces not only TI equipment but also laser rangefinders, radars, missiles, PGMs etc. I advise you simply to change name of Iraqi OOB to Soviet OOB and that is all!
By doing so you will make playing WinSPMBT by Western teenagers really more funny but unfortunately this game will be far from reality.

Well, all childs and gudgeons can install 3.0 patch but all non-teenagers and profies are encouraged not to upgrade game with patch 3.0 or rebuild it themselves. I think this advice can satisfy everyone! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

BYE!

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

as a side note the average range in Europe was estimated to be between and 500 and 700m.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Care to elaborate?

Erm, who is proposing this? All this thread's about is denying EastBloc TI sights in times they didn't have them IRL, ie it's about bringing the OOBs next step to reality. What you don't like? That reality hurts? Then you are free to use older OOB's with TI-equipped Hinds and so on.

Gee seems I struck a nerve here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif
So if the game so far offered some Eastern block TI in the times they couldn't have it, it means it was oriented towards EastBloc teenagers? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Seems too short to me
Master thesis of John Angolia, 1978
First spotting:
less than 2000 meters 70 – 80%
2000 to 3000 meters 10 – 20%
Greater than 3000 m 5 – 15%

Britain+Canada+USA, 1976:
First LOS cut-off from defensive positions
50% 1200m
40% 2800m
9% 4200m

So it seems tho be reasonable to expect the combat distance being rather between 1000-2000 meters, depending on terrain (but more enclosed terrain would make it hard for massive attacks as well as for defense as it would offer cover but OTOH it'd force the units to stick closer to roads so it won't be as popular IRL).

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

These are expected ranges for Germany?

Lets get this striaght, definitevly. What is changing in Russian/Soviet, and Warsaw Pact OBBs in terms of sights.

Only thermal sights on Hinds? thats all?

2000m seems too far for central Europe like Germany. I can't remember where I red the figures in my previous post but I would say between 500 and 1000m would be an average range. Trees, hills and other terrian would block LOS. Most engagements would take place at these ranges, this doesn't mean that there won't be circumstances where ranges could go up to 3,000m.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Maybe someone could help to explain our poor Tucan that it doesn't solely matter WP will have TI or not in the game!

The main reason is that in reality lack of TI equipment in Warsaw Pact forces would have only twobit impact on result of hypothetical war with NATO in 1980s. Unfortunately in WinSPMBT such configuration cause a huge NATO advantage over WP which practically confronts WP player with hopeless situation due to game engine's rules.

So, let's play professional WinSPMBT 2.51 tactical war game with older OOBs and teens should play WinSPMBT 3.0 arcade! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

So why are you fussing so much about it? Esp if you do proclaim the "professionality" below, woudln't it be "professional" to get along with OOB set that is closer to reality (by removing unrealistic equipment) and, when good old "professional" tactics don't work due to the change, just invent new ones?

Unfortunately, as you say "professional" player of SPMBT, if he wants to be true to real life, will get WarPac more purchase points allocation. Also he'll know that since these Hinds don't have TI anymore they will be significantly cheaper meaning he'll have to face more of them. Explain, please, how "Unfortunately in WinSPMBT such configuration cause a huge NATO advantage over WP which practically confronts WP player with hopeless situation due to game engine's rules."? Esp. as in the era we're discussing not all that many Western units have TI's either - Abrams, Leo2, Bradley...and those are pretty expensive. So again, how does this put WP into hopeless situation?
I was able to achieve a neat close victory when clashing Czechoslovakian non-TI units head on with West German force of the same point value with TI Leos in PBEM and I didn't feel like being put into hopeless situation - all I needed was to employ tactics to lure Leos into good position.

Just FYI: In my OOB set the Hind TI removal took place already a long time ago, as well as cutting night sight range of most pre-TI Russian vehicles. Most of times I play for Czechoslovakia and the only change in the tactics is that I don't use Hinds for recon anymore, rather like flying tanks (which is, btw, closer to reality) and for recon I use GSR-equipped BVP-1 base BPzV.

Oh, and BTW, point out, please, who of those who prefer closing to reality by removing unrealistic TI from Hinds here is teen? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

BTW2: Still confused, maybe I'll need an explanation once again... How the heck does removing of UNREALISTIC equipment in the game or its altering to REAL equipment turn the game into arcade? Or is reality an arcade?

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

It is so many baloney in above scribbles wrote by this ridiculous sergeant I can describe it only by one word: deplorable! He seems not to understand what I am talking about.

Oh yes, he hits us with some point allocation cheating or using his "revolutionary" OOBs. Thanks! Go and play PBEMs in WinSPMBT 3.0 as a WP player with teens or even bundles from heaven, buddy. I am sure you will always win thanks to your better tactics, daisy OOBs and...maybe longer life experience! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

PS. I suspect all this tinkering at WP OOBs is a result of our discussion about Soviet Army real capabilities during 1980s conducted here not so long ago. Certainly some guys weren't happy with facts described there so they decided to "improve" WinSPMBT game by strengthening "right" side (NATO) to explain every teen in US/UK that West always had overwhelming superiority over everyone on this planet exactly as over Iraq. Otherwise our teens would be in a big trouble with understanding why they can't smash Soviets so easily like US crushed Saddam in 1991. Moreover they may not be willing to buy such a "challenging" game until "right" side takes "hold water" advantage! Then maybe some desperado will agree to play WP side. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

So, I wish you further "creditable", "praiseworthy", "marvellous" work and GOODBYE!

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

What you seem to be talking about is WarPac losing an unrealistic equipment. Still waiting to show some baloney. Go on. Show for exmple some TI-equipped Hind example from 1980's.

Oh point allocation cheating? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif You were complaining you can't get !real! circumstances, well, if you want to drop in real numerical superiority on the side of USSR, I'm afraid you have to resort to the so-called "cheating".
And where do I claim my OOB's being revolutionary? Seems you do resort too often to derogatory talking when your beloved side is hurt by reality...

Claiming whoever disagrees with you is a teen who don't know squat is actually behavior I see mostly in the ranks of... Teens. Just FYI, haven't played PBEM with a teen yet, rather
with older and experienced players. As for "better tactics", that's what I think a tactical-scale game is all about, no? If the unreal TI EastBloc units are so crucial for YOUR tactics, I encourage you to change the tactics, not the reality.

In a way, as every such discussion has (when taken seriously and not in fanboy fashion) aim to improve representation of real world in the game. Once again I ask you why is it better for you to leave units with unrealistic values of vision in the OOBs instead replacing them with realistic ones? Just because your favourite side loses capability it didn't have in reality? Well, world is cruel, learn to use another tactics.

My friend, YOU are acting exactly as a child that loses his favourite toy (TI Hinds). Now talk about teens http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Erm, ever tried to fight against NATO TI units without TI, and against a human opponent instead of AI? I encourage you to do so. It IS doable, you just have to quit *****ing about how the world is unfair to good old USSR and have to try to implement proper tactics. The "professional" players you were talking about have no problem with this.

As I already said I most of times (even in PBEM) tend to play Czechoslovakia, IE Eastern Block country with equipment on lower level than USSR, YET I don't feel like desperado - and the battles are far from one-sided.

And again, a question, simple and easy, which you seem to fail to respond: How can bringing the game closer to reality by removing unreal capabilities of some units turn the game into "arcade for teenagers"?

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

lol, teh pwned

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

How exactly can you give yourself more points then the ai? I always thought ai purchase points where based on your own purchase.

Tucan since you talk about superior tactics, what are your tactics then of fighting a TI opponent with no TI? or you don't want to give away your PBEM secerts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gifI don't know of any Soviet tactics designed to counter TI. Other than don't expose yourself what can you do. hiding isn't exactly going to kill the TI unit.


I also like playing with Czechoslavia, and East Germany in addition to the USSR. Czech and E. German equipment is much 'simplier' and I like that. It really impresses me when a 100mm BS-3 cannon from WW2 is knocking out Leopards and Pattons in the 80s (with modernized ammo of course)

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

By setting points for both sides in Preferences to suit your needs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

It's hiding up to the point you are in a good position http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Generally my infantry and tanks made advance through forest not feasible so the advance after losing some vehicles to ambushes and pointblank gun fire shifted to more open terrain where my tank reserves were able to play shoot and scoot from two sides and ATGM's were able to harass Marders (though they did seldom hit, more Marders fell prey to my T-55's). Also while moving to the open and towards objectives there was a small screening infantry platoon that was wiped out completely, but managed to knock out several tanks. Also had to fight for flank shots as 125mm ammo had problems with defeating Leo's front (but on several occassions my 72M1's survived front hits by 120mm as well).
Heavily used tactical redeployment of the screening forces once they made their part - delayed enemy long enough etc.

EDIT: Of course this works just as long as there's a place where to seek cover, the map was a map of real are in Middle Europe and was pretty confined at places, though it offered opportunities for long-range shots as well. If it was flat desert it won't work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Of course loses on my side were rather serious as well, lost lots and lots of grunts and took heavy losses among screening T-55's and IFV's, but numerically the losses were roughly comparable with the difference the enemy lost rather expensive stuff.

Yup, T-55 is even in 1980's great tank to be used as flank security or for ambushes or to counter enemy IFV's and APC's.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Heh, I was more used to US-licking trolls until now (the ones who go waah-I-cant-beat-T80s-but-I-know-Abrahams-is-teh-best-tank-evar!!!!!!!)http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rant.gif

Kuklinovsky, could we all hold back the personal attacks here please? Do you have verifiable info about the fact that Soviet-era Hinds had any kind of equipment allowing them to see through battlefield smoke?
In case you didn't read the whole thread through, that's what Don has been asking for since the beginning.

If you haven't, please stop the pointless *****ing.
You want an illuminated battlefield? set the visibility over 50 or so. That'll never prevent the other player to smoke you. If you can't win the game as it is, improve your tactics until you can: even with better hardware the IA is blessedly clueless and vulnerable to delaying or flanking.
And from all the figures I've seen (yes, from both "sides"), the game is still pretty fair-minded with lte Soviet units.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Do you give WP forces even more points than the balance? After all we're talking value points here, so higher quantity always balances lower quality and reverse. You want to achieve the legendary 3-to-1 ratio? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I thought that was why there was a 'quality differential' in the first place, because of the heaps of decades-old units kept running in the rear areas...

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Kuklinovsky i also think your tone of voice in the very least is a bit questionable and also would perfer a more moderate debate. This aggessive posting culture is deplorable and is mark of a very poor community - i would suggest anyone interested in a more mature and intelligent enviornment check out the forums run by paradox.

on more interesting matters (engagement ranges, relevant to TI):

My handbook (Austrian military, published early 1980s), states engangement ranges "under 1000m". The terrain is however only marginaly comparable with Bavaria (east of the country much more open, west of the country much more mountainous), so this could well be inaccuate for Germany.

Also an interersting statement from memory: "faced with a superior foe, the mobile anti-tank defence should be conducted as close as possible to negate enemy technological superiority, while simuatenously allowing for proper displacement." The example is given with the Kurassier JgPz (light tank), which was specifically designed for rapid engagements of 400-800m (2-4 shots) and retreat.

A side note, in another thread we talked about "TI-defeating smoke" which does exist, and (i speculate), could have formed an important part of WAPA strategy in the final period (1985-90).

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

From JANE'S, do the analysis yourself:

Mi-24B (Izdelie 241 'Hind-A'): TOP

Up-gunned and improved model with new 12.7 mm Yakoushev/Borzov YakB (TKB-063 or 9A624) 12.7 mm four-barrel machine gun in USPU-24 powered chin turret, traversable through 120° in azimuth and from +20 to -40° in elevation/depression, and slaved to KPS-53AV sighting system. Manually controlled ATGMs replaced by 9M17P Falanga-P and Falanga-PV with SACLOS guidance. Traversing radio command link antenna moved from centreline to below port side of nose, with gyrostabilised collimated LLTV/FLIR under starboard side in fixed fairing. Passed company trials 1971-72 but overtaken by Izdelie 246 ('Hind-D') and abandoned. Full-scale mockup produced from pre-series Mi-24 with undrooped wing, prototype from early Mi-24A with normal anhedral wing. Retained fully retractable landing gear like all previous Mi-24 variants.

Mi-24D (Izdelie 246; 'Hind-D'): TOP

Interim gunship version combining 'old' weapon system of Mi-24B with new airframe designed for planned Mi-24V due to delays with that aircraft's Shturm-V ATGMs with SPS-24V fire-control system, consisting of KPS-53AV weapons control unit and KS-53 gunsight; design began 1971; two prototypes converted from Mi-24A, with starboard-side tail rotor; entered production at Arsenyev and Rostov plants 1973; about 350 built 1973-77. Basically as late model 'Hind-A' with TV3-117 engines and port-side tail rotor, but entire front fuselage redesigned above floor forward of engine air intakes; separate armoured cockpits for weapon operator and pilot in tandem; flight mechanic optional, in main cabin; transport capability retained; USPU-24 gun system, with range-finding; undernose YakB-12.7 four-barrel 12.7 mm machine gun in turret, slaved to adjacent KPS-53A electro-optical sighting pod, for air-to-air and air-to-surface use; long air data boom with DUAS-V pitch and yaw vanes; Falanga P anti-tank missile system; nosewheel leg extended to increase ground clearance of sensor pods; wing pylons plumbed for 500 litre (132 US gallon; 110 Imp gallon) drop tanks; nosewheels semi-exposed when retracted; S-13 camera moved from port wingroot to port wingtip/endplate junction. Mi-24DU (Izdelie249) dual-control training version has no gun turret. (See also Mi-25.) Mi-24PTRK was testbed for Shturm V missile system of Mi-24V.

Detailed description applies to Mi-24D, except where indicated.

Mi-24K (korrektirovchik: corrector) (Izdelie 201 'Hind-G2'): TOP

Dedicated artillery spotter/fire correction aircraft to replace Mi-8TARK. As Mi-24R, but with large A87P or AFA-100 camera in cabin, f8/1,300 mm lens on starboard side; six per helicopter regiment for reconnaissance and artillery fire correction; gun and B-8V-20 rocket pods retained. No target designator pod under nose; upward-hinging cover for IRIS wide-angle IR and optical sensor system. Rita reconnaissance and spotting system with optical target identification, computer and data processor. About 163 built 1983-1989.

Mi-24P (Izdelie 243; 'Hind-F'): TOP

Development started 1974; about 620 built 1981-89; first shown in service in 1982 photographs; P of designation refers to pushka: cannon; as Mi-24V, but nose gun turret replaced by GSh-30K twin-barrel 30 mm gun (with 750 rounds) in semi-cylindrical pack on starboard side of nose; bottom of nose smoothly faired above and forward of sensors. Alternative Mi-24G has gun on starboard side.

Mi-24P-2: TOP

Upgraded version of Mi-24P with OPS-24 targeting FLIR and GOES-342.

Mil Mi-24PM: TOP

The upgraded Mi-24PM programme began at the Rostov Helicopter Plant in 2003. The upgrade includes fitting of new night vision equipment and new weaponry. New composite rotor blades and engines also included.

Mil Mi-24PN: TOP

Night capability upgrade with preliminary tests underway in mid-2000. Night upgrade of 30 mm cannon-armed 'Hind-F' with Geofizika FLIR, new laser range-finder, Raduga III sighting and aiming system, mission computer and NVG-compatible cockpit. Joint state testing completed in summer 2003 at Akhtubinsk. A state defence order for eight Mi-24PN (cannon, night) upgrades to be completed in early 2004. The updated variant is also equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS), a five-blade glass fiber main rotor, X-type tail rotor, and 2,400 shp (1,790 kW) Klimov TV3-117MA-SB3 power plants and fixed landing gear. Testing complete by the end of 2002. The Mi-24PN upgrade is being applied to Russian Army Mi-24P.


Mi-24PS (Patrul'nospasatelny: patrol/rescue): TOP

Transport/law enforcement/SAR variant for Russian Ministry of the Interior. Production or series conversion status unknown. First prototype converted from Mi-24P, retaining 30 mm cannon and wing endplate pylons. Undernose LLTV/FLIR replaced by downward-pointing loudspeaker group, ATGM guidance antenna by FPP-7 searchlight. Nose cut away to allow installation of weather radar and EO turret. LPG-4 winch (120 kg; 264 lb capacity) installed aft of starboard cabin door, grab rails, foot rests and rappel attachment points around sides of doors. Four of six-man squad carried can rappel from the aircraft simultaneously. Satellite communications, secure encrypted voice radios and special police-band radios. Second prototype similar (albeit painted white, with blue cheatlines and Militia titles) but converted from Mi-24V, with USPU-24 turret replaced by FLIR ball. Marketed as Mi-35PS for export.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Good point about infrared smoke Siddhi, I've been wondering for a while how widespread that thing was, and since when.
After all that's what the "IR" is about in VIRSS. AFAIK VIR smoke is based on suspended metallic particles and so should also screen from radars.

Since enough smoke will eventually block TI sight now, would it be possible to create a second smoke dispersers category which would (totally out on a limb here) create maximum-density smoke clouds or several simultaneous smoke clouds to simulate thicker, impenetrable smoke?

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Siddi: Very interesting, thanks for that.

Note that it claims the MI-24B would have featured a FLIR (which is TI as the FLIR definition is normally used ,isn't it?) But then there's no direct reference on that system with the Mi-24D, so was it used or not? I.e. had the Hind D a FLIR (TI) system or not?

Smersh/Marek_Tucan: Yeah I had some fun experiances with T-55s, my favourite being in an AI GDR/US campaign, where a T55 engaged a M1A1 on 100 meters landing a 'critical hit' with +40 penetration, catastrophically killing the Abrams with it's first shot...