SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 11-02-07, 04:29 AM

Chock, why the heavy workload of writing, if you seem to agree with much I said? the porblem of thermals not being spoofed by such a prjector camouflage, we both have mentioned. The low scores of the Iraqi tanks against the americans also came from the 120mm Rheinmetall being able to deliver precise blows over a significantly higher distance than the T72 (although I admit that Americans often found themselves in a very confused situation when running into the dune fields and occaisonal ambushes from T72 in reverse iron horse formations (hope that descirptiuon fits), resulting in intense close range fire exchanges. Plus the bad weather and thunderstroms they had, plus the sandstorms in the North it was, I think.

Where I disagree is that a camouflaged tank in an entranched position would have better chances to remain unharmed by aerial recognition. the entracnhement itself would be very well visible, and thus: be a target for preparatory artiellery at least. so a tank using such a camouflage would probably need to stay away from any defensive installations.

I still think that the active camouflage approach is the better, less sensitive approach: generate generic active paintschemes depending on the colour of your actual background. Because the camouflage pattern being used today already can produce surprising results in dissolving the contours of a tent, a vehcile, whetaver. When living in osnabrück, I once ran into a camp of a training BW unit in the forest. A M113 with a tent was on th side, between some bushes and trees. I was less than 50, 60 m away before I became aware it was there. From double that distance, it seemk to be not there. Such camouflage patterns only loose their use when in the open, or when their coliurs do not match the colours of the ground they are on. If you get these colours to match each other, then the camouflage scheme does the job it is supposed to do, and it does it sufficiently well. since all this does not help that much against mutli-spectral sensors, currently no more expesnive, but probably more sensible devices would be needed - not from a standpoint of mechanized groundwarfare, I would estimate.

If you really want to make a tank invisible to all surface sensors there are, you would need to build a mechanic mole.

11-02-07, 04:29 AM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,752 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Chock, why the heavy workload of writing, if you seem to agree with much I said? the porblem of thermals not being spoofed by such a prjector camouflage, we both have mentioned. The low scores of the Iraqi tanks against the americans also came from the 120mm Rheinmetall being able to deliver precise blows over a significantly higher distance than the T72 (although I admit that Americans often found themselves in a very confused situation when running into the dune fields and occaisonal ambushes from T72 in reverse iron horse formations (hope that descirptiuon fits), resulting in intense close range fire exchanges. Plus the bad weather and thunderstroms they had, plus the sandstorms in the North it was, I think. Where I disagree is that a camouflaged tank in an entranched position would have better chances to remain unharmed by aerial recognition. the entracnhement itself would be very well visible, and thus: be a target for preparatory artiellery at least. so a tank using such a camouflage would probably need to stay away from any defensive installations. I still think that the active camouflage approach is the better, less sensitive approach: generate generic active paintschemes depending on the colour of your actual background. Because the camouflage pattern being used today already can produce surprising results in dissolving the contours of a tent, a vehcile, whetaver. When living in osnabrück, I once ran into a camp of a training BW unit in the forest. A M113 with a tent was on th side, between some bushes and trees. I was less than 50, 60 m away before I became aware it was there. From double that distance, it seemk to be not there. Such camouflage patterns only loose their use when in the open, or when their coliurs do not match the colours of the ground they are on. If you get these colours to match each other, then the camouflage scheme does the job it is supposed to do, and it does it sufficiently well. since all this does not help that much against mutli-spectral sensors, currently no more expesnive, but probably more sensible devices would be needed - not from a standpoint of mechanized groundwarfare, I would estimate. If you really want to make a tank invisible to all surface sensors there are, you would need to build a mechanic mole. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.