Tank/APC smoke effects

[M_Striker]

I was wondering, is the smoke "countermeasures" effect currently in PR realistic? From videos I've seen, the smoke comes out slowly from a little opening.

I like the idea of shooting smoke canisters up in the air slightly above the tank, to completely conceal it, like the ones in the recent final version of Desert combat. It's just that the current smoke effect in PR only covers maybe the front 180 degrees of the tank. And it looks as if, the smoke just "appears" there. (even though sometimes, I was able to see tiny dots (i think) which were resembling the smoke canisters)

I'm more focusing towards the smoke effect in desert combat, because IMHO I really think that looks good. I don't know though, and it all depends on how "realistic" the current smoke effect is.

[LineHog]

As far as realism, the smoke canisters are used as a defensive action if need be. The smoke covers only the area the canisters cover (Ie the canisters on the M1 only face forward so the smoke will cover the front mostly). If available on the tank, the crew can use the engine and some kind of chemical to create a smoke screen while on the move. From what I've seen, everything is realistic except for maybe the Challenger 2 which can provide an offensive smoke screen via the engine. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[[R-DEV]Undies]

Originally Posted by LineHog

If available on the tank, the crew can use the engine and some kind of chemical to create a smoke screen while on the move.

They inject diesel into the exhaust and the unburnt fuel creates a smokescreen.

[GoreZiad]

Yeah. That's why they rev the engine.

[LineHog]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Undies

They inject diesel into the exhaust and the unburnt fuel creates a smokescreen.

Ok, thanks. Wasn't really sure what they used.

[[R-COM]TheScot666]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb5Nj1SvSwo

3:00 shows it well!

0:52 made me chuckle though!

[M.Warren]

As a seasoned veteran to various forms of armor, I do particularly miss being in control of the smoke while acting as the Driver/Tank Commander.

Although the new method is more realistic, it has negatively impacted my game experience. This is because nothing was given in exchange for the Driver/Tank Commander smoke, and I frequently enjoyed deploying smoke for infantry as they advanced through an open area to a flag zone. Sadly this never worked really well, as the smoke had a habit of decreasing in density more and more as you used it repeatedly in a short amount of time.

I'd certainly enjoy having the previously pictured Smoke Generator on the Challenger 2 and M1A2 Abrams. A majority of modern day tanks have this feature available as it's the basics of any tank utlized to the best of my knowledge. I am uncertain if this is also outfitted on APC's.

[cannibal23]

personaly i feel that the current smoke effect is the best yet. i do have to agree though that giving the gunner control of smoke has had a significantly negative effect on my gaming experiance. gunner gets all the shooting all the ammo changes all the kills and the driver gets to drive and look arround ... thats it. not exactly the most exciting position. and now most of the time smoke never even gets used because gunners just dont think to use it or dont have the time to switch ammo types. ya it only takes a seccond to press 3 then click the mouse, but then it also only takes a seccond to get killed in a dozen diffrent ways. at least when the driver was in control of it he could deploy it when it was usefull instead of way too early or way too late.

[Ninja2dan]

Originally Posted by M_Striker

I was wondering, is the smoke "countermeasures" effect currently in PR realistic? From videos I've seen, the smoke comes out slowly from a little opening.

The smoke launchers actually fire small air-bursting cartridges that detonate forward of the launchers, which are usually placed on the turret. I have not seen a VESS system in PR yet, but I also haven't played for a few months to see if it was added recently.

I like the idea of shooting smoke canisters up in the air slightly above the tank, to completely conceal it, like the ones in the recent final version of Desert combat. It's just that the current smoke effect in PR only covers maybe the front 180 degrees of the tank. And it looks as if, the smoke just "appears" there. (even though sometimes, I was able to see tiny dots (i think) which were resembling the smoke canisters)

The purpose of the smoke canisters is to provide individual protection versus multiple threats. They were originally designed to produce a countermeasure against the tracking systems of enemy ATGM's as well as the lasing equipment on enemy armor. The earlier smoke was visual-concealing only and not thermal, but few enemy armor had thermal imagers at the time. New smoke is capable of blocking some thermal imagers. The reason for the forward arc of smoke instead of a 360-degree ring is to protect the vehicle from the direction of the threat while still allowing the vehicle situational awareness to the sides and rear where threats should be minimal.

You should be able to find more information about the vehicle smoke generators by searching for VESS or VEESS. Vehicle Exhaust Smoke System, used by many NATO MBT's. I'll include a quote from FM 71-123 "Smoke Operations".

Self-Defense Smoke

Self-defense smoke is produced primarily by smoke grenade launchers and VEESS. These systems provide rapid smoke production, responsiveness and enhanced survivability to the small unit leader. The vehicle grenade launchers are primarily for individual vehicle use. Once fired, they must be reloaded from outside the vehicle. Vehicle grenade launchers may be of danger to dismounted troops. The VEESS may be used not only for self-defense of individual vehicles, but to provide screening smoke for small units. The system is designed with flexibility in mind to meet the needs of a fluent battlefield. It produces smoke to cover vehicle movement and degrades the enemy's ability to acquire and engage targets. The VEESS is most effective when used as a self-protective mechanism to cover the movement of a combat vehicle from one battle position to another. The VEESS used under any other condition would be a secondary method of employment. The risk factor increases substantially when used to screen unit formations. The consideration to use VEESS must be based on the tactical situation and METT-T. The vehicle may be silhouetted against the smoke if the VEESS or the smoke grenade launcher is used incorrectly. If properly used, VEESS is an effective combat multiplier. The VEESS consumes approximately 1 gallon of fuel per minute of operation. It can only be operated when the engine is running. Both vehicle smoke grenade launchers and VEESS can pinpoint vehicle locations and interrupt target acquisition during evasive maneuvers.

I also found a link to FM 71-123 on Globalsecurity.org, link is here.

If you want to see something else of interest, look up pictures and video of the M58 Wolf, which is a vehicle specially designed as a Smoke Generating vehicle.

@Cannibal - The smoke grenade launchers are mounted to the turret, and are fired after the turret is pointed in the general direction of the threat. For that reason the gunner or commander has control of firing them, not the driver. Since the commander slot is not required in PR for normal operation compared to real life, it is only common sense to give the gunner full control. Just because the driver's job "isn't as fun or cool" doesn't mean players should have less desire to do it. I have run several rounds as a sniper that used my job properly, rarely engaging the enemy and mostly using my concealment and long-range optics to report enemy movement instead. While some might think that support tasks are "boring", many of us feel it is just as fun to support our team for the win than to go Rambo and get all the kills. Drivers are just as important as the gunner, and a poor driver will cause the destruction of your tank regardless of how good the gunner is. Both need to work together, and players need to remember that playing gunner isn't the only part of armor crew.

@Warren - Since you were armor, maybe you can answer something. Aren't the GL canisters used on the Abrams a 66mm? I can't remember and I'm having trouble finding my STP. I also remember something about there being Chaff/Flare cartridges that could be fitted into the launchers but never saw any during my active duty time.

[motherdear]

ninja i fully agree with supporting the team, the only problem at the moment is that the damn smoke disarms the firing mechanism of the turret whereas it should be more natural to be usefull. because at the moment you can not use the smoke in a battle of any kind without being vulnerable.