Tanks: no magnification available when targeting?

[Shashman 0]

Right click used to work to aim on targets but now, like you said it just changes view. I find that getting them in radar range and pressing tab works for me now.

But say, for whatever reason, you want to target an empty vehicle, or a building, or any other non-manned object or infantry for that matter, these don't appear as 'tabbable' targets on the radar so tabbing doesn't designate them, so a free crosshair is what's needed

[HamishUK 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Mar. 04 2007,16:16)]To get back to the very original question ...

in OFP I often used NVGoogles to spot enemy armour units. They reflected a certain amount of light, I dont know if this works in ArmA aswell.

But I think I get your point... it would be nice of tanks would have an InfraRed vision, so you can spot infantry and enemy tank as in real life.

Honestly, I'd like to see a thermal scope in ArmA.  I was kind of hoping for one after wanting one in OFP for a long while.  Like you said, the NVG worked well to help spot enemy armour in OFP, but in ArmA you can barely see out of the NVG during daylight (which is realistic).

A thermal scope would give the Abrams the advantage that it actually has IRL.  I'm pretty sure that the operational orders for the M1A1 and M1A2 have the gunner and commander using the thermal scopes at all times to spot enemy vehicles from a distance.

I noticed that the driver's location for the Stryker ICV M2 is jacked up too.  It should have a thermal sight as well.  Matter of fact NVGs shouldn't be required as it shows in the screen (sorry, UK 1.05) some of the NVG and some of the screen without the NVG overlay.  And is there a scripting way to raise/lower the seat?

Oh and to be anal HamisUK, the proper term is CITV, or Commanders Independant Thermal Viewer.  That's only on the A2, not the M1 or M1A1.  TOGS is Challenger/Chally 2.

I agree TOGS is the UK terminology for a gunners sight. It is however the correct term for this purpose.

CITV as you pointed out is a moot point as it's the periscope sight on a the M1A2.

[Smehan 0]

To have your gunner target, you just need to press the TAB key, it will cycle through available targets. Left control will tell them to fire or cease fire. To maually set target, go to command view and click on target.

[mr reality 0]

To have your gunner target, you just need to press the TAB key, it will cycle through available targets.

I'm no expert when it comes to targeting systems in tanks but is that realistic, i mean this is a simulation right .

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm no expert when it comes to targeting systems in tanks but is that realistic, i mean this is a simulation right

If you want to have it realistic you need AWACS, working CENTCOM onboard Satlink that transfers hostile pos from Sat Recon and at least half a year of education on the weapon systems and guidance and coordination patterns.

[mr reality 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm no expert when it comes to targeting systems in tanks but is that realistic, i mean this is a simulation right

If you want to have it realistic you need AWACS, working CENTCOM onboard Satlink that transfers hostile pos from Sat Recon and at least half a year of education on the weapon systems and guidance and coordination patterns.

I was refering to the crewman in the tank. The commander still issues orders, right. There is still a gunner who aims the main gun, right. I mean there not robots....

[colt 0]

You're the commander and looking through the commander's veiwport.

Hold spacebar down and right click on a vehicle in to order the Gunner to target it.

Press left ctrl to order the gunner to fire.

Hold spacebar down and press F to order the gunner to switch between shells and coaxial machine gun.

If the Gunner is using the coaxial machine gun, left ctrl tells him to fire / cease fire.

In order to get the Gunner to switch between HEAT and Sabot. Select him (function key eg. F2) and in the command menu under Action slect the appropriate ammunition.

[EricJ 759]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Mar. 04 2007,16:16)]To get back to the very original question ...

in OFP I often used NVGoogles to spot enemy armour units. They reflected a certain amount of light, I dont know if this works in ArmA aswell.

But I think I get your point... it would be nice of tanks would have an InfraRed vision, so you can spot infantry and enemy tank as in real life.

Honestly, I'd like to see a thermal scope in ArmA.  I was kind of hoping for one after wanting one in OFP for a long while.  Like you said, the NVG worked well to help spot enemy armour in OFP, but in ArmA you can barely see out of the NVG during daylight (which is realistic).

A thermal scope would give the Abrams the advantage that it actually has IRL.  I'm pretty sure that the operational orders for the M1A1 and M1A2 have the gunner and commander using the thermal scopes at all times to spot enemy vehicles from a distance.

I noticed that the driver's location for the Stryker ICV M2 is jacked up too.  It should have a thermal sight as well.  Matter of fact NVGs shouldn't be required as it shows in the screen (sorry, UK 1.05) some of the NVG and some of the screen without the NVG overlay.  And is there a scripting way to raise/lower the seat?

Oh and to be anal HamisUK, the proper term is CITV, or Commanders Independant Thermal Viewer.  That's only on the A2, not the M1 or M1A1.  TOGS is Challenger/Chally 2.

I agree TOGS is the UK terminology for a gunners sight. It is however the correct term for this purpose.

CITV as you pointed out is a moot point as it's the periscope sight on a the M1A2.

Correct terminology for the M1 is GPS, or Gunners Primary Sight. Thermals are just part of the package, and not referred to as a seperate system, since it's all mounted in the "doghouse", which is where the GPS is mounted. It's best to use the correct terminology when dealing with the appropriate country's equipment, and it's never referred to as TOGS in any FM that the US Army produced, as the unknowing tend to believe that US armor crewman refer they're thermals as "TOGS", when it's just "thermals". Or more correctly "Switch to thermals", not "Switch to TOGS old chap."

But anyways...

[weegee_101 0]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Mar. 04 2007,16:16)]To get back to the very original question ...

in OFP I often used NVGoogles to spot enemy armour units. They reflected a certain amount of light, I dont know if this works in ArmA aswell.

But I think I get your point... it would be nice of tanks would have an InfraRed vision, so you can spot infantry and enemy tank as in real life.

Honestly, I'd like to see a thermal scope in ArmA. I was kind of hoping for one after wanting one in OFP for a long while. Like you said, the NVG worked well to help spot enemy armour in OFP, but in ArmA you can barely see out of the NVG during daylight (which is realistic).

A thermal scope would give the Abrams the advantage that it actually has IRL. I'm pretty sure that the operational orders for the M1A1 and M1A2 have the gunner and commander using the thermal scopes at all times to spot enemy vehicles from a distance.

I noticed that the driver's location for the Stryker ICV M2 is jacked up too. It should have a thermal sight as well. Matter of fact NVGs shouldn't be required as it shows in the screen (sorry, UK 1.05) some of the NVG and some of the screen without the NVG overlay. And is there a scripting way to raise/lower the seat?

Oh and to be anal HamisUK, the proper term is CITV, or Commanders Independant Thermal Viewer. That's only on the A2, not the M1 or M1A1. TOGS is Challenger/Chally 2.

AFAIK, drivers in the Abrams and Stryker don't get thermals, instead they go with the standard night vision.

[HamishUK 0]

Correct terminology for the M1 is GPS, or Gunners Primary Sight.  Thermals are just part of the package, and not referred to as a seperate system, since it's all mounted in the "doghouse", which is where the GPS is mounted.  It's best to use the correct terminology when dealing with the appropriate country's equipment, and it's never referred to as TOGS in any FM that the US Army produced, as the unknowing tend to believe that US armor crewman refer they're thermals as "TOGS", when it's just "thermals".  Or more correctly "Switch to thermals", not "Switch to TOGS old chap."

But anyways...

I said the 'terminology was correct for this purpose' not 'correct for the US field manual.' Slightly different.

Pedantic git.

[botmund 0]

Thanks all for the information. I did not know it was possible to zoom as a gunner. This made it possible for me to complete the single mission with three Abrams tank. I was playing as commander before and it was the commanders equipment that I was curious about (my initial question was fuzzy). In this picture of an M1A2 you can see a "periscope" of some sorts on the right side (I have assumed that is for targeting with magnification, correct?). As ArmA has the A1 model that feature is naturally not available (M1A1).

So, regarding the M1A1 - does the commander have access to magnification of some sorts (in real life)?

[HamishUK 0]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a1.htm

He has a x3 mag sight.

Quote[/b] ]The Commander's station is equipped with six periscopes which provide all round 360 degree view. The Independent Thermal Viewer (ITV) from Texas Instruments provides him with independent, stabilized day and night vision with a 360 degree view, automatic sector scanning, automatic target cueing of the Gunner's sight with no need for verbal communication, and a complete back-up fire control system - the Commander is capable of firing the main gun independent of the Gunner.

Quote[/b] ]As with virtually every tank every fielded by the US, the familiar .50 caliber Browning M2 Heavy Barrel machine gun - the "Ma Duce" - is located in a powered mount at the Commander's station and is equipped with a x3 magnification sight. The Loader is provided with a 7.62mm M240 machine gun, and another M240 is mounted in-line with the main gun of the tank ("coaxially"). It is in a fixed mount and is aimed with the main gun to suppress enemy ground troops.

[EricJ 759]

Correct terminology for the M1 is GPS, or Gunners Primary Sight.  Thermals are just part of the package, and not referred to as a seperate system, since it's all mounted in the "doghouse", which is where the GPS is mounted.  It's best to use the correct terminology when dealing with the appropriate country's equipment, and it's never referred to as TOGS in any FM that the US Army produced, as the unknowing tend to believe that US armor crewman refer they're thermals as "TOGS", when it's just "thermals".  Or more correctly "Switch to thermals", not "Switch to TOGS old chap."

But anyways...

I said the 'terminology was correct for this purpose' not 'correct for the US field manual.' Slightly different.

Pedantic git.

No personal attacks mate, I know British slang.  But the point is, if you're going to describe something, use the proper terminology, not what you think is because of national origin.  Or get off your butt and really read the manuals so you understand.  So A) You're wrong, and B) the issue is closed, have some tea and bugger off.

And then again, who is a Brit telling an American what's the correct terminology in the first place?  I mean, you do realize I am in the US Army right? Or you just didn't realize it and just roll on like some twit who thinks he knows it all because he's read it on the internet and never been on an actual tank before? Right? Thought so, next.

[HamishUK 0]

Correct terminology for the M1 is GPS, or Gunners Primary Sight.  Thermals are just part of the package, and not referred to as a seperate system, since it's all mounted in the "doghouse", which is where the GPS is mounted.  It's best to use the correct terminology when dealing with the appropriate country's equipment, and it's never referred to as TOGS in any FM that the US Army produced, as the unknowing tend to believe that US armor crewman refer they're thermals as "TOGS", when it's just "thermals".  Or more correctly "Switch to thermals", not "Switch to TOGS old chap."

But anyways...

I said the 'terminology was correct for this purpose' not 'correct for the US field manual.' Slightly different.

Pedantic git.

No personal attacks mate, I know British slang.  But the point is, if you're going to describe something, use the proper terminology, not what you think is because of national origin.  Or get off your butt and really read the manuals so you understand.  So A) You're wrong, and B) the issue is closed, have some tea and bugger off.

And then again, who is a Brit telling an American what's the correct terminology in the first place.  I mean, you do realize I am in the US Army right?

Aye and used to be in the RAF Regiment and finally the RAF many years ago. Ground vehicles are not by forte but then I only used British terminology to answer the questions so thank you for correcting me. But I never said I was right now did I? I just used UK nomenclature to answer and you rightly corrected me.

But it did answer the point did it not?

As for the pedantic git I think you took that the wrong way hence the smiley. No offence just harmless banter old chap.