sandbox vet's input needed


PDA






gunnie
November 8, 2010, 02:34 AM
what is the force multiplier ratio of your M16 + PNV over insurgency AKs + as issued eyesight at night?

gunnie

If you enjoyed reading about "sandbox vet's input needed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HorseSoldier
November 8, 2010, 05:13 AM
Everything is situational, but generally imagine having 20/20 or so vision and being in a gunfight with someone who has 20/200 vision and no glasses or contacts. Up close it doesn't matter as much (and that's where white light gets used) but the further you push the range the more the difference starts to show.

Al Thompson
November 8, 2010, 02:26 PM
Ditto. Over 50 yards or so (depending on ambient light, dust, etc., etc.) and the force ratio dramatically rises as distance increases. Add in thermal sights (M1 series tank) and you are essentially fighting blind bad guys.

RainDownmyBlues
November 8, 2010, 02:52 PM
When I was in Afghanistan the enemy learned pretty darn quickly not to try and engage at night, it was a lost cause.

We also were orders not to move much during the day, 95 percent of all IED casualties happen during the day time, it's much harder to be effective with an IED when you can't see the battlefield.

essayons21
November 8, 2010, 05:58 PM
What really gives an advantage at night are vehicle mounted thermal optics, especially the Gyrocam system with a good operator and a IR laser. Its almost unfair... almost.

Tim the student
November 8, 2010, 09:19 PM
I think HorseSoldier nailed it pretty well. But, IMO, the NVG's must be accompanied by an optic that is compatible with night NVG's. Iron sights are a lost cause when used alone with NVG's I think.

APIT50
November 8, 2010, 09:34 PM
Depends on the ambient light or IR source. We had Surefire spotlights with the IR filter on M2HB's and with a PVS-14 you can pretty much own the night. This is mostly for open areas though. In an urban environment with many ambient light sources it can actually hinder you because of the flare in your optic. In the open they are dependent on the amount of ambient light. I also used a turret mounted weapon with an integrated NVG scope and if it wasn't a moonlit night you couldn't see very far. Turn on your spotlights without a filter and your scope flares out on you.
Thermal is so very nice in open terrain at night. Light sources do no affect it.

APIT50
November 8, 2010, 09:39 PM
Sorry got sidetracked on the M16 vs AK topic....
When the two are compared within CQB range there isn't a lot of difference.
As the range increases the multiplier goes up. Ambient light sources will play a big role though.

gunnie
November 9, 2010, 07:39 PM
so it seems an actual NV weapon sight is more effective than the goggles. is this due to requiring point shooting, rather than aimed fire as Tim the student said?

overall, do you feel the reason for CQB loss of advantage is ambient light giving up your position, or do you feel the muzzle flash was doing it? if the correct answer is "C, none of the above" what would you attribute it to? excessive magnification of the weapon sight for close use? time lost in target acquisition? please elaborate.

gunnie

APIT50
November 10, 2010, 12:10 AM
In a cqb environment spray and pray is actually fairly effective and negate a lot of the advantage of night vision

Shadow 7D
November 10, 2010, 03:38 AM
Night vision removes the enemies cover of darkness and allows you to operate with increased stelth.

In CQB you are either really good at stealth or you are fighting the close in dirty battle that CQB is. Oh and those flares, absolutely ruin night vision, and are a literal pain.

Shadow 7D
November 10, 2010, 04:10 AM
Not much to add, it's a different game at night, and a much different game under NOD's
until you do it, and get trained, really hard to explain

LaEscopeta
November 10, 2010, 07:52 AM
I wonder if deep pocket Al Qaeda supporters are looking at buying night vision equipment and distributing in Iraq/Afghanistan. Or if they are looking at ways to create “flares” in US night vision equipment (i.e. a flash light, possibly with non visible light, that sets off a “flare” when shone at night vision equipment.)

I wonder is potential future enemies of the US are looking at expanding their night vision capabilities, and/or looking at ways to defeat US night vision equipment.

Shadow 7D
November 10, 2010, 02:30 PM
It's controlled under the defense industry and required a license to export, but go to wally world and see where the NV scope is from....

I don't think China is selling milsup at wally world.

Al Thompson
November 10, 2010, 05:15 PM
looking at buying night vision equipment

Seven years in Iraq, ten in Afghanistan. Suspect they would have done it by now. :rolleyes: Wouldn't much matter though, with out good training your equipment is very, very secondary.

Shadow 7D
November 10, 2010, 10:28 PM
Um, it's there, and it is found, just not much, nor by that many (that we get)

and most is of coarse OURs, or at least the stuff we give the IDF and cops.

gunnie
November 11, 2010, 11:41 AM
APIT50,

my original posting was worded to be within the realm of "average"* experience of our soldiers. please indulge my curiosity as to how effective one in my circumstances can hope for the PNV weapon sight to be.....

if this were translated into sillyvillian terms, (IE: no rock and roll position on the safety lever), do you feel the spray and pray tactic would still be as viable/effective?

was hoping for a more widespread database to work from on this. suppose the military computer servers in afganastan and iraq have blocked this web site, as it was in kuwait last year. the idea seemed beyond comprehension to me, the army trains, arms and deploys their soldiers with firearms. even us DOD kids had to dump a magazine of 9mm at fort benning to deploy. yet doesn't allow access to firearm related information in cyberland?

also, please indulge my breaking far off-thread to offer up my heartfelt THANK YOU to all who have sacrificed and even gone into harm's way for us CONUS americans now on veteran's day. without out all of you, we would be fighting it out here on our own soil, instead!

gunnie

*foolishly assuming that ANY combat engagement could be considered "average".

pro2
November 11, 2010, 11:51 AM
There is a reason why American soldiers train and fight under the cover of darkness. ;) The enemy hides at night.

The newer thermal optics available to US soldiers are impressive.

Typically, anything that will interfere with night optics will also telegraph the position of the enemy.

wideym
November 11, 2010, 12:04 PM
There is a reason we say "we own the night". Nearly every troop was issued the newer PVS-14, except maybe ten or so in my company. Even though we were stationed in Baghdad, power outages and drivng curfews left the city mostly dark and made the use of NVGs a plus.

All our firefights happened within 75 yards at the most extreme range, while most happened within a city block or across the street. NVGs really helped identify insurgent ambushes and IEDs before entering the killzone or identifiying moving insurgents vs. civilians at other times of darkness.

gunnie
November 11, 2010, 12:10 PM
..."The newer thermal optics available to US soldiers are impressive."...

roger that! our machinist at arifjan made up a rotating mount that also had some ninety degrees of elevation adjustment for mounting an elcan thermal monocular on the roof of a HUMMER with an inboard screen fed through the output port...

http://www.atncorp.com/atn-nightvision-thermal-camera-elcan-phantom-ir

...i got the officer pushing the project to let me look through same at night. i'd have to allow that merely "impressive" didn't do them justice, though. at that point, i realized that i NEEDED to score same technology in a weapon sight. very little investigation revealed that until the publisher's clearing house prize comity dropped by my house, this just wasn't gonna happen.

gunnie

gunnie
November 11, 2010, 03:12 PM
as per original posting, actual vet's opinions on the following:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=552155&page=5

gunnie

Shadow 7D
November 11, 2010, 04:26 PM
Hey, gunnie, yeah, it sucks, and it's kinda scary to realize with the handhelds that you are hold that much money in your hand or slung on your back, seen some of the weapons mountable ones? My gunner kept his on his M4 when he was dismounted, not something left on your ma duce even inside the company gates.

gunnie
November 12, 2010, 01:09 AM
Shadow 7D,

sorry i didn't respond to your posting when i first read it, have been a long while with the moderators, due to the "force and length" of my rantings at the thread link pasted in posting # 21.

as a taxpayer like yourself, i commend the efforts you and others have made to insure the retention of these WAY overpriced optics. the army would do well to advise the contractors who literally throw them over their shoulders into a pile at DRMO in arifjan to learn from your example.

gunnie

If you enjoyed reading about "sandbox vet's input needed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!