Don't see it from either side right now even if Ukraine is ATGM country and a prime candidate for smoke to break line of sight. If a tank crew has to move into a sketchy position only to be hobbled by the slow reverse of Sovietshit then discharging smoke to withdraw makes more sense than trudging backwards slowly or doing an U-turn with the ass showing to get nailed.>Also post battlefield obscurants
>>56908246I honestly have no idea. I think I've seen one vehicle activate its smoke generator during this whole conflict.
>>56908263>GeneratorAFAIK wasn't there a video of a T-72B3 trying to get the hell out after the one ahead of it blew and then it got whacked by some top attack ATGM while it made some weak smoke from the exhaust?
>>56908246I saw a Russian tank deploy smoke in drone footage after a close arty strike. Honestly not sure if it was just cooking off though.
>>56908246>Don't see it from either side right now even if Ukraine is ATGMIt's more like you just don't see such footage recorded often. Similar to how Javelin footage is very rare.
>>56908315Sure but we still have a decent amount of Javelin footage in contrast to the relative rarity of Switchblade 300s. There's even some footage of the BMP-Ts but it seems like battlefield smoke is rarer than all the systems so far.
>>56908246Chieftain brought that up in his "The Tank Is Not Dead" video. It seems like *nobody* ever thinks to actually pop smoke in combat, and there's no obvious reason why.
>>56908381I just don't get it. Smoke grenades are "cheaper" from a cost perspective and logistical perspective than losing fighting material.
>>56908326T-90M used smoke on some (summer) video. It was from first POV
>>56908393Post it, smoke is rarer than anything short of seeing an actual T-14 in Ukraine right now.
>>56908250do t90 smokes double as WP area denial?
>>56908381Probably because smokes are often the last thing people remember.
Wasn't there an Azov video where one of their BTRs gets behind a couple Russian tanks and pops them in the ass? I seem to recall one tank trying to use smoke to hide their bum.
>>56908467Engine exhaust smoke generator is still an option, that one T-72 video still boggles me with how crummy the smoke is.>>56908491I think the BTR-4 video has the external fuel tanks on the T-72 bursting as it gets raked by autocannon fire.
With all the charges across open fields I'd expect something like howitzer or mortar delivered smoke to obscure movement and positions. Drones and satellites can spot but in the heat of the moment that's enough to allow for units not to get mowed down wholesale but I'm not seeing it.
>>56908512Ah I see. Similar effect, but the actual smoke generator probably would make so much smoke lol
>>56908583I meant would NOT make so much smoke, as lighting up the fuel tanks did.
>>56908578From the perspective of a commander if I'm throwing troops into a meatgrinder like Bakhmut and I want them to actually make contact then using shit like this when the wind is right would just make sense in combination with a mechanized charge. Instead we're getting what looks like a shitty version of a WW1 killing field.
The lack of battlefield smoke in all the footage out of this war makes me feel like the schizos talking about nukes being fake. Where's the fucking battlefield smoke?
>>56908246In generalSoviet/Russian smoke dischargers>Meant for offensive use>throw grenades much further out and primarily forward of the vehicle to allow it to more effectively close on their target>not always IR opaque depending upon year of manufactureWestern >Meant for defensive use>Throw in a wider arc to cover from more directions, aren't fired out as far>almost always IR opaque since the late 70sEngine generated smoke is used identically
>>56908393Different video. It's better to ask Shawshank Redemption about smoke.
>>56908788Don't have a Youtube account and I'm not giving any phone numbers to Google. Can I ask you post?
>>56908263Me neither. I've seen some launcher with caps but I don't think they were loaded.
>>56908798Holy shit mannerism moment. Can I ask you to post and launcher not lasuncher.
>>56908313Iirc all its doing to generate that smoke is dumping oil onto the hot engine.
>>56908820>I'm so mindfucked by a lack of battlefield smoke that autocorrect changed aneurysm to mannerism
>>56908840This is a quality thread OP. thanks
>>56908578Using smoke to mask movements is probably too complex of a tactic for the average Russian general. Either that or they sold all the smoke shells and didn't think about producing more.
>>56908868this launcher can also fire other rounds as well, including anti-personnel fragmentation
>>56908874My obsession over a lack of footage that has the utilization battlefield smoke is what drives me. Switchblade 300 videos are more common and they need the dedicated recording rig for that.
>>56908578>>56908611smoke telegraphs your intentions to the enemy and gives their artillery something to fix on
for me? it's the laser warning and smoke system testbed Abrams.
>>56908898Oh hey the ROSY system>>56908896Wouldn't the recon by force waves in Bakhmut already be enough? Just tossing smoke across the battlefield at various positions and pushing/not pushing would throw things off.
>>56908916>Wouldn't the recon by force waves in Bakhmut already be enough? it's just a fact that you have to lay smoke before your troops start moving through the smoked area, as smoke takes time to arrive and build - on top of that, once the smoke has built the clock begins ticking down, as smoke has a certain time before it dissipates. this tells the enemy you're planning to make a move there, within a predictable time frame, which can cause you a lot of grief. the advantage you gain from being obscured by the smoke may be offset by the disadvantage of being the focus of your enemy's attention and reserves>Just tossing smoke across the battlefield at various positions and pushing/not pushing would throw things off.any deployment of smoke is going to alert the enemy and focus their attention, so unless you're throwing it over a VERY large geographic area, you're not really doing yourself any favors
>>56908986>throwing it over a VERY large geographic areaThat'd be the point? You'd make false attacks by making apparent force concentrations with actual forces in combination with items like inflatable decoys while doing pushes elsewhere.
>>56908439It would work nicely! Abrams smoke is a joke by comparison. There should be a frag option too with tubes selectable by a controller like aircraft stores management systems.
>>56909005Soviet lineage tanks have some fucky setup where the gunner controls the smoke instead of the commander for some reason.
>>56908293the one tearing down a straight road? i've seen that and actually one drone shot of a t-90 using its smoke like >>56908250
>>56908381Its because drone/cellphone footage of a great grey cloud doing nothing is too boring to get posted very often
>>56909027probably because the smoke doubles as a warcrime
>>56909036I need to find it but I remember it using engine smoke, not launcher smoke before it gets hit a few times and burns. I believe the turret crew fucked off midway in when flames came from the hatches but the driver kept gunning it down the road for a while.
>>56909039WP obscurants are not illegal. Using WP on enemy troops is not illegal.https://www.lawfareblog.com/jus-bello-white-phosphorus-getting-law-correct
>>56908986hey, you're that autist who can't differentiate between "something isn't perfect" and "it's pointless" I just want to remind you that I hate you.
>>56908836Close but dumps raw fuel into the exhaust. When gallons per mile ain’t enough.
>>56908313>>56908836>>56909245mmmm tasty, making supporting infantry smell like tankers too
>>56908246I actually don’t know whether there are russian made smoke grenades that counter IR, so they would be rather useless against modern ATGMs.
>>56908657File name spoke more than it meant. Any time you use WP you'll get called out
>>56909395But WP is an excellent screening agent/obscurant, it has pound for pound the best amount of smoke generation and it blocks IR.
>>56909431if you walk into the smoke do you die?
>>56908313I have this one webm.Not sure if its oil in engine, fuel in exhaust, or proper military smoke. But,>smoking russian armorI'll take it.
>>56908467No, anon, tankers are taught to pop smoke. It's part of their training. It's not something you "don't remember", it's something you do automatically during exercises and you get kicked in the head over if you forget.
>>56909684Thanks anon, it seems my memory is a bit fuzzy because I remembered the smoke being a little thinner looking. Well, it does look a little thinner after second part and they get whacked at that point.>>56909493You'd die if you had it dropped on top of you just out of a shell but after it burned for a while and turned into an obscurant agent it'd be more of a nasty time with your lungs. It'd be something you wouldn't want to walk into on purpose.
>>56908986This anon is retarded. Smoke shells are cheap, if the enemy is automatically going to throw everything they have at a smoked out area then you can just do it at 3 places at once and boom.In reality smoke is put on defensive positions to prevent them from seeing shit, or in front of defensive positions so that you can close without being fired at. It's obvious that any enemy is going to fire into the smoke blindly and put artillery onto that area, but that's better than the enemy just seeing you and mowing you down with direct fire from a tank or IFV.When you attack a position using smoke you put some smoke on or just ahead of the position, smack them with artillery to keep their heads down, then use the smoke to get within small arms range of the position and begin peppering it with grenades and machine gun fire. The enemy hits you with artillery? Well, that's what an IFV is for, stay inside until you're within 500 meters then dismount.There's dozens of videos of this being done on the internet and it always works better when smoke is used. Remember the Abu Hajaar video? Those guys didn't get smoked because they attacked a position, they got smoked because they were lobbing RPGs at the enemy from 900 meters out and weren't using smoke. A not-high SPG crew could have killed them 15 seconds into the video.
>>56908246Because they're spotted by a quadcopter drilone who sends the targeting data for their respective soviet era Krasnopol and Kilotov shells. So there's no time for the crew to know they're already dead
>>56909493It would be very painful unless you are wearing some kind of protective mask.
>>56908788Video game footage. Fake.>Tanks actually popping smokelol, you expect me to believe this tripe? What's next, the Ghost doesn't exist? Elvis, Tsoi, and Hitler are still alive? Lmao, even. I have a bridge in Kherson to sell you...
>>56909911I love the wibble wobble antenna on it.>"ХКБM! That's how you spell RC!"
>>56908246In Soviet tanks, the smoke grenades are controlled by the gunner, which is a bizzare decision since he probably has the general lowest situational awareness. In western tanks smoke grenade dischargers are controlled by the commander or in some designs, both cmdr and gunner
>>56908326Certified video of a m2a3 bradley
>>56908896So does a burning tank hull
>>56908250lol, the guys at the trucks very nearly get incinerated there.
>>56908264this shows clearly why smoke isn't that great IRL. it blows away pretty quickly.
>>56908246Assume there's vastly more footage than what we see. Then I assume that we only see the kino footage where you can see shit happening. When you smoke everything up, you can't see shit. Given the attrition rate of drones, when they see something getting smoked up they probably also fuck off back to friendly lines, because whats the point in risking a drone when it can't see anything?
>>56911301Just long enough to break line of sight with an ATGM gunner.