NationStates

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:06 am**

Image intensifiers produce low quality images because there is very little light available not because they are monochrome. Their resolution is contrast limited. Colour night vision would actually make the image quality worse because the already scarce photons would be divided among multiple sensors.

The technical resolution of intensifier tubes isn't actually bad at all. The AN/PVS-7 tube would be the equivalent of about a 3.2 megapixel digital sensor.

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:MWIR was the plan, and are you sure they have to be cooled? I've seen references to uncooled MWIR detectors built on GaAS and PbSe substrate photodetectors. For the pilot version I was thinking SWIR since IIRC polycarbonate is 90% transparent to SWIR but opaque to MWIR and LWIR.

Yes. It is technically possible but they aren't good.

LWIR is right at the peak of the earths black body emissions. MWIR is well above it. So there is comparatively a lot less light available at night.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:29 am**

Rhodesialund wrote:What Gayla said, monochrome does suck a lot. Although it is worth mentioning this. Keep in mind, it's purely anecdotal. I have a few friends that said they witnessed a phenomenon with monoculars, where the brain filled in missing colors for their vision. Dunno how much bullshit this is, but it should be an interesting topic for debate.

This is basically how human color vision works anyway. Cone cells are packed in the fovea so human color vision is limited to a relatively small arc in the central field of view, while the periphery is only capable of black and white vision through rod cells. But you don't notice this because you just assume the colors are still there even when an object moves from your foveal vision to your peripheral vision. But try figuring out the color of an object that hasn't ever entered your foveal view.

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:When did I say anything about them being monochrome?

The color vision in that image honestly looks worse. You get color, but the noise level has skyrocketed which wipes out a lot of your gains.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:14 am**

Austrasien wrote:Image intensifiers produce low quality images because there is very little light available not because they are monochrome. Their resolution is contrast limited. Colour night vision would actually make the image quality worse because the already scarce photons would be divided among multiple sensors.

I only just realized this with the comparison photo Retrotech posted on the previous page.

I was wrong this whole time. ;_;

Though I still don't think that the benefits of wide FOV are very useful but perhaps I am thinking with what the young'ins call an "open terrain" mindset. I also have no binocular depth perception because my eyes are broken, but I can still shoot a dude at 100 yards, so I don't really buy the argument that binocular goggles are that hugely useful over monoculars.

I'm hesitant even to use COTI for Galla's Mega!AN/PVS-7, since the thing is like $7-8000 or so.

Austrasien wrote:The technical resolution of intensifier tubes isn't actually bad at all. The AN/PVS-7 tube would be the equivalent of about a 3.2 megapixel digital sensor.

Mity pvs7
i
t
y

p
v
s
7

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:20 am**

Just eat your carrots

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:25 am**

A deception operation so powerful it transcends continents, generations, and time itself.

The old fox is the master of the vile and all guile.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:04 pm**

Gallia- wrote:
Austrasien wrote:Image intensifiers produce low quality images because there is very little light available not because they are monochrome. Their resolution is contrast limited. Colour night vision would actually make the image quality worse because the already scarce photons would be divided among multiple sensors.

I only just realized this with the comparison photo Retrotech posted on the previous page.

I was wrong this whole time. ;_;

Though I still don't think that the benefits of wide FOV are very useful but perhaps I am thinking with what the young'ins call an "open terrain" mindset. I also have no binocular depth perception because my eyes are broken, but I can still shoot a dude at 100 yards, so I don't really buy the argument that binocular goggles are that hugely useful over monoculars.

I'm hesitant even to use COTI for Galla's Mega!AN/PVS-7, since the thing is like $7-8000 or so.

Austrasien wrote:The technical resolution of intensifier tubes isn't actually bad at all. The AN/PVS-7 tube would be the equivalent of about a 3.2 megapixel digital sensor.

Mity pvs7
i
t
y

p
v
s
7

Depth perception is good for driving or navigating obstacles. Doesn't matter for shooting, really. This is assuming it's someone that has regular depth perception as-is, so you probably wouldn't notice any difference between a monocle or binocular, personally. I hear trying to drive with a PVS-14 compared to Sentinels sucks, though, because you end up barely going 1mph over tiny dips in the road you think are huge and keep going 60mph over giant craters because you can't tell they're as deep as they are.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:58 pm**

How uncomfortable would a TKB-022 be with body armor, and would it be worth actually adding length to the rifle so the forward hand has somewhere to go?

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:46 pm**

Spreewerke wrote:
Gallia- wrote:
I only just realized this with the comparison photo Retrotech posted on the previous page.

I was wrong this whole time. ;_;

Though I still don't think that the benefits of wide FOV are very useful but perhaps I am thinking with what the young'ins call an "open terrain" mindset. I also have no binocular depth perception because my eyes are broken, but I can still shoot a dude at 100 yards, so I don't really buy the argument that binocular goggles are that hugely useful over monoculars.

I'm hesitant even to use COTI for Galla's Mega!AN/PVS-7, since the thing is like $7-8000 or so.

Mity pvs7
i
t
y

p
v
s
7

Depth perception is good for driving or navigating obstacles. Doesn't matter for shooting, really. This is assuming it's someone that has regular depth perception as-is, so you probably wouldn't notice any difference between a monocle or binocular, personally. I hear trying to drive with a PVS-14 compared to Sentinels sucks, though, because you end up barely going 1mph over tiny dips in the road you think are huge and keep going 60mph over giant craters because you can't tell they're as deep as they are.

I have had the (mis)pleasure of driving with a pvs14, and it really is an odd sensation. I would not say I had the exact same experiance with regards to road imperfections and speed, but I have a different driving background than usual. I can very much see that being a problem. The biggest issue I had was that it made me nauseous as I assume my brain was having a hard time comparinginformation from both eyes and widely contrasting inputs. But I usually get nauseous just being the passenger in a car. Have no intentions to repeat the experience.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:12 pm**

Austrasien wrote:Image intensifiers produce low quality images because there is very little light available not because they are monochrome. Their resolution is contrast limited. Colour night vision would actually make the image quality worse because the already scarce photons would be divided among multiple sensors.

The technical resolution of intensifier tubes isn't actually bad at all. The AN/PVS-7 tube would be the equivalent of about a 3.2 megapixel digital sensor.

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:MWIR was the plan, and are you sure they have to be cooled? I've seen references to uncooled MWIR detectors built on GaAS and PbSe substrate photodetectors. For the pilot version I was thinking SWIR since IIRC polycarbonate is 90% transparent to SWIR but opaque to MWIR and LWIR.

Yes. It is technically possible but they aren't good.

LWIR is right at the peak of the earths black body emissions. MWIR is well above it. So there is comparatively a lot less light available at night.

Looks like image intensifiers are getting to the point where they can show objects in color at a reasonable resolution however.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:37 pm**

Was there a generally accepted 'correct amount' of musicians per fighting infantryman in the Seven Years War and Napoleonic Wars? Also, were musicians really necessary? Part of me says militaries always love embellishments and superfluous stuff, particularly at a time when militaries were pretty much as visually striking as they'd ever be, but part of me also says that a little music really helps people march to battle.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:24 pm**

Tule wrote:Looks like image intensifiers are getting to the point where they can show objects in color at a reasonable resolution however.

That isn't an image intensifier though. It is a really sensitive camera.

Image intensifiers are a specific kind of imaging sensor that relies on electron multiplication to amplify signals from photons captured by way of the photoelectric effect. It is very different from digital image sensors that employ semiconductor "wells" to capture incoming photons of the correct energy level.

The spectral response of the material used to capture the photons in modern tubes does not overlap completely with the visible spectrum so accurate reproduction of colour is not possible. It would not be desirable either because ambient illumination at night has a different spectrum than daylight which a sensor optimized for the visible spectrum inevitably loses.

Experimentally it is known that colour is much less important than resolution for predicting how interpretable a scene is. Since colour response must come at a loss in sensitivity, and the resolution of passive visible and near infrared night vision systems is limited by light availability, there isn't a compelling case for colour night vision. Colour night vision has been available with EMCCD (a different kind of digital image sensor than the one you linked) for awhile now, but it has seen little or no uptake from military users because they place the most emphasis on performance in the total absence of artificial illumination. And neither EMCCD or back-thinned large format CMOS sensors (what you see in the video) can actually match the sensitivity of image intensifiers.

These colour digital night vision cameras are of significant interest for law enforcement, security and photography purposes though. Those videos cheat a lot by filming in "dark" areas that really are not sufficiently isolated from artificial lighting, which can be seen in the background, meaning the ambient illumination is actually well above the true natural background on a moonless night.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:33 pm**

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:Was there a generally accepted 'correct amount' of musicians per fighting infantryman in the Seven Years War and Napoleonic Wars? Also, were musicians really necessary? Part of me says militaries always love embellishments and superfluous stuff, particularly at a time when militaries were pretty much as visually striking as they'd ever be, but part of me also says that a little music really helps people march to battle.

Drummers were vitally important for both marking the time on the march and for signalling orders and generally 2 per company were required. These would often be replaced/ supplemented by trumpeters/coronets/buglers that were also used for signalling again commonly at about 2 per company. Regimental bands varied hugely from under ten members to 30 or more. Of course the bandsmen weren't simply musicians they were also your stretcher bearers and general helpers to the surgeons.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:55 am**

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:Was there a generally accepted 'correct amount' of musicians per fighting infantryman in the Seven Years War and Napoleonic Wars? Also, were musicians really necessary? Part of me says militaries always love embellishments and superfluous stuff, particularly at a time when militaries were pretty much as visually striking as they'd ever be, but part of me also says that a little music really helps people march to battle.

Musicians would have along with visual symbols(flags, smoke signals) and runners formed the core of a proper signaling/communication force. They were pretty important.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:19 am**

Got a question for Big Papa Puz. Heard of the 6x49mm Unified, handled it, fired it?

I've been hearing the rumor mill in Vatnik-land is stirring out that the Russian MoD is reviving interest in the Unified cartridge.

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:44 am**

Soode lead me right back to you all. Thank him for me- will you?

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:36 am**

Posted this in the Military Discussion Thread:

NeuPolska wrote:There's probably been plenty of debate on this already, but what ammunition should my soldiers be using? I need something that really packs a punch for my standard issue infantry rifle.

I'm looking more for something more capable in single fire mode, I don't care too much about use in full auto, if that helps

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:40 am**

NeuPolska wrote:Posted this in the Military Discussion Thread:

NeuPolska wrote:There's probably been plenty of debate on this already, but what ammunition should my soldiers be using? I need something that really packs a punch for my standard issue infantry rifle.

I'm looking more for something more capable in single fire mode, I don't care too much about use in full auto, if that helps

5.56 and 5.45 are probably the two most common and best rounds for a service rifle. While they certainly have benefits for full auto, there just as good in semi auto. They have the range, wounding and barrier penetration ability you need, are light weight, and have minimal recoil. All great things.

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:41 am**

NeuPolska wrote:Posted this in the Military Discussion Thread:

NeuPolska wrote:There's probably been plenty of debate on this already, but what ammunition should my soldiers be using? I need something that really packs a punch for my standard issue infantry rifle.

I'm looking more for something more capable in single fire mode, I don't care too much about use in full auto, if that helps

It doesn't matter artillery causes 60% of casualties.

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:42 am**

Spirit of Hope wrote:
NeuPolska wrote:Posted this in the Military Discussion Thread:

I'm looking more for something more capable in single fire mode, I don't care too much about use in full auto, if that helps

5.56 and 5.45 are probably the two most common and best rounds for a service rifle. While they certainly have benefits for full auto, there just as good in semi auto. They have the range, wounding and barrier penetration ability you need, are light weight, and have minimal recoil. All great things.

How does 7.62x51 compare?

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:44 am**

NeuPolska wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:5.56 and 5.45 are probably the two most common and best rounds for a service rifle. While they certainly have benefits for full auto, there just as good in semi auto. They have the range, wounding and barrier penetration ability you need, are light weight, and have minimal recoil. All great things.

How does 7.62x51 compare?

Heavier.
More recoil.
Greater range.

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:56 am**

Gallia- wrote:
NeuPolska wrote:How does 7.62x51 compare?

Heavier.
More recoil.
Greater range.

Does heavier = more penetration + bigger exit wounds + more kinetic energy?

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:59 am**

NeuPolska wrote:
Gallia- wrote:
Heavier.
More recoil.
Greater range.

Does heavier = more penetration + bigger exit wounds + more kinetic energy?

No.

Heavier = More complaining from people who have to carry the ammunition.

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:02 am**

Gallia- wrote:
NeuPolska wrote:Does heavier = more penetration + bigger exit wounds + more kinetic energy?

No.

Heavier = More complaining from people who have to carry the ammunition.

I see.

Is there any tangible difference between 5.45 and 5.56, and are there any other rounds to consider besides those?

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:09 am**

5.45mm is lighter than 5.56mm, but probably not by a huge amount.

There are other 5mm microcalibers but the only one other to see serious use is 5.8mm Chinese AFAIK, unless I'm forgetting an obvious one.

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:16 am**

Gallia- wrote:5.45mm is lighter than 5.56mm, but probably not by a huge amount.

There are other 5mm microcalibers but the only one other to see serious use is 5.8mm Chinese AFAIK, unless I'm forgetting an obvious one.

So small > large is what it comes down to?

NationStates

Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]