Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

3Star

Members
  • Content count

    1,412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 3Star

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    San Jose, CA
  1. Hell, even without the memory and speech, I should look so good at 97.
  2. 1) They did not sell out. In fact, they weren't paid anything at all except expenses. They came along for, mainly, three reasons. a) It was an opportunity for them to reach a wider audience, and speak to more people than ordinarily read their books. b) They got to meet each other, a rare event. They spent most of the time comparing notes, and bettering their own knowledge is good for the tank community as a whole. c) They thought it might be... (gasp)... Fun! And it was, they all enjoyed themselves immensely. This was the philosophy when that meeting was set up, and also the "Inside the Hatch" videos. You will notice that almost nothing in either series of videos references the game. The subjects are purely the real tanks. The idea is to be informative and accurate firstly and foremostly. They are videos of interest to people who do not play the game, and may never wish to play the game. They engender more 'tank interest', and better yet, of a quality higher than you'll get on The Military Channel (Or wherever). And for WoT's purposes, they increase brand awareness. It's a win-win for WoT and tank enthusiasts both. Even if they did 'sell out' (as I said, they didn't, but let's say they did), what's the problem? They didn't advocate anything other than real-world history of the quality they are known for. You are letting your cynicism get the better of yourself.
  3. For the record (and though the hijack is about over) ZSU-23-4M2 is a dedicated ground combat variant with the radar system removed and night vision added. Just saying.
  4. In fairness, it was better than most. You don't see many of those documentaries these days interviewing the partipants. I had a manual M1 Abrams for a while. Not the fault of the designer, just the hydraulic system decided to turn into a lubrcation system for the gunner's lap. Or maybe it was the fault of the designer, it seemed to happen on more than one tank. NTM
  5. Can't find anything which supports that. Not saying it never happened, it just seems hard to verify. NTM
  6. OK. The CVR(T)s were initially built with Pilkington Optronics Raven Day/Night Sights. The day channel has x1 and x10 mag, the night channel (image intensifiers) are x1.6 and x5.8. The thermal imager upgrade is a little more complicated. A number of Scimitars had the Ravens replaced with SPIRE, by Thales. This saw service in Kosovo. It incorporates the Raytheon HIRE 1st Gen thermal imager, with an LRF and Thales FCS. The BGTI upgrade is currently being applied to both Scimitars and Warriors. Group 1 is the Warrior ICV and Scimitar CVR(T). It is a multi-capability upgrade which incorporates much of the SPIRS system developed from SPIRE. The primary difference between SPIRS and SPIRE is that the HIRE is replaced by a Thales Catherine FC 2nd Gen thermal imager. The SPIRS is incorporated into STAG-FC (Surveillance, Targeting, Acquisition and Gunnery - Fire Control) system, x8 mag. This also includes a CCD camera, which the commander can pull up on his display, and a relaxed-viewing CRT for the gunner's TOGS. That what you're looking for? NTM
  7. I have the answer, but it's at home in my copy of Jane's Armour and Artillery Upgrades 2008-2009 (I saw it when I was flicking through). Give me a day. NTM
  8. Bronze here. It's really given these days as an 'attaboy' for service more than anything else. I'm not convinced the Armor Association is particularly picky, after all, they need the money and advertising. NTM
  9. I didn't even do that. But to the original point, I used permanent marker. Grease pens or water-soluble or whatnot gets problematic when it's raining. NTM
  10. Been trying to update one of my scenarios to 2.538. The amphibious assaults keep failing, the riverbanks are far too steep below the waterline (they're fine above the water). Something in the map editor which can be used to highlight a riverbank and say 'Scaleable' would be very nice. If I've not missed something which already exists. NTM
  11. As opposed to a gunner's sight which is all but stationary, whilst the tank seat you're in is being thrown up and down or spun around? Occupational hazard of tanking, just adds to the realism. NTM
  12. What's the little one at the very end of the first pic? An AMX-10P 105mm? NTM
  13. Mr Gibson appears to have a point. If you compare with the real tanks... The four bolt-holes are present, but without the CITV mounting plate. They are also present on the A1. As a further piece of trivia, the use of the bolts for the mounting of roadwheels is officially prohibited. Just very few people seem to pay any attention to it. They're for installing the turret lifting eyes. https://www.logsa.army.mil/psmag/archives/PS2009/684/684-05.pdf NTM
  14. No, the version in the SA is the FLIR as found in the A2SEP. Closer to the TC's screen on the Leo2A6. NTM
  15. I don't believe there's a difference in thermal imager in the real one. It was always a source of some despair for me that despite the GPS/TIS unit being an easily removed module that when we replaced it due to defect, we always got the same, old, type back in. I guess just nobody in Congress decided to fund an upgrade. It's not until you get to the M1A1 AIM (SA), which is only being fielded in the last year or two that you have an improvement in the thermal sight. NTM