3Star

Well, that was silly of me. When I was testing it out, it turned out that one of my 'test' targets was at about 800m, which of course the computer sets to as battlesight when it rejects a range. I took it as an accurate return. So yes, it was just the wiki article was wrong.

I doubt I still have access to Bugzilla... This is how the range gating is modelled in SB, and I have confirmed by experiment. However, this is from the manual. (OK, from T-72A, but same difference) The gating prevents ranges -under- those distances from being accepted, not over. Which makes more sense, as you would want to filter out minor obstructions like trees, fences, etc between you and them. Also, what the devil is the button for the NSV-T optic? Alt-F3 just gives me the iron sights view.

The "M" was the suffix of the serial number on the non-SA AIMS tank I received in 2007. I don't know what it's doing on the SEPv3, but at the time, we were told it was for the new management system the tank had.

Hell, even without the memory and speech, I should look so good at 97.

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.

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.

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

Can't find anything which supports that. Not saying it never happened, it just seems hard to verify. NTM

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the little one at the very end of the first pic? An AMX-10P 105mm? NTM

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

No, the version in the SA is the FLIR as found in the A2SEP. Closer to the TC's screen on the Leo2A6. NTM

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

To a very large extent, it is. The problem has been that MGs in waiting have been unable to get away from 'home' for long enough to actually complete the course. So the course comes to them. Bear in mind that MG school is primarily a schoolhouse event, it consists of very little time on the tank itself because, well, they already know how to operate the tank. You don't need to have the tank physically present to pore over the circuit diagrams or cannon parts when the class has the cannon in it. I've taken a gander inside those trailers, it seems to have most anything I can imagine a MG class would need. To the extent that they actually do need a real tank, the base will have one for them to use. After all, there wouldn't be any need for a MG to be trained if the place had no tanks. NTM

Apparently the 'now' has been deleted from the verbiage when firing CR2. The computer delay whilst it waits for the perfect coincidence between sight and gun can be over a second long, so the gunner presses and holds down the trigger upon the end of 'firing'. Of course, they also call it 'fin', not 'sabot'... NTM

Right, but at the airport, they f aced T-55s, not T-80s. Plus you have the problem that after the Cold War ended, target practice on acquired vehicles indicated the 105mm ammunition could -not- reliably kill T-72 from the front, at least until DU ammo came out. I have a feeling that when T-72Bs are squaring off against M60A3s or Leopard 1s that there are going to be a lot of bouncing rounds. NTM

Not really correct. Most M60A3s were built with a searchlight. Early versions had the AN/VSS-1, whilst later versions built as Passives from the factory came with AN/VSS-3As. Some of the VSS-1 tanks which were upgraded to Passives also received the VSS-3A, whilst others simply removed the searchlight entirely. When the TTS (Tank Thermal Sight) upgrade came out for the US Army in 1980, 1,686 were built like that new from the factory, and 3,600 were conversions of M60A3 Passives. At that point the searchlight was almost always removed. Similarly another 114 were retrofits of M60A1 Passives to TTS standard. As a result, the vast majority of M60A3s in service outside of the US have searchlights, unless they've shelled out for a TTS upgrade or something similar from another country. To further confuse the issue, as the M60A1s received the Passive upgrade, the searchlight was often removed. Particularly so in the case of the US Marines, as they used the tank fitted with ERA, which took the same space as the searchlight mounting. Probably the best visual indicator is the thermal sleeve, or lack of it. M60A3s had them, M60A1s didn't. Of course, that's probably a very easy retrofit, but as the USMC photo shows, not a given. NTM

In fairness, when the real one goes off, you end up blinking which is pretty blinding for as long as your eyelids are closed, and then you're partially blinded as the world is still vibrating until things settle down... NTM

You can't. Somebody put transparent thermal tape on the windshield in the shape of the interior. NTM

Wait, they actually made it? I thought the trailer was speculative. [ETA]I don't know what it is about Hinds, but they exude such 'mean-ness' that I'd almost prefer to have one as top cover over an Apache. NTM