the name M-SPIRE wasnt around yet for this publication. its from 2009 so naming to MSPIRE coined a little later on. MSPIRE is just the evolution.
2 Likes
This will need to be supported with sources im afraid. It cant be accepted as is.
2 Likes
man :-( ive seen less be accepted but fair dos.
4 Likes
Dude they just read the titles and decide whether its true or not based on vibes
1 Like
The confusion comes from the fact it looks as though ESPIRE did not come before M-SPIRE, but after it. There was E-SPIRE, M-SPIRE, U-SPIRE and then finally, what looks like ESPIRE.
4 Likes
This is from D Grummit’s book for Tank Craft, right?
It’s kind of bad, with lots of mislabelled reference images and inaccurate info for modern CVR(T)s, sadly. The text even contradicts itself in places.
But I appreciate its about the only published text with this stuff named. It’s a good books as a visual reference for how CVR(T)s have changed over time, but the text can be misleading.
SPIRE was the UOR’d sight for the Balkans 95/96 then E-SPIRE was the mainline sight upgrade with improved cooling and TNTLS integration sought from 1998+ which was delivered 2001 across Formation Recce Regts. The E stands for Enhanced - i.e improved over the initial SPIRE system and is written as such on the cover of the AESPs that I believe Gaijin have seen some bits of at least. This being the case as late as the 2006 AESPs for Scimitar
1999 HCR journal describes D Sqn Blues and Royals’ deployment on ops in the Balkans with the UOR’d SPIRE sight as it was still known, before standardisation as E-SPIRE across vehicles with the dieselised LEP, and introduction of TNTLS. Which the REME Light Aid Detachment (HCR LAD) set out as their work for the coming year 2000.
I think I’ve posted before, HCR’s 2000/2001 journal where Avimo (Before it became Thales Optronics, Taunton) have a full-page ad for TNTLS mentioning E-SPIRE as “new”
and detailing the LAD’s involvment in fitting E-SPIRE and TNTLS on the LEP Scimitars
and 2006/2007 it’s still described as the primary ISTAR system on Scimitar by the end-user
And the much talked about 2009 Committee minutes refer only to E-SPIRE and BGTI as Scimitar sight programs of record.
Searching vehicle histories for known Scimitar registrations by FOI or the public Merlin archive will also only return E-SPIRE or BGTI in the type identifier for dieselised vehicles.
Basically there’s no RAC, MOD or DE&S source I’ve seen before 2009 that mentions M-SPIRE, and it’s certainly not as prevalent in individual vehicle histories as Grummit’s suggestion that hundreds of Scimitars had M-SPIRE instead of E-SPIRE implies.
Given that the book is quite recent, from 2022; I think the passage about Thales’ SPIRE upgrades is based on text from Army Guide, and misattributes that info to dates for SPIRE/ESPIRE fitment. The book does however attribute M-SPIRE to the 2010 production of Scimitar 2, and give more accurate dates for SPIRE, E-SPIRE+TNTLS and BGTI later in the book in the section MODELLING THE SCIMITAR - which seems contradictory to earlier passages in the book.
Ed:- sorry that this got bumped up the forum, but needed an edit to spoiler the large images of the 1999 journal taking up too much space.
Seems on these forums, edits to the last post in a thread causes the topic to be bumped, but not edits to older posts that have replies after them.
9 Likes
What if the tech mod A) never responds B) Is displaying clear evidence of bias / corruption?
4 Likes
most of the time
See below
1 Like
Composite armor still broken
A perplexing situation is that its UFP of 68° should fully
bounce ours 30x170 APHEI(100%bounce at 65°),Thats work well on Striker and other part without composite on Scim2 UFP , but not deviated,directly penetrateson the Scim2 UFP with composite armor and cause serious damage.
I cannot understand how this could happen; even if the composite armor is equivalent to a very low level, such issues should not occur at the bounce angle
Hopefully, someone has already done in-depth research and submitted an issue on this matter.
Note: I sincerely apologize for not knowing how to use images on the forum. If someone could teach me, I would be very grateful.
My machine translation may have caused some reading difficulties. Please accept my apology for any inconvenience.
In any case, thank you to each person who has worked hard to make Scim2 better
4 Likes
some also missing from the armour model
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Q2lSKG8lePid
5 Likes
If the issue is not fixed, I would rather it not be added.
Actually, the protection of scim2 is lower than that of scim1 because of this damn bug.
1 Like
Thankfully it’s still relatively survivable all things considered (not much APHE at the BR) other than against spamcanons and t58. Or when the fake FCS screws you over
The truth is that the Scimitar Mk2 is at a disadvantage in all aspects of armor. First, the aluminum armor should produce significantly less spalling than the steel armor. Second, the slat armor should offer better protection against initial HEAT weapons with the BMP-1’s cannon. The Plasan armor should also provide slightly better protection against light AP rounds and, moreover, doesn’t generate spalling. Finally, the internal fragmentation protection (the supposed soundproof layer to avoid disturbing those who are sleeping) would provide even more protection against fragments upon penetration. If we add all of this to the greater interior space compared to the Scimitar Mk1, it would give the Scimitar Mk2 crew a good chance of survival.
1 Like
No, they’ve absolutely gotten more hostile recently. I don’t know if it’s new mods or Gaijin telling them to say these things.
Previous bug reporting they never immediately just shut down your report. There use to be a discussion. They’d ask for additional sources.
Recently it’s just been “yeah, no.” closed
You repost with more sources. banned for spamming
4 Likes