That’s a universal housing used for multiple things, on top of having no tank identification let alone optic identification.
You now need a confirmed picture of what was in that housing earlier.
@Heavytanker1945
So allegedly there were test vehicles for the TOGS, which aren’t in game.
And the first use of the TOGS was on Challenger in 1985.
Chieftains got them later.
Wikipedia is not a source.
Oh look, @DevilO6 already made my take for me.
None of the thermal Chieftains are currently in War Thunder.
This book has been proven wrong MULTIPLE times.
the first big one is that NONE of the Mk1’s received any kind of Totem Pole upgrades. Yet in the book it says they did.
Plus that book is RUSSIAN! its not representative of how the British actually did the Totem Pole upgrades,
Ok, sure. Then take a non russian one
3 Likes
The Tank is a Mk5, or atleast a pre Stillbrew Chieftain(which wasn’t fitted until the 80s), Note how you can see the Bracket for the Smoke launchers, Which would have been moved forward and onto the Stillbrew armor, instead of being mounted directly on the turret. And the appearance of the extended Turret bustle for the extended NBC system tells me it likely is a Mk5. As the earlier marks didn’t receive the larger bustle.
For Comparison the ingame model for the Mk10:
The game is such a joke now days!!
That is a housing, not an optic.
@DevilO6 already provided sources showing Mk11 is the only one to get thermals.
Also lack of applique armor =/= Mk5 production tank.
Well, as i said above, there was one Mk 10 that recived TOGS inside the LPU housing, but that was only one.
1 Like
The source is wrong, its a 1990s book, from before the Totem Pole program was completely declassified, WROTE BY THE RUSSIAN’S.
1 Like
it certainly isn’t the IR spotlight originally in that mount.
EDIT: actually real picture and not a 3d Model:
1 Like
What are you on about? You mean Tankograd from 2020, or Haynes from 2016 that are now apparently Russian?
3 Likes
Yall are the same kind of people that still say the TOG has a 17 Pounder, ITS OLD INFORMATION. Even if its a new Book, its old info that has been disproven.
But old school “experts” are stuck in their ways and wont change their info because heaven forbid they admit they are wrong.
I had to do the same kind of shit the other day to the TANK MUSEUM saying they had the last Black Prince.
Yea I find this extremely hard to believe bro
Ok, then show me the counter sources that disprove it.
All the information im pulling from the Wikipedia Article was pulled from these two books mainly, sadly i don’t own them or i would be properly siting it. They are books using newish information that was pulled from British sources as the Totem Pole Program was declassified as the Chieftains were retired from service
1 Like
Oh look, no thermal optics. There’s an obscurity in the housing that would block thermal signatures.
In-fact, the real picutre you show is of an IR light as you can see the center dot unlit as it’s a reflective lamp.
You’ve provided no evidence.
Your desire to push Chieftain Mk5 to ~9.7 based on only conjecture is wild.
Naming books that cost $$$ is not providing us a source to the claim. You’re not even giving page numbers which is required in academic papers.
You have any idea how hard it is to find a picture of a Challenger 1 or Late Chieftain with its TOG’s box open?
This is basically the only image i can find, and you can see its the same basic Sight as what is fitted in the Above IR spotlight housing that thermal sight is in. atleast to my eye.
1 Like
