Weps

I would highly recommend watching these videos. A lot of it is speculation, but it's solid information based on trends and historical data, and sets the tone of what China's ambitions are for the Pacific and Indian oceans.
 
China’s navy is tipping the balance

China could invade Taiwan by 2027
 
Some key points to take here is that this would solidify China's hold on their territorial ambitions in the first island chain after securing Taiwan. From there, they can project power over shipping and global economy in and out of China, and surrounding nations, as well as secure their own borders (due to historical losses from sea-based attacks). Their land-based area of denial systems (as well as long-range ballistic missile capability) is meant to deter western nations from interfering with China's goals in projecting their sphere of influence. It's all power play. 
 
This also ties into what Russia wants with expanding its borders prior to the Soviet Union collapse, but we will soon see that China and Russia's ambitions will collide in Eurasia/Middle East. So far Russia has tried to spark ethnic conflicts in countries it wants to control under its sphere of influence, but that has backfired as those countries realized what Russia was doing and dragged NATO countries and others into the mix. 

Pentagon Warns Of An “Increased Potential” For Nuclear Conflict In Newly Disclosed Manual - The Drive
 
Russian Su-24 Fighter Jets ‘Disrupt’ Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez’s Briefing At A NATO Base - Eurasian Times
 
HMS Defender: Russian jets and ships shadow British warship - BBC
 
Putin approves new National Security Strategy preparing Russian economy for war - UA Wire
 
 
 
 

Pentagon Warns Of An “Increased Potential” For Nuclear Conflict In Newly Disclosed Manual - The Drive
 
Russian Su-24 Fighter Jets ‘Disrupt’ Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez’s Briefing At A NATO Base - Eurasian Times
 
HMS Defender: Russian jets and ships shadow British warship - BBC
 
Putin approves new National Security Strategy preparing Russian economy for war - UA Wire
 
 
 
 

Pentagon Warns Of An “Increased Potential” For Nuclear Conflict In Newly Disclosed Manual - The Drive
 
Russian Su-24 Fighter Jets ‘Disrupt’ Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez’s Briefing At A NATO Base - Eurasian Times
 
HMS Defender: Russian jets and ships shadow British warship - BBC
 
Putin approves new National Security Strategy preparing Russian economy for war - UA Wire
 
 
 
 

Just a heads up, 
 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signed Decree No. 117/2021 "Strategy for De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol", the Cabinet of Ministers has been instructed to develop an action plan to immediately implement the strategy and the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has approved. 
 
Ukraine is stating it intends to take Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Sevastopol by force and so using "diplomatic, military, economic, informational, humanitarian and other measures at restoring the territorial integrity, state sovereignty of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders through the de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea."
 
Simply put, it's an indirect declaration of war.
 
Since the signing of the decree, there has been a lot of movement of Russian equipment, vehicles and assets into Crimea, as well as as the proto-states of Luhansk and Donetsk in Ukraine. The 56th Guards Air Assault Brigade, a VDV Airborne Brigade has been preeminently regarrisoned from Kamyshin, Russian to Feodosia inside Crimea.
 
Twitter is hot with videos showing Russian armor and artillery being moved via rail into Crimea, which in the event of conflict is most likely be Russia's staging point for, as it affords them the greatest amount of protection that isn't within their direct borders, allows them port access via Sevastopol, and air defense via their organic AA assets like the Buk. S-300, and S-400 systems...and their ship-based systems on their guided missile frigates and corvettes, it also provides a shield against naval threats posed by NATO as the Russian's directly control both the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. 

For US Naval Forces to access the Black Sea, it would require they traverse the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Strait, and as has been shown by the unintentional, accidental bottlenecking of the Suez Canal via Evergreen's Even Given container ship, the Russian's could easily command both choke points with their Black Sea Fleet, as well as form a beachhead within the straits, as the Turks do not have the military means to defend against the Russians, but the wild card, as has always been intended since the Cold War are our nukes stationed at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, but I wouldn't hold faith in the Turkish Government to not fold or possibly even double-back. Russia has had far greater success in forging relationships in the Mid-East, particularly with Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, ect... through trade, arms supplying and, technical and finical assistance. 
 
NATO has also increased surveillance of the region, as there have been hundreds of cease-fire violations committed by Russian backed forces in the region.
 
 
 
 

Don't worry, we will be "concerned" and "condemn" them to death like we have every other time. NATO doesn't have the spine to put their foot down, Russia's nuclear deterrence has the world by the balls. China and North Korea's conventional military capability is enough to deter most western nations from engaging in conflict. I'm not particularly sure about Iran's capability. They seem to be a lot of bark and no bite, decently trained and sizeable conventional military, but give them enough time to build their own mid-range nuclear deterrence (if they haven't already) and they become a real threat. Especially to Israel and India. 
 
When shit starts flying, it will splatter everywhere. 

Just a heads up, 
 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signed Decree No. 117/2021 "Strategy for De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol", the Cabinet of Ministers has been instructed to develop an action plan to immediately implement the strategy and the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has approved. 
 
Ukraine is stating it intends to take Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Sevastopol by force and so using "diplomatic, military, economic, informational, humanitarian and other measures at restoring the territorial integrity, state sovereignty of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders through the de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea."
 
Simply put, it's an indirect declaration of war.
 
Since the signing of the decree, there has been a lot of movement of Russian equipment, vehicles and assets into Crimea, as well as as the proto-states of Luhansk and Donetsk in Ukraine. The 56th Guards Air Assault Brigade, a VDV Airborne Brigade has been preeminently regarrisoned from Kamyshin, Russian to Feodosia inside Crimea.
 
Twitter is hot with videos showing Russian armor and artillery being moved via rail into Crimea, which in the event of conflict is most likely be Russia's staging point for, as it affords them the greatest amount of protection that isn't within their direct borders, allows them port access via Sevastopol, and air defense via their organic AA assets like the Buk. S-300, and S-400 systems...and their ship-based systems on their guided missile frigates and corvettes, it also provides a shield against naval threats posed by NATO as the Russian's directly control both the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. 

For US Naval Forces to access the Black Sea, it would require they traverse the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Strait, and as has been shown by the unintentional, accidental bottlenecking of the Suez Canal via Evergreen's Even Given container ship, the Russian's could easily command both choke points with their Black Sea Fleet, as well as form a beachhead within the straits, as the Turks do not have the military means to defend against the Russians, but the wild card, as has always been intended since the Cold War are our nukes stationed at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, but I wouldn't hold faith in the Turkish Government to not fold or possibly even double-back. Russia has had far greater success in forging relationships in the Mid-East, particularly with Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, ect... through trade, arms supplying and, technical and finical assistance. 
 
NATO has also increased surveillance of the region, as there have been hundreds of cease-fire violations committed by Russian backed forces in the region.
 
 
 
 

Just a heads up, 
 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signed Decree No. 117/2021 "Strategy for De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol", the Cabinet of Ministers has been instructed to develop an action plan to immediately implement the strategy and the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has approved. 
 
Ukraine is stating it intends to take Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Sevastopol by force and so using "diplomatic, military, economic, informational, humanitarian and other measures at restoring the territorial integrity, state sovereignty of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders through the de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea."
 
Simply put, it's an indirect declaration of war.
 
Since the signing of the decree, there has been a lot of movement of Russian equipment, vehicles and assets into Crimea, as well as as the proto-states of Luhansk and Donetsk in Ukraine. The 56th Guards Air Assault Brigade, a VDV Airborne Brigade has been preeminently regarrisoned from Kamyshin, Russian to Feodosia inside Crimea.
 
Twitter is hot with videos showing Russian armor and artillery being moved via rail into Crimea, which in the event of conflict is most likely be Russia's staging point for, as it affords them the greatest amount of protection that isn't within their direct borders, allows them port access via Sevastopol, and air defense via their organic AA assets like the Buk. S-300, and S-400 systems...and their ship-based systems on their guided missile frigates and corvettes, it also provides a shield against naval threats posed by NATO as the Russian's directly control both the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. 

For US Naval Forces to access the Black Sea, it would require they traverse the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Strait, and as has been shown by the unintentional, accidental bottlenecking of the Suez Canal via Evergreen's Even Given container ship, the Russian's could easily command both choke points with their Black Sea Fleet, as well as form a beachhead within the straits, as the Turks do not have the military means to defend against the Russians, but the wild card, as has always been intended since the Cold War are our nukes stationed at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, but I wouldn't hold faith in the Turkish Government to not fold or possibly even double-back. Russia has had far greater success in forging relationships in the Mid-East, particularly with Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, ect... through trade, arms supplying and, technical and finical assistance. 
 
NATO has also increased surveillance of the region, as there have been hundreds of cease-fire violations committed by Russian backed forces in the region.
 
 
 
 

\\
 
I've managed to get the display contrast high enough most of it can be seen, albeit still highly faded, but enough to make out what characters thanks to a user on another forum. So, now, at least I have an idea of what freq it's on. 
 
 
Think I'm gonna take the Youtube Engineer route and see if replacing the polarizing filter like Sunstiker recommended. 
 
Wish me luck...
 
 

\\
 
I've managed to get the display contrast high enough most of it can be seen, albeit still highly faded, but enough to make out what characters thanks to a user on another forum. So, now, at least I have an idea of what freq it's on. 
 
 
Think I'm gonna take the Youtube Engineer route and see if replacing the polarizing filter like Sunstiker recommended. 
 
Wish me luck...
 
 

\\
 
I've managed to get the display contrast high enough most of it can be seen, albeit still highly faded, but enough to make out what characters thanks to a user on another forum. So, now, at least I have an idea of what freq it's on. 
 
 
Think I'm gonna take the Youtube Engineer route and see if replacing the polarizing filter like Sunstiker recommended. 
 
Wish me luck...
 
 

Long time no see guys...
 
So, as the thread title eludes I have a Radioshack PRO-2053 scanner that has a 12x4 character LCD display that has faded to the point the characters can't be read making it kind of pointless because you can't see what frequency is displayed when traffic is picked up. 
 
He's my question, because it's outside my technical expertise, would it be possible to replace the original LCD display (which is likely anywhere from 20-10 years old) with say a newer 16x4 or 20x4 character display out right or is she just dead in the water no hopes of simply replacing the display. 
 
 
 

I found stuff here about it:
 
https://focuslcds.com/journals/replacing-character-lcds/
 
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/455669/lcd-16x2-replacement-and-or-interchangeability
 
Also I tried looking into what causes LCD screens to fade and apparently they can be not too difficult to just repair yourself. If it's fading from sun damage you can just replace the polarizing filter. It could also be a failing capacitor or a reflector strip on the back of the panel. If you want to be a youtube certified electrical engineer, here you go:
 
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=faded+lcd+repair
 

I would say it’s definitely possible but the problem is finding the part for sale at this point. I tried to do a quick search for the parts list which lead to RadioShack’s website which returned a 404 because RIP.
 
 Could open it up and look for a part number on the panel. 

Long time no see guys...
 
So, as the thread title eludes I have a Radioshack PRO-2053 scanner that has a 12x4 character LCD display that has faded to the point the characters can't be read making it kind of pointless because you can't see what frequency is displayed when traffic is picked up. 
 
He's my question, because it's outside my technical expertise, would it be possible to replace the original LCD display (which is likely anywhere from 20-10 years old) with say a newer 16x4 or 20x4 character display out right or is she just dead in the water no hopes of simply replacing the display. 
 
 
 

Hoping everyone is enjoying their little slice of the apocalypse.
 

Hoping everyone is enjoying their little slice of the apocalypse.
 

Was allowed to remove stents today. Feeling pretty relieved now, since they were very uncomfortable.

Thanks for the mention, @Sunstriker7

Steerage on tanks has drastically changed over the decades, but you're not far off on how steerage worked for pre-1950's tanks, the lever system was borrowed from tractors of the era.

The Ford 3-Ton 1918 was essentially an armored tractor operating two Model-T engines and an M1919 .30Cal, however the French really were at the forefront of armor development with the purpose built Renault FT, sporting a modern turret with a mounted gun...which isn't mean to detract from the British armor development effort, they just have a very unique, but inefficient  and costly design with the Mark series landships. 
 
Now, my "expertise" is in post-WWI, western armor, particularly US, so that's what I'll reference mostly here;

The M47 was really the first tank design to see a departure from the lever steerage system, implementing a joystick-type of system nicked-named the "wobble stick", which was abandoned with the M48 and replaced with an oval-shaped steering-wheel, but with the development of the M60A1 the steering wheel was dropped in favor of a simplified yolk-bar which was standard on the M60A1 RISE,  M60A2, and M60A3 TTS, but with the M1 Abrams an advanced yolk-bar with an integrated gear-shift and reverse-function was utilized and has just been regularly updated as time has moved forward.

M47 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/dLmVKPpL
 
M48, M103 & M60 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/4n1xDRrn
 
M60A1/A2/A3 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/N953GVDh

M1/M1A2/A3 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/9wHL3NNY
 
You'll also notice a drastic increase in gauges and electronic control surfacing surrounding the driver as time progresses in tank design.
 
Now, fire control on tanks has maintained a similar overall design since the M47; multi-axis powered traverse yolk system that controls elevation and traverse simultaneously;

M47 Gunner's yolk vs M1 Gunners' yolk: https://postimg.cc/8fBQxvws
 
Maingun power-traverse stabilization had been around since the M4A1, but was wildly unpopular with crews until the M26, due to the arduous task of co-sighting and the lack of a turret bustle. The M48 was a leap froward in stabilization using a stereoscopic rangefinding system, with the M60A3 TTS being the next leap with a ruby-red lensed laser rangefinder, and the Abrams using a much more advanced ELRF laser rangefinder and gaining the ability to fire while moving due to the advanced fire control system computers capable of doing immediate fire controls ballistic solutions. 
 
Sorry to kind of just dump all that on you. If something doesn't make sense or comes across as confusing feel free to ask away, there is no such thing as a stupid question. 

Thanks for the mention, @Sunstriker7

Steerage on tanks has drastically changed over the decades, but you're not far off on how steerage worked for pre-1950's tanks, the lever system was borrowed from tractors of the era.

The Ford 3-Ton 1918 was essentially an armored tractor operating two Model-T engines and an M1919 .30Cal, however the French really were at the forefront of armor development with the purpose built Renault FT, sporting a modern turret with a mounted gun...which isn't mean to detract from the British armor development effort, they just have a very unique, but inefficient  and costly design with the Mark series landships. 
 
Now, my "expertise" is in post-WWI, western armor, particularly US, so that's what I'll reference mostly here;

The M47 was really the first tank design to see a departure from the lever steerage system, implementing a joystick-type of system nicked-named the "wobble stick", which was abandoned with the M48 and replaced with an oval-shaped steering-wheel, but with the development of the M60A1 the steering wheel was dropped in favor of a simplified yolk-bar which was standard on the M60A1 RISE,  M60A2, and M60A3 TTS, but with the M1 Abrams an advanced yolk-bar with an integrated gear-shift and reverse-function was utilized and has just been regularly updated as time has moved forward.

M47 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/dLmVKPpL
 
M48, M103 & M60 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/4n1xDRrn
 
M60A1/A2/A3 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/N953GVDh

M1/M1A2/A3 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/9wHL3NNY
 
You'll also notice a drastic increase in gauges and electronic control surfacing surrounding the driver as time progresses in tank design.
 
Now, fire control on tanks has maintained a similar overall design since the M47; multi-axis powered traverse yolk system that controls elevation and traverse simultaneously;

M47 Gunner's yolk vs M1 Gunners' yolk: https://postimg.cc/8fBQxvws
 
Maingun power-traverse stabilization had been around since the M4A1, but was wildly unpopular with crews until the M26, due to the arduous task of co-sighting and the lack of a turret bustle. The M48 was a leap froward in stabilization using a stereoscopic rangefinding system, with the M60A3 TTS being the next leap with a ruby-red lensed laser rangefinder, and the Abrams using a much more advanced ELRF laser rangefinder and gaining the ability to fire while moving due to the advanced fire control system computers capable of doing immediate fire controls ballistic solutions. 
 
Sorry to kind of just dump all that on you. If something doesn't make sense or comes across as confusing feel free to ask away, there is no such thing as a stupid question. 

Thanks for the mention, @Sunstriker7

Steerage on tanks has drastically changed over the decades, but you're not far off on how steerage worked for pre-1950's tanks, the lever system was borrowed from tractors of the era.

The Ford 3-Ton 1918 was essentially an armored tractor operating two Model-T engines and an M1919 .30Cal, however the French really were at the forefront of armor development with the purpose built Renault FT, sporting a modern turret with a mounted gun...which isn't mean to detract from the British armor development effort, they just have a very unique, but inefficient  and costly design with the Mark series landships. 
 
Now, my "expertise" is in post-WWI, western armor, particularly US, so that's what I'll reference mostly here;

The M47 was really the first tank design to see a departure from the lever steerage system, implementing a joystick-type of system nicked-named the "wobble stick", which was abandoned with the M48 and replaced with an oval-shaped steering-wheel, but with the development of the M60A1 the steering wheel was dropped in favor of a simplified yolk-bar which was standard on the M60A1 RISE,  M60A2, and M60A3 TTS, but with the M1 Abrams an advanced yolk-bar with an integrated gear-shift and reverse-function was utilized and has just been regularly updated as time has moved forward.

M47 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/dLmVKPpL
 
M48, M103 & M60 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/4n1xDRrn
 
M60A1/A2/A3 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/N953GVDh

M1/M1A2/A3 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/9wHL3NNY
 
You'll also notice a drastic increase in gauges and electronic control surfacing surrounding the driver as time progresses in tank design.
 
Now, fire control on tanks has maintained a similar overall design since the M47; multi-axis powered traverse yolk system that controls elevation and traverse simultaneously;

M47 Gunner's yolk vs M1 Gunners' yolk: https://postimg.cc/8fBQxvws
 
Maingun power-traverse stabilization had been around since the M4A1, but was wildly unpopular with crews until the M26, due to the arduous task of co-sighting and the lack of a turret bustle. The M48 was a leap froward in stabilization using a stereoscopic rangefinding system, with the M60A3 TTS being the next leap with a ruby-red lensed laser rangefinder, and the Abrams using a much more advanced ELRF laser rangefinder and gaining the ability to fire while moving due to the advanced fire control system computers capable of doing immediate fire controls ballistic solutions. 
 
Sorry to kind of just dump all that on you. If something doesn't make sense or comes across as confusing feel free to ask away, there is no such thing as a stupid question. 

Thanks for the mention, @Sunstriker7

Steerage on tanks has drastically changed over the decades, but you're not far off on how steerage worked for pre-1950's tanks, the lever system was borrowed from tractors of the era.

The Ford 3-Ton 1918 was essentially an armored tractor operating two Model-T engines and an M1919 .30Cal, however the French really were at the forefront of armor development with the purpose built Renault FT, sporting a modern turret with a mounted gun...which isn't mean to detract from the British armor development effort, they just have a very unique, but inefficient  and costly design with the Mark series landships. 
 
Now, my "expertise" is in post-WWI, western armor, particularly US, so that's what I'll reference mostly here;

The M47 was really the first tank design to see a departure from the lever steerage system, implementing a joystick-type of system nicked-named the "wobble stick", which was abandoned with the M48 and replaced with an oval-shaped steering-wheel, but with the development of the M60A1 the steering wheel was dropped in favor of a simplified yolk-bar which was standard on the M60A1 RISE,  M60A2, and M60A3 TTS, but with the M1 Abrams an advanced yolk-bar with an integrated gear-shift and reverse-function was utilized and has just been regularly updated as time has moved forward.

M47 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/dLmVKPpL
 
M48, M103 & M60 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/4n1xDRrn
 
M60A1/A2/A3 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/N953GVDh

M1/M1A2/A3 steerage control: https://postimg.cc/9wHL3NNY
 
You'll also notice a drastic increase in gauges and electronic control surfacing surrounding the driver as time progresses in tank design.
 
Now, fire control on tanks has maintained a similar overall design since the M47; multi-axis powered traverse yolk system that controls elevation and traverse simultaneously;

M47 Gunner's yolk vs M1 Gunners' yolk: https://postimg.cc/8fBQxvws
 
Maingun power-traverse stabilization had been around since the M4A1, but was wildly unpopular with crews until the M26, due to the arduous task of co-sighting and the lack of a turret bustle. The M48 was a leap froward in stabilization using a stereoscopic rangefinding system, with the M60A3 TTS being the next leap with a ruby-red lensed laser rangefinder, and the Abrams using a much more advanced ELRF laser rangefinder and gaining the ability to fire while moving due to the advanced fire control system computers capable of doing immediate fire controls ballistic solutions. 
 
Sorry to kind of just dump all that on you. If something doesn't make sense or comes across as confusing feel free to ask away, there is no such thing as a stupid question. 

@Weps
 
Only guy I can think of who can help you figure out what the cockpit of a tank might realistically look like
I can advise on controls though. I drive an excavator at work and the scorpion would almost undoubtedly use two levers. One for each side. Turret controls would probably be joysticks. One hand would be turret pivot and the other hand would be barrel height.