He’s off his rocker.
False, it was developed on the basis of it’s systems being improved, this includes countless items such as improved processors, integration of systems, etc. etc.
Here’s a overview of the changes that vehicle underwent, and just as a warning, it’s a massive document.
He’s a waste of time. He could google it and find out for himself
Я думаю что эта статистика винрейта на топ тире, собранная на основе повторов доступных всем на сайте war thunder, говорит лучше всяких слов
I think that this win rate statistics for the top tier, collected on the basis of replays available to everyone on the war thunder website, speaks louder than any words
Yep, what do you mean by replays? Does every game we play get saved on a server?
The author of the video, where I took the screenshot from, claims that the Gaijin website has a server replay system available to all players. And the percentage statistics were calculated based on these replays
I’ve seen all of those source be presented numerous times, they don’t prove whatever it is you claim they prove.
You suggest that the following source: DTIC ADA300522: Ballisticians in War and Peace. A History of the United States Army Ballistics Research Laboratory. Volume 3. 1977-1992, : Defense Technical Information Center : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Claims that the hulls were equipped with DU inserts, this source makes absolutely no mention of this.
It even explicitly states that the DU armour was not mounted on various M1 variants.
You’re just lying about the contents of a source.
so all those added weight just for some bs that won’t help with anything, it’s pointless to talk with anyone without documents, u can check the other disscussion with 17.7k views or u try to share ur ideas there.
1 Like
It would make sense. That’s pretty cool. I hope they are trying to fix it
Maybe when modern main battle tanks run out, they will take care of the balance
1 Like
Shocking!
Real life upgrades aren’t meant for making the tank better in video games?!
Here’s the things that the M1A2 was focussed around improving, notice how not a single one of those elements matters in War Thunder.
“‘Front module designs [were] completed, and production-implementation plans [were] affirmed [in 1984].’ ‘In armor technology, the BRL achieved two important technology advances. The first was the development and demonstration of an improved integrated armor for the 1990s; This eventually became known as the M1A1 Heavy.’”
“During Operation Desert Shield/Storm, we constantly heard reports lauding the Abrams MBTs: the M1, IPM1, M1A1, and the M1A1 heavy armor–the best the world has to offer.”
For context, the “frontal module design” is referring to at the very least the frontal hull armor, as the only specific panel listed was an example of a non-adopted upper glacis (UFP) design: “In 1980, ‘[An] upper glacis design [was] developed and demonstrated, although not adopted.’” This means that the “frontal” modules they were improving include the hull ones on the hull, and are not limited to just the front of the turret. Therefore we can assume that since they did not specify the M1A1 HA only had frontal turret armor, there is no reason to assume that the improvements only occurred on the turret.
Also, the only other versions of the Abrams listed were the base M1, IPM1, M1A1 HA, and M1A2. I have so far not claimed the IPM1 had DU, and from this we can gather than at least the pre-1992 production (base) M1A1’s did not have DU but the M1A1 HA did have DU in the hull. This report doesn’t list anything specific about the M1A2 armor besides a BRL hull armor proposal that would “[provide] 35% more KE protection and 25% more SC protection than the present M1A1 hull armor,” and that “‘the latest Abrams variant, the M1A2, currently undergoing final development is also the beneficiary of BRL armor research.’”
Additionally, we know that some M1A1’s have DU in them going off of this document from Congress (Alternatives for the U.S. Tank Industrial Base): https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-1994/reports/93doc04_0.pdf
So, as you can see the M1A1 HA has DU in the hull, DU-hulled Abrams tanks have been used in combat during Operation Desert Shield/Storm, some M1A1 tanks have DU armor in them (all M1A1s past the initial 2,266), and that the M1A2 also have DU in them (although not specified where in the sources provided in this comment).
2 Likes
You’re showing a presentation slide focusing on the information abilities of the M1A2, i.e. how the M1A2 is “The First Information Age System,” it of course isn’t going to focus on armor or firepower (as in how strong ammo is). The “fightability” stuff listed is all about the increased efficiency the M1A2 has due to it being “The First Information Age System.”
1 Like
In other words: You’ll just make stuff up and invent things that the document doesn’t say at all.
Nowhere in that document does it claim that the frontal modules are the lower hull.
What it says is that frontal armor includes at the very least hull armor and there is nothing in the document stating “frontal armor but only the UFP, not the LFP.” You trying to say that the lower hull is not included is you making stuff up, not me.
I am responding to this:
I have proved that, by their definition of “frontal” and no mention of “frontal” not including the hull, there was DU in the hulls of various Abrams types.
In order for you to say that there wasn’t DU in the lower hull, despite knowing from this document that the hull did have DU, you need to provide sources showing that the lower hull didn’t have DU. Simplified:
-
BRL starts working on armor improvements through high-density material at 1/4th scale
-
They describe doing early development work on “frontal armors” for the M1 using “the newly discovered technology” (i.e. high-density materials)
-
As an example, they list an improved UFP (upper front plate of the hull) design from 1980, an armor panel on the front of the hull
-
Therefore, their definition of “frontal” armor includes hull armor
-
There is no mention of “frontal” excluding the lower hull
-
Therefore, there is no reason that “frontal” armor excludes the lower hull
-
Development work begins on heavy armor in full-scale during 1982
-
“‘Front module designs [were] completed, and production-implementation plans [were] affirmed [in 1984].’ ‘In armor technology, the BRL achieved two important technology advances. The first was the development and demonstration of an improved integrated armor for the 1990s; …’ This eventually became known as the M1A1 Heavy.”
a. Frontal armor designs and plans for production and implementation were made in 1984
b. BRL made technological advances in improved integrated armor for the 1990s
c. Both of the two (above listed) BRL works became the M1A1 HA -
“In 1986, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA) made the ‘production decision for [the] high-density-material armor package for [the] M1A1.’ The M1A1 HA was fielded in October 1988 with its DU armor.”
a. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army approved the heavy armor for the M1A1 HA.
b. “Heavy armor” means DU armor. -
Therefore, the M1A1 HA has DU frontal armor, by their definition of “frontal” and “heavy armor”
-
Therefore, by their definition of “frontal,” the M1A1 HA has DU armor in the hull
-
Therefore, by their definition of “frontal,” there is no reason to believe that the M1A1 HA’s DU hull armor excludes the lower hull
Do you get it now?
2 Likes
Rather, you have selectively interpreted the document as saying things it doesn’t say at all.
How? They directly say that they are working on frontal armor, then list an example design within the hull while not saying that it is only that panel, so there is frontal armor in the hull (including the lower hull).
What is so hard to understand here?
I’m to lazy add my resources for him. All the info I have on the Abrams I’ve posted multiple times. It’s doesn’t go anywhere with some people so I don’t even try with non-reasonable commenters
He’s a waste of your valued time.
Have you listed the info in a bug report? We also need to find and provide the DU density vs conventional rolled homogeneous armor/ or the first chobham armor employed in the Swedish trials.
Then we could calculate the increase in armor protection with DU in the chobham
1 Like