4 Likes
None of this is of any use. U want to get more armour? Provide valid sources. None of this is real to Gaijin without proof. 260mm? 215mm? BS, 1st gen 3rd gen? BS. This is the most useless stuff. U want fix? Provide sources. Where do 260mm and 215mm come from, how do u proof it is DU and not just extra composite armour.
3 Likes
It’s fun when Sartt and other goons false-report stuff lol
And I know they’ll report this cause I hurt their ego by proving him wrong with his own source.
7 Likes
That DU makes it out of America in the form of every Abrams in Poland. The ones that would benefit you should Russia ever truly be past the point of dumb and attempt something on one of you smaller less defended NATO border nations.
Quantity is its own quality, and is reality that has also stood the test of time.
Sure, and if you can produce relatively good equipment in high amounts (abrams, F-35, F-16, etc) then you can argue that, however there is a reason that the Eurofighter or other High Cost/Low Procurement weaponry is favoured by their operators over cheaper alternatives and that is the high amount of adaptability and Specialisation offered by more expensive platforms.
For example japan chooses to produce their own MBT rather than procure a cheaper Abrams deal so they have the ability to adapt it to their specialist needs, same applies to their F-2 fighters.
Poor choice on their behalf to procure M1a2 sep v3 when they couldve chosen more K2 or Leopard 2a8 with part synergy within their current fleet and without reliance on america for logistics
You say that like the F-2 isn’t practically just a License produced Agile Falcon F-16.
The U.S. cancelled the Agile Falcon program by deciding not to fund the program past the predevelopment phase. The predevelopment of the Derivative Aircraft Program (Agile Falcon) concludes in December 1989. Paper studies including wind tunnel test data of the proposed configuration will be delivered to the USAF. However, the Mid-Life 45 Update program will continue with 75% of the kits procured intended for the EPGs with delivery beginning in 1996. During Agile Falcon negotiations with EPGs, the U.S. turned down proposals from Korea, Turkey, and Israel to participate in the Agile Falcon codevelopment program (39:1). Defense News reported on 5 June 1989 that DOD is interested in bringing the Agile Falcon back to life sometime in the future under the Japanese/U.S. FSX codevelopment program. The two aircraft designs are .very similar with both incorporating a large wing. It is possible an Agile Falcon/FSX hybrid could become the Block 80 F-16 configuration.
yet more relevant Excerpts
Well it isn’t, it’s as close as you can get to a new airframe as possible, shares very few similarities with a US F-16C besides silhouette and possesses nearly entirely domestic japanese avionics and weaponry
And if youre going to bring up some obscure planned F-16 to justify being wrong then I can refer you to the F-2A and JASDF threads who would be more than happy to help
In what sense? If they wanted a unique airframe they would have started a clean sheet design, or go with the F-20 / F/A-18 to form the basis of a bespoke variant, which would have been cheaper than the shemozzle that going with LM (yet, again) ended up getting them stuck with.
Should I point out Fuel stowage locations, Engines, Bus Topology / Architecture, Human factors, maintenance and loading producers etc. are all practical commonalities between the contemporary F-16C variants and the F-2, due to said few similarities.
Oh wow they paid out the nose for a substandard product, what were they expecting It’s basically just a similar story to the F-104J all over again. They would have ended up with a better Aircraft had they bit the bullet gone with the slightly more expensive F/A-18 and then added the advanced features they wanted, resulting with a shorter timeline, a full technical data package and local production rights (not a license), better performance, larger fleet, and for less money considering all the issues the F-2 had in production.
If I wanted to bring up obscure aircraft I’d just claim:
The Su-75 / -57 is a knockoff F-16X / F-23 respectively.
The Su-27 is a NA-335
The MiG-25 is the F-108 / A-5
Su-24 is the Mirage G8 / F-111
There are others I’m sure.
Just for your information Poland M1 Abrams don’t have DU. The DU armor was taken out for the FMS export armor package without DU for foreign sales.
4 Likes
US aint gonna sell the secret away
only DU in the country
lol
There were already sources on the internet. Meanwhile gaijin is over here using swedish export data.
Swedish export sources are much more reliable than ‘estimated protection levels’ from ‘tank protection levels’ website.
1 Like
This is one thing I’m a bit confused about. In the Swedish trials, did the abrams have it’s DU armor or was it replaced with a less classified armor package?
1 Like
It had a substitute armor iirc, think armor like the ones given for export abrams. Essentially you get a different material but it gives around the same armor level for the current US tanks at the time.
I don’t have the doc with me rn but sweden essentially planned armor upgrades for all the vehicles. Here was their plan for the armor on the Leclerc
2 Likes
Let me see the whole document. One snippet doesn’t say much of anything because at it stands it doesn’t make any sense at all.
The polish have orders for 3x the maximum amount fixed cost removable DU turrets from the snippet you posted, and that’s only if they decide to expand upon the 28 listed in the snippet to the maximum of 88 additional turrets.
The order was 250 SEPV3 to Poland, not including others that have gone.
This would only cover what seems to potentially be the 116 or whatever it was, m1a1SA’s that they received.
This refers to nothing as of now regarding the 250(I think) SEPV3 they have an order for which I have seen nothing regarding any changes to its armor package, u like Australia with specifically requested non DU armor and The US had to design a similar protection non DU option for them.
So I’d like to see this whole document you’re referring to.
Since according to US Approves Sale of 116 Ex-US M1A1SA Abrams MBTs for Poland
Poland received m829 depleted uranium rounds, and if they did I don’t see why they would accept ammunition but not the armor. Not to mention it doesn’t even say that Poland took advantage of removing the DU turrets, other than 28 with the option of 88 additional.
Your snippet only says that 28 would be removed.
Might be a dumb question but if we can get around the same level of protection using different materials, what would be the point of using DU?
Could be weight or maybe it differs during penetration. I assume export abrams have worse armor than DU as DU is more tough than other materials. We also dont know if the composite array is the exact same between US and export abrams to my knowledge. Tbf armor and pen are massively reduced in warthunder
1 Like
Cheap and plentiful, but the reality is there’s no way any of us would know. I think there is probably material differences and being as it is cheap and plentiful(while I think probably has better protection) is why the U.S. chose it. It’d not as if we couldn’t afford tungsten it did little to affect price in the sale to Oz.
The other option is normally tungsten, but I think depleted uranium has better energy depletion characteristics because of how it is prone to shattering and fracturing in I think better ways than tungsten, depleting more energy from a penetrator. This is my own opinion though.
2 Likes
I think you have it, i personally believe its how DU reacts when shot that makes it more commonly used alongside being a more common material for the US.
2 Likes