its called the reality of the game my guy… hard to swollow pill ik.
Why do you think the military requested that the limit be taken away and made unlimited in the first place? to not make more use of the DU? its not like that limit disappeared by itself, they specifically requested it removed.
Edit:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1920/ML19206A534.pdf
how about this one on 275 METRIC TONNES of DU?
and that is not completed armor, that’s pure DU. with modifications its going to weigh more, still think its not for serial production or for more than turret?
"A. For possession, use, and storage
during removal and installation of
non-DU side armor in M1 series tanks;
and for removal and storage prior to
disposal of DU front armor from M1
series tanks; use does not include
repair or maintenance of DU armor.
B. Contamination resulting from removal of
non-DU side armor turret and DU front
armor in M1 series tanks. "
3 Likes
Why gaijin always want to ignite your player base by ignore all relative sources and telling us there no actual proof ? By using a old report to judge a tank which release 20 years later and choose to ignore so many report out there , just WTF . Telling us US didn’t improve their tank armor since 1980s even many people giving difference sources of proof . It just amazing , so no more money I will be given at this point .
1 Like
Well this concerns do not stop Gaijin to make Russian “wet dream” vehicles where the 40 tons vehicle is more resistant to damage then one who weight 70 tons!
Double standards as always
2 Likes
Stona, its not about the Developers having a different opinion than us, its about the fact that their opinion does not matter if the supporting evidence says otherwise that we have compiled for literal years if their claim to fame that Warthunder has subscribed to for so long is “historical accuracy”
They didnt give us an answer we didnt want, they gave us an answer that is wrong
If the reporting guidelines were truly “1 primary or 2 secondary sources” MOST problems we have would be fixed by now. Its truly difficult to see that this guideline holds its value when information is simply denied base upon “belief”. This is also kind of an issue when exact specifications are specifically classified, and the only information available IS mostly secondary outside of vague government department documents which corroborate the same thing secondary sources do.
3 Likes
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1060606270765289524/1187501723405799555/img_13-1_39.jpg?ex=65971e29&is=6584a929&hm=52aadd761923bb86542e4161ae40059d51b177986b83b039451dffbc188ec222&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1060606270765289524/1187501500856021082/Tornado_der_WTD_mit_Pod.JPG?ex=65971df4&is=6584a8f4&hm=d282ca06d080e099f6fa204970f6d8e79dd4da93d87970ae5e2b027bdb6142f8&
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/921739150288367627/1187442999718850704/image0.jpg?ex=6596e778&is=65847278&hm=5ac1029d90afaf2334cabeaacca646ca327531fba47ec3efa5bb87d7f44252eb&format=webp&
^ Datei:Tornado der WTD 61.JPG
14 Likes
Yet the absence of limits on turrets does mean the D.U. turret composites were mass produced or used in many variants of standard or common packages?
You still didn’t answer why you believe only the SEP V3 got the improved DU armor package when the budget document shows that in 2007, the Army upgraded 260 vehicles to the SEP standard that improved frontal armor protection using DOE armor. The license was amended in 2006 to grant the same status of unlimited DU use to hulls as it has always allowed turrets.
Why, in your “logic” does unlimited turrets means there are DU turrets, but unlimited hulls means there only might be DU hulls, despite many records indicating that there were armor upgrades using the depleted uranium for entire frontal protection? With additional government documents citing depleted uranium armor packages being in the front of hulls as well.
1 Like
Remove merkavas you fools
2 Likes
I’ve ran out of likes, but this common sense logic does not compute with the tankies at Gaijin or on these forums.
3 Likes
“Common sense” is not admissable as evidence. Only facts are.
Yet the actual evidence you choose to ignore.
1 Like
You are making an inference about intent.
Clearly requesting a removal of the limit, means they want to make more DU hull arrays.
We must remember the wider context here.
I’m sure Gaijin knows and accepts these arrays exist, the question is which tanks are they installed in.
This fragment (as historians would call it) simply does not meaningfully answer the above question. It is proof that there CAN be DU hull arrays in M1 tanks, it does not specify a variant, so it does not answer the question.
It was enough for them to accept DU in turrets, magically.
1 Like
Where is that even footing?
I’ve been playing 10.0 -11.3 usa whole day and can’t seem to find said footing.
I think what galls most people is the difference in how Gaijin treats NATO tanks compared to Russian/Soviet tanks. Several of the sources state it is more than “muh 5 hulls”, which is just a complete nonsense source that has no real basis besides stating that 5 DU Abrams hulls existed at that specific point in time.
And even if only 5 hulls ever had DU inserts (again, wrong), they gave the T-80B Agava-2 despite only a select few tanks getting it. The T-80U gets Agava despite only some being T-80UM standard. I’m sure if some rando said that the t-14 had a prototype equipped with a 190mm particle beam laser cannon able to turn a tank into molten sludge within microseconds of exposure and the guys only source was his sleep paralysis demon who told him in a dream, it would be in the game in a heartbeat.
6 Likes
I commented only on the vehicles themselves, not the level 20s crewing them
you mean this from 2006?
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187105071465500672/image.png?ex=6595acc0&is=658337c0&hm=91e83325f189db5ea67c95ac6256a3c87dbc12a019f849ece6ee313bdb27c22c&
1 Like
Because it is simply not at all difficult to find pretty clear evidence Depleted Uranium composite arrays were deployed in the turret.
Since Gaijin approves this evidence and considers it relevant enough to cite when deciding not to put D.U. arrays in the hull of various Abrams variants, I would say they won’t approve a pre-2006 variant getting D.U. in its hull.
Personally I don’t see evidence that SEP v2 is specifically uparmoured compared to SEP v1, which is a design pre-dating the aforementioned restriction. So that’s how the logic goes.
Yes, it has been proven that this source is outdated and wrong relating to the M1A2 SEPv1 and SEPv2.
2 Likes
Edited post with more info just as you answered.
as most other sources say; all of the M1 variants. even the base ones got upgraded and changed.
Not that i’m arguing that all of them in game should get it, that’s not faceable and Gaijin usually implement a specific year variant to avoid confusion and make BR placing easier.
But at the least they should put it in the newest variants. otherwise what’s the point of grinding and unlocking a new vehicle for it to be the same as the old ones in a vast majority of ways.
They have previously implemented things with even less evidence of features and values so why not here? They arbitrarily added Skyflash and AIM9M to the JAS39 for the sake of balance. so why not here?
1 Like