You should learn how to run a game, accepting reasonable suggestions from us and make us happy, not making what you think is “real” . Now I understand how the Soviet Union collapsed
Although I think players are more correct here than Gaijin is about the historical facts, when it comes to game design, not tank research, players are virtually never better at designing games than the devs are.
- You have usually no training. The people hired for this have relevant training.
- You have no access to billions of rows of highly relevant data to inform your decisions. They do.
- You have stronger biases for a certain nation etc. you main in and other things that personally give you advantages to win. You’re not actually in it for a better healthier game. In this case, USA mains are howling, but if you gave them everything they wanted no questions asked, you’d be pissing off MORE players who are currently quiet and content, who main other nations. And you’d be in a worse position than before as a company…
Everything you’ve just said is complete speculation and conspiracy. Do you seriously think the U.S. government would lie about DU in the M1s hull? VA claims and veterans affected by the DU are not lying. My Step-father is personally affected by this issue.
Obviously it’s speculation, lol, if I could prove it easily for just a forum thread, it wouldn’t stop any nations from making mistakes, who are much mroe organized and methodical about this than War Thunder players are.
Do you seriously think the U.S. government would lie about DU in the M1s hull?
Yes, I just explained why. Which you didn’t actually reply to other than to go “Srsly?!”
VA claims and veterans affected by the DU are not lying.
How would you know that? A step father being sick for DU in a turret doesn’t mean that it wasn’t perhaps DU in a hull, instead. Or not DU at all but lead poisoning that is misinterpreted (or filed incorrectly on purpose). Etc. etc.
My point is just that there’s quite possibly a good reason nobody can seem to agree on exactly where and what for the DU was used, and these are examples of why it’s a pretty good policy to request multiple sources and to be conservative when sources disagree on things like this.
If they want to make no major historical mistakes, again I suggest merely generically increasing the armor quality multiplier, not saying what the reason is, and leaving it at that.
1 Like
Gaijin keeps repeating the bullshit that China tanks are all just modified T-72s
So where are the auto-loader protections that all T-72s have but missing on ZTZ-96/99s?
Why T-72s ammunations can be covered by armor more than half but Chinese tanks can’t while they actually can in reality?
Why then give T-72s side era but refuse to give VT-4 even we sent them the brochure from Norinco tells that side era and lower plate era named FY-2T and FY-2SH developed for VT series tanks is actually existed?
Besides,they like to talk about REALISTIC, then:
Why 6-9 rpm means 9 for russian T-80s but 8 for China?
Why AFT-09’s manual says turret rotates no less than 15°/s means 15° with ace crews?
Why JH-7A needs to wait for a whole version to get 2xKH-29Ts rather than 4xKH-29TEs as reality?
As current situation, they care NOTHING about realistic or balance, they only care about bias that enhancing Rus and Sw
9 Likes
I have talked and studied about this subject for a long time. This is my longest message about it so far, I have made some mistakes and didnt include some thermals, but NGL I am already burnt out from even that amount of info.
Russian Kontakt-5 or relikt, YES!
China FY-2T/FY-2SH, NO!
2 Likes
Lead is well known to be one type of spall liner. It can be painted over white like any other metal and appear identical to steel painted white.
One of the many possible places I’ve seen DU be mentioned is also as a spall liner, i.e. it might be that the interior you’re looking at when it looks like that in some tanks is DU painted white, which would look just like steel painted white.
Lead (and maybe DU is even better at this, is the theory) are ductile and flexible and so catch spall without shattering.
Your actually serious about not knowing the M1s have DU armour huh?
As noted under M1A1 heavy, tanks with DU armour are identified by the U at the end of the serial number:
Like I said we know the M1s have DU in the turret.
1 Like
¯_(ツ)_/¯ I only feel your ill will toward China’s independent research and development of tanks and aircraft.
1 Like
And DU in turret is already represented in WT at least for M1A1 HC forward, what’s in contention is hull armor.
1 Like
The Yak-141 is not a double standard, why do people keep acting like it is? Four prototypes were made and the programme was cancelled due to lack of funding before they could be armed. Gaijin’s standard for such vehicles, for War Thunder’s entire history, has been that they can be added with their planned features. There are loads of examples of this, to name just a few:
- Ho 229 V3 - partly finished prototype, never fitted with weapons.
- XP-50 - single prototype, never fitted with weapons
- Sea Meteor - few prototypes, never fitted with weapons
- Swift F.7 - never fitted with cannon
- J7W1- two prototypes, never fitted with weapons
- S.O.8000 Narval - two prototypes, never fitted with weapons
4 Likes
Your document literally just says “DU Armor” not “DU Hull Armor”. That could be hull, turret, liner, who knows?
Meanwhile, your source also actually confirms that plenty of M1A1’s did NOT have DU, since it lists variants both with and without, so if Gaijin didn’t like it for game design reasons or whatever, they could accurately choose either one as “the variant in the game”: Basic or “D” or heavy or blah blah. So… kinda a weird source to give them.
1 Like
Photos there looked like smooth as a baby’s bottom white painted metal to me, where am I supposed to be seeing clear kevlar here?
Yeah 4 prototypes were made and we get some hypothetical production version.
Yet from their own source that they cling so desperately to we also know that there were at least 5 Abramses equipped with DU hulls and after that the US got unlimited licenses for DU equipped Abrams hulls.
So yes in a sense it is double standard, because the former was added and the latter is denied.
Perfectly acceptable to have China receive spall liners in their later tanks, obviously. Bias needs to be put out of mind.
Question, what do you think the M1A1 HC and M1A2s armour is based on?
Also I already stated the hulls armour is what is unknown, although personally I don’t think it has DU, I think they ended up using the non-DU composites that were comparable to HAP that GDLS had created in the mids 90s and early 2000s.
Your document literally just says “DU Armor” not “DU Hull Armor”. That could be hull, turret, liner, who knows?
All M1s since 1988 have had at least had DU armour in the turret thats isn’t up for discussion.
Meanwhile, your source also actually confirms that plenty of M1A1’s did NOT have DU
Yes the ones prior to the M1A1 HA did not have DU armour, however all US M1s since 1988 have had DU in the turret, also the M1A1 HC is basically the USMC variant of the M1A1 HA and the M1A1 D is an M1A1 HC that got a digital upgrade…
So no it isn’t a weird source, you just don’t have the basic info on M1s:
It is if you have no sources for it…
So no it isn’t a weird source, you just don’t have the basic info on M1s:
Guy who is allegedly the one providing the info (sources) for how he wants a tank to be, “You don’t have the info” … 🤔 Weird self-burn, but okay
I’m already bringing up the Leclerc on TikTok, but I’ll also address some of the other things concerning the Abrams and concerning the rest of the lines.
If they don’t want to give the Leclerc the same reload rate as the Type 90, fine, but split the difference at 4.5 seconds, my opinion.