This entire article just seems like it’s filled with random excuses the higher ups pulled out of their asses, just to implement things in a way that fits their fantasy world.
3 Likes
Okay, so that says it’s in the turret, but that also doesn’t do anything to clear up the other source above that, since everything in the HA/D/etc versions could simply be also referring to this, and not to some other additional hull armor or whatever. Since that one just said “armor” everywhere in the text.
any thoughts about this one?
- What is the source?
- Because turrets have sides and fronts to them?
Ah yes, because me playing in my phantom at 11.7 getting uptiered to 12.3 seeing aircraft that are 20+ years newer with more modern everything every single match because it’s nothing but constant uptiers seems pretty fair. I love the transparency but I think the people who handling the balancing or lack there of is absolutely high on something.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1920/ML19206A534.pdf
Yes, but they specify “turret sides” and “sides” separately, so then “front” would also be written “turret front” if that was the case right?
Doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would they ever issue a license for:
- Storage of removed side hull armor, BUT NOT contamination resulting from removal of side hull armor
- Contamination resulting from removal of side turret armor BUT NOT storage of that removed turret side armor
That would be the most bizarre license ever. It seems vastly more likely both are referring to the same armor, and the license is for the removal of it and the contamination from that very same removal of the same thing, in one license.
Non-DU removal does not cause radioactive contamination. as in they are removing the non-DU armor to have it replaced (from the context that it is DU armor since the license is for DU).
the removal of non-DU armor from turret might be contaminated since its proven (and already in game) that the turret has DU in it thus making the nnon-DU armor in contact with the Du armor.
because contaminants are not to be reused and are to be disposed of asap.
BOTH side hull armor and side turret armor would involve contamination and would need storage of the DU for them (whether uninstalling or installing either way, you’d need storage either before or after).
So if it meant both as different things, and sought to cover that all here, it would need to be a license for “storage of side armor and storage of side turret armor” AND “contamination from side armor and contamination from side turret armor”
2 things (storage and contamination) for 2 types of sides = 4 mentions of sides needed, two in each place.
You only have 2 total mentions of sides, 1 in each place. So it must be referring to the same side thing in both cases.
i think you are misunderstanding.
the turret already has DU in it at the point of this document. thus requiring contaminant storage for NON-DU parts that has been in contact with DU when removed.
the sides might not have DU in them thus NOT requiring storage for contaminants of NON-DU armor since that armor isn’t contaminated. why would the sides ne storage for contaminants if they are not in contact with DU?
the license grants storage, use and possession of DU. they might need to remove DU from other parts of the tank to get to the NON-DU armor in the sides. like if they need to remove the turret to get to the sides.
The front is mentioned in both as it already has DU in them and will cause contaminants and a need for storage since the DU will be reused and put back in.
1 Like
Meanwhile M247 was built to a prototype stage and was a useless paperweight which couldn’t work. Meanwhile in game Gaijin have used magic to fix it. But no, clearly proof of anti-US bias from gaijin…
1 Like
The biggest problem for the “D.U. in hulls” question is that when a tank has D.U. in the turret but not in the hull, that tank is described as “Improved frontal protection” “DOE armor” and “2nd/3rd generation D.U. composites” so these descriptors cannot be proof of hull D.U. composite, since they are very clearly often applied to vehicles without it.
Hence you must find documents which QUALIFY which composites have D.U.
So now we wait for the Abrams blog. I am seriously curious what sources they come up with.
I swear if all they come up with is the swedish tests and the 5 DU hull NRC document again, I’m going insane.
1 Like
I’m sure they’ll only use those sources, and they don’t care if it’s refuted by community sources.
1 Like
US mains should probably stop with the DU shit honestly, by 1999 the US non-DU armour package was meant to be comparable to the DU armour package offered at the time i.e. HAP-3, point of fact I wouldn’t be surprised if even the NGAP armour no longer used DU.
It is likely that in 2002 the SEPs had an improved hull that was improved without the use of DU.
2 Likes
So even when we have protection value for M1A1HA hull, it doesn’t prove that Abram hull armor was increasd over M1A1?
I’m sure that Russian HUMIMT is rattling to see some WT user his/her nerves and leak some intel on M1 armor.
Yep thats the reason to develop a new round to achiveve same capability like the previous one.
It is a good one, simmilar as: “Engineers managed to achieve the same level of protection while increasing the total weight”
3 Likes
So if the armor wasn’t reinforced on abrams, where all those bought packages of armor for hull (for which we already gave you the purchase documents) went then? To aliens? US government spend more than 100 milion of dollars on reinforcing the abrams hulls. What are you even talking about.
This is exactly why we are saying Russian Bias is present in game. For russia everything is taken as granted. For NATO even documents aren’t enough.
When you will remove the era blocks on russian tanks, since we have visual proofs from ukraine war about ERA packages not being filled with high explosives thus meaning that russian production tanks weren’t fitted with this package in it’s “test state”?
2 Likes
I love this reply :D
We won’t add better shell, because it won’t change anything, so it is not needed.
IF IT’S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING THEN IT SHOULD BE IN THE GAME BY NOW THEN.
You’re a bunch of programists, coders, you should know how implication and LOGIC works :D
4 Likes
They did not specify if they mean hull or turret because ANYONE that can use Long rod penetration estimation equation will know the real values with maximum of 5% divergence.
You want this in your public reports regarding something secret. Hiding information in plain sight :D