Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

And yet it clearly in some places says just plain “side armor” and in other places bothers to say “side turret armor”:

Pick one:

  • They ARE talking about side hull armor as well (which you keep vehemently denying)?

  • They are not talking about the hull, only the side turret, the whole time, but they are AMBIGUOUS and inconsistent about how they do it?

BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS! one is side turret the other is side hull, as i’ve stated the entire time. how hard of a concept is that to understand?

oh ffs… where did i deny this? quote it.
this is the one ive been saying this entire time.

no.

1 Like

the other is side hull

you 5 minutes ago:

jesus christ, I NEVER CLAIMED DU ARMOR IN SIDE HULL.

You have severe amnesia or…?

do you know difference between NO DU and HAS DU?
do you have reading comprehension?
both mentions of Side (turret and hull, say NON-DU).
i’ve never claimed DU in side hull.

1 Like

Why would anyone need a nuclear materials license to install, uninstall, or service the side hull armor in a vehicle if the side hull armor has no uranium in it at all?
image
You can just do that without a license, bro

cant you read?

There ARE no DU parts to “get to the side hull” if the side hull has no uranium in it.

you know THE TURRET WE ALREADU KNOW HAS DU IN IT? (this is confirmed and already in the game and is also stated in the original post)
(but NOT in the sides)

Edit:
have you ever had to change a lightbulb on a newer model car whare you have to disassemble half the car to get to the light fixture? yaeh, that.

1 Like

Yes what about it?

the turret that probably needs to be removed to be able to remove the side hull armor plates? otherwise the turret is above the sides thus making it not possible to lift them out?
do you think they are taken off from outside or something?

So in your copium-addled mind, you believe that the Abrams tank requires you to remove the turret to access the side armor, but somehow does NOT require you to remove the turret to maintain… the floor, the tracks, the radiators, the electrical equipment, the engine, the fuel tanks, the transmission, or ANYTHING else? Since by your logic, any and all other such things would have to be part of the nuclear materials license, but aren’t?

Alternatively to this near-magical construction of the whole tank, they could, you know, just have not used an implied word once (which would not have confused anyone with the actual plans). But that’s RIDICULOUS lol

how does that logic track? the turret is not physically in the way of any of those things.
do you know how a turret looks when out of the tank?
hqdefault
see that ring underneath the otherwise only visible part?
that ring is in the way of the sides from the inside.
oh and how would you lift those armor inserts out upwards with the turret covering them from above when its mounted in the tank?

1 Like

No man, you totally win. It’s definitely the case that the Abrams tank requires removal of the turret to touch any side panels, like a modern Prius, but doesn’t require it’s removal to do LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE, every other system is like a 1950s ford truck. And that’s clearly far more reasonable an assumption than “One guy one time left out one not-ver-important word in one document”

Dead to rights, I have no defense, you got me good.

okay then, how do they get to them?

What do you mean? I agree with you on every detail. They have to remove the whole turret for that and that alone, like I just said. 100% logical. Not sure why you’re still going on at someone who just fully agreed with you

do you want me to paint you a picture in paint to explain?
or do you think they magically phase through the turret somehow?
Painting just for you:

Spoiler

engine removal, turret still on:

Spoiler

2 Likes

grafik
grafik
grafik
grafik
grafik
grafik
grafik
grafik
grafik
grafik
grafik

hope this helps with any hull related issues
‘‘manufacturing-center-lima-army-tank-plant-in-lima-ohio-april-23-2012’’ source of the pics

edit:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187895719932199042/image.png?ex=65988d19&is=65861819&hm=48c89b79b9cb1a668129089a953bece70cb9ac4beb1f353ddbc511cc3ec64e61&

8 Likes

It says M1A1

makes no more sense to waste time here and that is sad but we know what worked last time i just wish there was a nicer way

1 Like

Except that in War Thunder Russian tanks have never been the strongest.
Swedish tanks have been the strongest the longest. Russian equipment is inferior outside T-90M.
Soviet tech tree jets are not the best, good, not the best.

1 Like