Again. The sources are unspecific according to you, but Gaijin using tests on an export variant MBT to determine the armor of a tank that only started production 15 years after said test is totally fine?
2 Likes
Considering the specific armor protection values regarding DU are quite literally classified, we have to make due with estimates which were provided to Gaijin from a multitude of reliable secondary sources, all of which are in the same range of each other.
1 Like
No, you’re one the weaseling here. The government documents clearly state “depleted uranium” in the packages, and “improved frontal protection.” The licenses were amended to include hulls receiving unlimited DU authorization alongside the turrets in 2006.
Then you say “lol, this doesn’t prove there is DU because how much did the armor improve?”
2 Likes
Ok. so it CAN be in the hull.
Lots of inference, no solid evidence. You’ve got dots but nothing that explicitly joins them.
The fact more than 5 hulls are premitted to exist, simply DOES NOT prove that any standard design used those hulls, at least as evidence on its own. It’s simply proof that there’s no specific limit, nothing more.
Let’s see:
- Veteran’s administration stating DU in the hull of all M1A1HAs & M1A2s manufactured post-1998…
- Haynes book stating DU in the hull
- Haskew’s tank book stating DU in the hull of SEPv1 and up.
- Army NRC License being amended to unlimited hulls shortly after 2006…
- TRADOC’s ODIN database stating DU in the hull of M1A2 SEP.
20 Likes
And yet the picture of a few T-80B prototypes testing thermals was enough for Gaijin to add thermals to our production T-80BV in game.
They have a very nice sense of dual standards.
7 Likes
Yes. As Gaijin writes.
So if you believe otherwise, find evidence that contradicts this.
Just observing something is newer and more expensive, doesn’t actually make it specifically improved in the way you are trying to prove.
The “justification” for gimping the 2A7V hull armor is beyond pathetic. Complete logical fallacy.
Do they know that gimping NATO tanks won’t make them weaker IRL?
5 Likes
Yeah, once I realized how bad F-104s are against anything that turns & keeps any speed, I only became annoyed at all-aspects at 10.0, or even 10.3 cause 9.3s are somewhat hard to use against all aspects.
We don’t need decompression that makes things in perfect parity, just enough to keep the challenge but not have point & click aircraft.
1 Like
Typically, when your decisions upset a significant portion of your player base; one would logically think the proper course of action is to either offer further explanation, change course, offer assurance a fix is in the works as a result of said backlash. This comes across as a “we are doubling down”.
And before someone says “it’s not a majority”, just because some players don’t bother to set up the 2FA you need to interact here, doesn’t mean they aren’t pissed too and aren’t venting that frustration elsewhere.
This has been seen as an incredibly bad series of decisions and announcements. And whether the devs and CMs intended to or not; they just validated our fears that bug reports and discussion/suggestions are effectively pointless when it comes to improving performance and balancing.
It’s also not a far fetched idea that announcing so close to the holiday/new year vacation period where employees will be leaving the offices for a few days wasn’t intentional.
6 Likes
I’m not weaseling at all.
I point out that the documents cited all basically say the same thing. “There is any D.U. present at all in the tank.”
Gaijin says “Well, we know there’s D.U. in some turrets, so that checks out.”
Ok so prove it’s in the hulls, specifically.
Why bother amending it, spending money on the line item upgrades in the budget reports, report on the tanks receiving improved DU armor for improved frontal protection (while limiting improvements to side protection only on the turrets), and then reproducing license documents that conclude the Abrams tanks use DU in hulls and turrets?
So the 5 hulls you want to keep harping on about, despite being proven to be a non-factor since the 2006 license update, means that the unlimited license must mean there were no hulls with DU? Since the license has always authorized turrets for DU use, that must mean no turrets have DU. With your flawed logic.
It’s on you to prove that there are only 5 hulls or no hulls with DU after the license was amended to remove all limits of DU armor in hulls.
Since that’s what you want to imply.
2 Likes
I guess this gajin would decompress to 12.0 or 12.3 for ground vehicle toptier in rank 8 before add new APFSDS M829A3, L28 and 120 Shard
Bro your mental gymnastics you are trying to pull here is not working.
3 Likes
Would be fine. Although I think it makes a strange contradiction, since either the Veteran’s administration is wrong, or the US mlitary isn’t following their own rules. D.U. can’t be in hulls before 2006 if the NRC License means anything, it may not mean much though.
Gaijin is critical of ODIN and don’t use it for the same reaons they don’t use Jane’s, that being it is full of basic factual errors.
Still leaves Haskew and the Bovington book standing as evidence.
That is literally top pentagon level of budget and congress level…
Ok wheres Merkava buff? Its worse Abrams 100 times but who cares. According to the developers, only Abrams need a buff.
Very duplicitous.
1 Like
…and you ignore the CBO, GAO, DOD sources…
1 Like
Considering that we haven’t seen anyone post the pre-2006 NRC licenses that they would’ve needed for DU turrets in the first place, and we’ve had multiple amendments that remove the DU hull limit. I’d frankly just implement it into any post-2006 Abrams. aka: any Abrams with TUSK.
1 Like
I only point out that the limit being removed isn’t proof that more were made. It’s an inference to say “If the limit was removed, they must have made more.” Maybe they did make more.
But what you’re trying to prove is DU composite arrays being used as standard in specific variants of Abrams. This document doesn’t speak to that, it just says that it’s not specifically against the rules.