At the end of the day, it’s a video game. The numbers don’t have to be 100% accurate, but we should get some improvement in armor over the base M1A2 (with 2nd gen DU). I am honestly happy with how the Abrams are represented in game up to the M1A2 base model. All though, I don’t think the M1A2 base model is fairly balanced. I don’t think the game is decompressed enough to justify the M1A2 to sit at a higher BR than the M1A1HC, adding a better round with 20-30mm more penetration and the tradeoff of the active protection versus CITV. I think the game needs a little more decompression for top tier ground to justify such small improvements of a vehicle sitting at higher BR.
1 Like
It’s fine by me. I’m only pointing out Gaijin has a pretty relaxed evidence standard.
All you have to do is show 2 documents that aren’t just two hands of the same body, saying something like “X variant of Abrams has DU in the hulls” from some reliable sources and they should accept it.
1 Like
Which parts of it? All of it? Some of it? Do you get my point?
It is being intentionally vague and non-specific. Gaijin, in my opinion rightfully, doesn’t care about vague nonsense like that. Either say it or don’t.
I have a plan, why don’t we ask GD ( General Dynamics) about the improvement of the Abrams Hull and turrets, if they added DU in the hull ?
2 Likes
You mean the licenses that state DU is both in armor and hulls?
Holy hell gripen flies like an absolute shitbrick now…
The license that states it CAN be.
Abrams At War estimates the HA’s 1st gen DU at 590mm KE (pretty close to in-game values in general) and SEP’s 3rd gen DU at around 940mm KE on the turret. Clancy’s Armored Cav puts the 2nd gen DU on a baseline M1A2 at about 800mm KE.
Whether or not Gaijin would accept those two as sources is probably up in the air.
4 Likes
And still the question, why can Russian propaganda be accepted but literal budget allocations and documentation that it was in place not be accepted, and the thicknesses given in said documents
5 Likes
Additions in the game for a few things have gotten in on less evidence
I just notice a very obvious double standard from Gaijin in regard to their treatment of sources.
3 Likes
I don’t personally see it. I see a difference in the quality of the sources.
What documents do you need for the Leo to get it’s proper hull armor?? There were tens of reports all with siginificant proof that you are wrong… but “according to our information blah blah blah” what else do you need? Even if someone decided to leak the official values you probably still wouldn’t agree becaues your sources say something differently.
Not to forget, how can you believe that a tank from the 90s has better protection then a take modernised in 2020?
1 Like
You need glasses
You had no issue with it being “vague” about unlimited turrets while pointing the 5 hull limit in early 2006 being conclusive that DU could only be present in 5 hulls. Later 2006, limits removed.
“…but we don’t know it is going in any more hulls despite removing all limits on the hulls, but the turret that had no limits mentioned obviously has DU in it, because they wouldn’t have unlimited authorization if they never put it in any turrets. Now let me ignore all government fiscal reports, descriptions of the SEP programs, upgrades that state the DOE licensed armor is used for increased frontal protection and the amended license clearly states Abrams tanks use DU armor in both hulls and turrets.”
Your clown world logic isn’t the strong argument you think it is.
6 Likes
Just try and make a bug report with this values
2 Likes
Again they added thermals for the production T-80B in game because of like 1 or 2 pictures of a random prototype equipped with them.
So yes that is a double standard as the production T-80B didn’t have thermals.
4 Likes
In what?
No, the 5 hull limit convinced you that DU must only be in 5 hulls, but the turrets obviously had it. Gaijin used this same logic.
Once the hull limits are thrown out? Well, the turrets MUST still have DU, but hulls only CAN have DU. Despite the budget reports saying the SEP frontal armor upgrades uses the DOE licensed armor. The same license that says the Abrams uses DU armor in hulls and turrets.
Straight up clown world logic on your end. Don’t even try to shift by asking “okay, but how is it improved?” The point you want to dance around is whether DU is in the hull. The licenses, the budget forms, the reports all say YES.
4 Likes