Its quite insulting really that they simply “believe” it didnt have upgraded frontal hull armor.
It doesnt matter what they, or anyone else “believes”
We have campaigned for countless YEARS with an exorbitant amount of PUBLICLY available sources on CLASSIFIED MATERIAL.
This is as big of an insult as the May event.
Not enough corroborating sources I could dig up. I can probably make a report on the 3rd gen DU because both Abrams at War and Haskew put the turret protection of the 3rd gen DU at around 940-960mm KE. But I’m not sure where else I could dig up to corroborate Clancy’s 2nd Generation DU figures.
I’m going to be honest, I’m not personally sure if that document is specifically referring to how many DU hulls can be in training facilities specifically, I’m not exactly sure what the scope of that document or which organisation it is imposing limits on.
If you want my opinion, my opinion is that DU hull armour is present on every M1A1HA/HC and SEP v3 onwards.
I don’t know what exactly is “clown world logic” about saying that it’s an indirect inference you’re making. Government spent money, some of that money was spent on DU armour, there’s no limits on DU hulls. These are interesting dots, but you don’t present evidence that CONNECTS them.
You can always try, maybe because of this sepv1 and v2 will get better turret armor
Can someone explain why Leo2A7 weight is more than Strv122 but has less armor ?
Why can the additional weight only be explained by increased RHAE to KE/CE threats?
That 5 hull limit was a non-factor since 2006. The amended license ties directly to that document that shows the M1A2 SEP upgrades, who provided the licensed armor, and that it increases frontal protection.
Again, you want to use that same license to say it can only be in turrets because turrets were unlimited in early 2006, but it can’t be in hulls, because hulls were only unlimited later in 2006. Clown world logic.
Leo2a7 is german which is in NATO
Strv122 is swedish which is not in NATO
I say the opposite.
An absence of limits does not mean that D.U. hull composites were mass produced or used in many variants as part of standard or common packages.
That’s all.
Soon
Thanks for confirming that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I would love to see Gaijin’s reasoning for how the Abrams gained 9+ tons from the IPM1 variant to the M1A2/M1A2 SEP. Did the turret just magically gain several tons of weight or something?
It’s incredibly obvious that the Abrams did use DU in its more modern variants, I seriously don’t know why Gaijin doesn’t listen.
We don’t know what other sources they have on that matter, but to us it appears that way.
Then why does the license amended in 2006 make you believe that only SEP V3 has DU hull armor, despite the SEP program still being V1 in 2006, when there are budget reports showing SEP armor upgrades using DOE armor for increased frontal protection happened before SEP V3 was even a thing?
And when Sweden does join NATO, they will suddenly find “documents” that show the Strv122 is only as protected as a Leo2a5 (no you can’t see them)
Sounds about right
We have sources that states that DU was indeed used in the hull of M1A1 HA and later variant (we do) and we must also have protection value of the said Abrams (We do).
Gaijin: No, only 5 hull had DU and it was for testing only.
This is just a blatant mockery of the player community with extra explains
Cool 2019 tank being handicapped by 20 year old sources that arent true anymore. Good to know. Thanks gaijin.
can you send me a link to this site?