Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
482

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.

483

You can always try, maybe because of this sepv1 and v2 will get better turret armor

1 Like
484

Can someone explain why Leo2A7 weight is more than Strv122 but has less armor ?

2 Likes
485

Why can the additional weight only be explained by increased RHAE to KE/CE threats?

486

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.

1 Like
487

Leo2a7 is german which is in NATO
Strv122 is swedish which is not in NATO

1 Like
488

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.

489

Soon

490

Thanks for confirming that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

491

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.

7 Likes
492

We don’t know what other sources they have on that matter, but to us it appears that way.

493

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?

495

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)

1 Like
496

Sounds about right

497

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.

6 Likes
498

This is just a blatant mockery of the player community with extra explains

2 Likes
499

Cool 2019 tank being handicapped by 20 year old sources that arent true anymore. Good to know. Thanks gaijin.

1 Like
500

can you send me a link to this site?

501

Gaijin there better be a document that outright states that DU was never inserted in the SEP, because if there isn’t you are just admitting that you are biased against NATO tanks (and no adding a new shell to distract players doesn’t make up for it).
Why even add the SEPs if you refuse to add the most important reason those upgrades even existed?

3 Likes
502

Because Russia has to be #1 in-game since their hardware is absolute dogwater IRL.

10 Likes