Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

I don’t think you’ve read my previous post at all. The whole point was that DM63/73/-829A3/4 is/should be lolpen against the best armour that russian tanks have in the game right now. That would mean that if you want to also implement correct armour for Leos and Abrams all current top tier russians tanks would have to get pushed down in BR to compensate. The issue here is that NATO is gimped so that russian tanks can fight on an even footing.

DM53 gets EATEN by K5… A round that was DESIGNED to counter that. im not even taking Relict (altho the bag sidearmour is overperforming and EVERYONE knows it)

convincing argument

1 Like

They should add DM73 and M829A3 and add NATO v Warsaw match making

1 Like

the problem is 3bm60s doesn’t have to fight t80s and have it shatter on internals or bounce off breaches 3bm60 in general is far more consistent than ofl f1 is

M829A3 would be fine if the SEPv2 doesn’t get it’s DU hull armor.

its called the reality of the game my guy… hard to swollow pill ik.

Why do you think the military requested that the limit be taken away and made unlimited in the first place? to not make more use of the DU? its not like that limit disappeared by itself, they specifically requested it removed.
how about this one on 275 METRIC TONNES of DU?
and that is not completed armor, that’s pure DU. with modifications its going to weigh more, still think its not for serial production or for more than turret?

"A. For possession, use, and storage
during removal and installation of
non-DU side armor in M1 series tanks;
and for removal and storage prior to
disposal of DU front armor from M1
series tanks; use does not include
repair or maintenance of DU armor.
B. Contamination resulting from removal of
non-DU side armor turret and DU front
armor in M1 series tanks. "


Why gaijin always want to ignite your player base by ignore all relative sources and telling us there no actual proof ? By using a old report to judge a tank which release 20 years later and choose to ignore so many report out there , just WTF . Telling us US didn’t improve their tank armor since 1980s even many people giving difference sources of proof . It just amazing , so no more money I will be given at this point .

1 Like

Well this concerns do not stop Gaijin to make Russian “wet dream” vehicles where the 40 tons vehicle is more resistant to damage then one who weight 70 tons!
Double standards as always


Stona, its not about the Developers having a different opinion than us, its about the fact that their opinion does not matter if the supporting evidence says otherwise that we have compiled for literal years if their claim to fame that Warthunder has subscribed to for so long is “historical accuracy”

They didnt give us an answer we didnt want, they gave us an answer that is wrong

If the reporting guidelines were truly “1 primary or 2 secondary sources” MOST problems we have would be fixed by now. Its truly difficult to see that this guideline holds its value when information is simply denied base upon “belief”. This is also kind of an issue when exact specifications are specifically classified, and the only information available IS mostly secondary outside of vague government department documents which corroborate the same thing secondary sources do.


^ Datei:Tornado der WTD 61.JPG


Yet the absence of limits on turrets does mean the D.U. turret composites were mass produced or used in many variants of standard or common packages?

You still didn’t answer why you believe only the SEP V3 got the improved DU armor package when the budget document shows that in 2007, the Army upgraded 260 vehicles to the SEP standard that improved frontal armor protection using DOE armor. The license was amended in 2006 to grant the same status of unlimited DU use to hulls as it has always allowed turrets.

Why, in your “logic” does unlimited turrets means there are DU turrets, but unlimited hulls means there only might be DU hulls, despite many records indicating that there were armor upgrades using the depleted uranium for entire frontal protection? With additional government documents citing depleted uranium armor packages being in the front of hulls as well.

1 Like

Remove merkavas you fools


I’ve ran out of likes, but this common sense logic does not compute with the tankies at Gaijin or on these forums.


“Common sense” is not admissable as evidence. Only facts are.

Yet the actual evidence you choose to ignore.

1 Like

You are making an inference about intent.

Clearly requesting a removal of the limit, means they want to make more DU hull arrays.

We must remember the wider context here.

I’m sure Gaijin knows and accepts these arrays exist, the question is which tanks are they installed in.

This fragment (as historians would call it) simply does not meaningfully answer the above question. It is proof that there CAN be DU hull arrays in M1 tanks, it does not specify a variant, so it does not answer the question.

It was enough for them to accept DU in turrets, magically.

1 Like

Where is that even footing?

I’ve been playing 10.0 -11.3 usa whole day and can’t seem to find said footing.

I think what galls most people is the difference in how Gaijin treats NATO tanks compared to Russian/Soviet tanks. Several of the sources state it is more than “muh 5 hulls”, which is just a complete nonsense source that has no real basis besides stating that 5 DU Abrams hulls existed at that specific point in time.

And even if only 5 hulls ever had DU inserts (again, wrong), they gave the T-80B Agava-2 despite only a select few tanks getting it. The T-80U gets Agava despite only some being T-80UM standard. I’m sure if some rando said that the t-14 had a prototype equipped with a 190mm particle beam laser cannon able to turn a tank into molten sludge within microseconds of exposure and the guys only source was his sleep paralysis demon who told him in a dream, it would be in the game in a heartbeat.


I commented only on the vehicles themselves, not the level 20s crewing them