you mean this from 2006?
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/392992316572434433/1187105071465500672/image.png?ex=6595acc0&is=658337c0&hm=91e83325f189db5ea67c95ac6256a3c87dbc12a019f849ece6ee313bdb27c22c&
1 Like
Because it is simply not at all difficult to find pretty clear evidence Depleted Uranium composite arrays were deployed in the turret.
Since Gaijin approves this evidence and considers it relevant enough to cite when deciding not to put D.U. arrays in the hull of various Abrams variants, I would say they won’t approve a pre-2006 variant getting D.U. in its hull.
Personally I don’t see evidence that SEP v2 is specifically uparmoured compared to SEP v1, which is a design pre-dating the aforementioned restriction. So that’s how the logic goes.
Yes, it has been proven that this source is outdated and wrong relating to the M1A2 SEPv1 and SEPv2.
2 Likes
Edited post with more info just as you answered.
as most other sources say; all of the M1 variants. even the base ones got upgraded and changed.
Not that i’m arguing that all of them in game should get it, that’s not faceable and Gaijin usually implement a specific year variant to avoid confusion and make BR placing easier.
But at the least they should put it in the newest variants. otherwise what’s the point of grinding and unlocking a new vehicle for it to be the same as the old ones in a vast majority of ways.
They have previously implemented things with even less evidence of features and values so why not here? They arbitrarily added Skyflash and AIM9M to the JAS39 for the sake of balance. so why not here?
1 Like
Yes. Notice how it wasn’t even specific about which M1 turrets were allowed “unlimited” DU use.
Then look at this document that amends the same license, License Number SUB-1536, granting turrets and hulls the same authorization, all limits removed.:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0624/ML062410022.pdf
Stamped Aug 2006, amending the Feb 2006 license in its entirety, removing any limit on hulls.
3 Likes
Gaijin picks and chooses its sources, data and standards to fit the game they want to create. No amount of information or documentation will convince them to change their mind.
It’s a fight we’ve been losing forever. This whole discussion is a charade. They want the players to feel like our input matters. Meanwhile, they ignore hours, days, weeks or months of work. Sources we paid for. Data we’ve collected. It’s all a sham.
8 Likes
Exactly like they always do with each and every nation.
The game would be really messed up if they min-maxed every vehicle with no regard for balance.
The SEP V1 program was still running in 2006, chief. This is when the 3rd gen armor packages were being developed. SEP V2 didn’t start until 2008. SEP V1s should have the DU in the hull. Period.
You claim they ‘weren’t specific’ about which hulls. Guess what, the same document you use to “MUH 5 HULLS” never specified which models of turrets had DU. The same ones you are claiming are obvious and were specific about.:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
"2. Maximum Amount which will be Possessed at Any One Time - Unlimited for
the M1 Series turret and 5 DU Armored tank hulls (The 5 tanks with DU hulls are located
at Army Schools). "
1 Like
They usually add the earliest variants first though. See F-15A, T-90M 2017 (pure russian bias 4km/h reverse speed) and so on.
Like imagine this is SEP v2 early, maybe SEP v2 late with DU hull or something.
Adding weakest variants first is good, gives them legroom later, makes existing lineups better with less powercreep. Granted they always ruin it with hesitancy to decompress BR.
I can read. The point is that 5 hulls max and no limit to turrets, means if someone says “hey the M1A2 has a DU turret” gaijin can say “yeah that fits, fine.” there’s no special inference there, these two fragments support each other.
1 Like
----> V2 <----- its literally “version 2” its not an early version. i would get not having it in V1.
2 Likes
Balance would be fine. There may be gaps in tech trees but these artificial buffs and nerfs just piss off the player base.
3 Likes
Would you prefer everything be accurate and top tier be exclusively Leo vs Abrams?
1 Like
Your posted bad take doesn’t help discussions.
1 Like
Frankly I would prefer Gaijin not laughing in the face of us bending over backwards and rejecting newer sources that are much more up to date with older sources that are in fact outdated.
3 Likes
I mean that, as @Count_Trackula has pointed out, D.U. hull arrays are unlimited from 2006 onwards but SEP v2 is from 2008 onwards, so it is technically possible for SEP v1 tanks which started manufacture in 1998, to be manufactured from 2006-8 with these composites.
“M1 Series turret.” Then why is it obvious? Because you’ve stated you believe M1A1 HA/HC and SEP V3 have DU hull armor, for whatever reason. Why is the same logic of unlimited turrets being fine and obvious somehow now completely mysterious and not possible for specific variants of your choosing? DESPITE government records and budget reports showing the SEP improved DOE armor going into M1A2 SEPs.
2 Likes
Yes. If that meant Gaijin wouldn’t nerf vehicles, I would sacrifice top tier balance. Reality isn’t balanced.
I agree with the sentiment but gaijin hypothetically cannot simply come out and say “Russian tanks are worse than NATO tanks so we’re just going to match some of the newest russian tanks with stuff from the 1990s”. Either way there would be outcry