No, budget report in 2007 talked of the original SEP having the improved packages. So SEP V1 late with DU very well should be a thing if they aren’t going to put it in all SEPs. (It is in all SEPs.)
1 Like
so then a V1 early would not have it but a V1 late would.
not the V2 as you stated previously?
Not always though, they added the JAS39C at the same time as JAS39A.
And no comment on adding non historical things for balance?
this is the line of thinking why it will never happen. Imagine not being able to play top br as a new player because you chose the wrong tree lol
yes ik. was just asking if you meant that doc
gotta make a bug article
1 Like
All the budget report states is that the M1A2 SEP tanks, which are being converted from M1/M1A1 tanks, have “improved frontal and side armor” which can literally just mean DU in the front turret only. Because the document is not specific about it.
agree, i added to my statement here:
Your line of thinking is forcing US players to use inferior vehicles. Why is that ok but not the other way around?
1 Like
then why would they then specify “turret” in other places?
Wrong, from the same document, they specifically qualify improved turret protection only when speaking about side armor.:
Then the other government documents that talk about the M1A1 SA and SEP programs incorporating entire frontal protection and a side turret upgrade.
1 Like
We do agree that the abrams side turret armour doesn’t include DU, right?
I’m not even asking for overperforming ERA or anything. Flanking is still a viable option, breach will still fairly consistently knock an Abrams out. Just asking for some form of parity on the latest model of Abrams to actually reflect it’s an upgrade instead of a repeat SEPv1 with emotional support tandem protection.
Which honestly the fact that ARAT 2 which is supposed to protect against tandem charge RPGs and doesn’t meet that requirement (750mm CE is the most common figure I see cited on the RPG-7 Tandem/RPG-29, but I need to do some further digging) is also pretty fucky considering it in-game only offers about 550 between the two layers of ERA + the hull itself vs Tandem warheads.
2 Likes
I don’t care what kind of god complex you have, but for the last time, when i answer to YOU, i’m not talking to this “everyone” you seem to see everywhere, but specifically to YOU ALONE.
WTD61: Wehrtechnische Dienststelle für Luftfahrzeuge und Luftfahrtgerät der Bundeswehr
Sie ist für die Erprobung von Luftfahrtgeräten für die Bundeswehr zuständig.
WTD61: Military technical department for aircraft and aviation equipment of the Bundeswehr
It is responsible for testing aviation equipment for the Bundeswehr.
Gaijin… they are the ones testing and integrating new weapons and Equipment.
Im so sure, gaijin just googled a skin to copy pasta the tornado with, without doing research on what WTD61 even is or what they do…
also good luck reporting… i have given up.
1 Like
No, but they never mention DU in the sides of the hull. It specifically mentions improved side turret armor with DOE armor, alongside the entire frontal armor improvement with DOE armor.
1 Like
"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 would they specify “side armor turret” and then “front armor” and “side armor” without saying turret if its not ment as the hull?
Bruh take it to the DMs both AlvisWisla and Kanelikainalo
This whole post has that same sort of insulting undertone to it as when Gaijin’s Creative Director came out and basically said the player-base was stupid and didn’t understand how F2P games work following the review bombing. The sheer amount of effort players put into those big reports, finding source after source, only to get this dev-blog…just wow.
16 Likes
It’s pretty great and amazing.
1 Like
“They” if everyone is arguing with you, don’t you think that it might be you that is the cause of the issue?
1 Like