Again, you’re deflecting. The argument has been about DU in hulls. Not values, or methods. You’ve tried to insist there is no evidence of that. Now you are demanding evidence for an entirely different question.
1 Like
they are supposed to at the least ESTIMATE something.
Mmmm, an American bias claim.
Sir, there’s a special form. Go make your suggestions there no matter how biased they are.
Exactly.
Soviets having unclassified armor has given them far more growth in protection than other tech tree vehicles in War Thunder.
Sweden also has growth for similar reasons.
Due to rules made before modern armor existed in War Thunder.
Which is why I made a suggestion in special form to rethink how they rule on armor protection for most modern armor.
1 Like
The reason those things happen is because you can literally find reliable documentation showing the exact cross sections of those composites, the diagrams of their design ETC. It is easy to guess or make estimations about soviet and soviet-derived technology for no apparent reason whatsoever
Evidence exists, hence the game reflects the evidence.
The source is that the developers are Russian and the same standards of evidence DO NOT APPLY to their favorites. This sounds childish, but it’s so blatant that it is undeniable. They have no sources at all for T-80BVM or T-90M armor levels, but the questimate them. They cannot do the same for NATO countries, because of their personal biases.
2 Likes
Well again, so far the documents I’ve been shown on bug reports or in this discussion have failed to provide reliable evidence to back up the disputed claim that “SEP V1/V2 have D.U. composites in their frontal hull.”
the thing is, that “declassification” is on the T-72 *something .
how can they use that for all the additional armor added to the version newer than that one?
and i doubt that those documents talked about ERA not even built yet. they have to estimate those as well.
That’s not even remotely true. T-80B has a known composite array, the Relikt has a known schematic of its design. It’s not difficult to join such close and highly related dots.
And is that because that is actually true or because you hold NATO sources to different standards than Russian sources, like Gaijin?
Hell one of the tech mods almost passed a report on the T-90M to the devs that contained a single screenshot from a commercial as a source.
Only got stopped because another tech mod intercepted it.
3 Likes
Except there is no evidence of them using propaganda.
1 Like
still no anser on this one from you
Newest armor composite in-game for Soviets is 2004 with T-90A.
ERA adds protection, but under that is 1984 hull composite in the case of T-90M.
Relikt being the newest one in-game, and was shown in an expo or something else.
T-90M uses 1984 hull composite, and 2004 turret composite, with better ERA coverage.
1 Like
No. The evidence is there. You just don’t like it. Gaijin didn’t know how to cope either, so they are still preparing their mental gymnastics as to why they don’t “believe” the SEPs received the DOE armor packages that the licenses and budget forms show covered improved unqualified frontal protection and also the sides of turrets.
You can deny it all you want, but the licenses, reports, and budget forms show it happened.
There can be any number of reasons. The point is that it’s arbitrary speculation either way. The phrasing doesn’t lend itself particularly to either interpretation, It’s as equally valid in any of the possible configurations.
i have personally not seen these sources. but i wonder what makes them more acceptable than the ones provided for the L2A7V or (at least somewhat) the Abrams,
You know why gaijin doesn’t change anything in NATO tanks,because we don’t have a Russian who would enter the Abrams and record a video inside the tank about its armor, because we know that YouTube videos from random people are more reliable than NATO tests or documents.
Videos are not more reliable. Only players post the claim you posted.
Did new evidence appear saying “SEP v2 has D.U. in the frontal hull” according to two reliable sources?
No.
Your evidence is a series of shakey extensions and extremely wishful interpretations of a series of vague sentences.
D.U. hulls can exist in unlimited quantities.
The SEP is described in the congressional budget as having armour made with DOE involvement.
We both know that as an example the side of the turret is mentioned but is also not made of D.U. This indicates that the components of armour made by DOE are not specified in any detail, simple that SOME of the armour is DOE related.
Do you not see the problem with this?
it isn’t arbitrary, its an official government document with strict official language regarding radioactive materials. wording is EXTREAMLY important in legal documents.
if you specify “turret” somewhere and then not specify in another place then that text does not refer to turret anymore unless explicitly stated at the beginning of the document in the form of “henceforth” or “from here called”.
2 Likes
so since it CAN have DU armor and since the T80U CAN have thermal both should get it?
5 Likes