I agree. Abrams does not need a faster loading rate. It needs its proper armor. 10 rounds a second is balanced.
It never said the DOE armor wasn’t a part of the turret side improvement. Show me where it says that. It still states DOE armor was used for unqualified frontal protection, and also side turret protection. It never said the armor wasn’t DOE. All of the armor upgrades mentioned in the SEP authorization line items are said to be DOE armor.
But you’re gonna deny the SEP armor upgrades and the licenses, official government documents, because you can’t read and are now trying to create an argument that was never made about the side turret armor?
You’re breaking it down to something it’s not. The official documentation states “DU in Hull and Turret.
Turrets never had any limit. You’ve said this was obvious yourself. Where in these documents does it say non-DOE armor for the side turret improvement?
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/e/c/ec3e76a79e8c8833f25d7ce8a908a659b897993d.jpeg
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/d/7/d73c69574c93a8cb45c4aa6b4c0eb2a68cc4eaf9.jpeg
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/3/f/3f1574a4f3beac04b2d758aada1f6d5eb2228146.jpeg
All of these documents indicate that DU was a part of all of the upgrades, but the only improvements in side armor were in the turret. The frontal protection was unqualified.
1 Like
You will notice that these documents are written extremely poorly. They are legal documents following official code, but they are also written only in very specific contexts.
As an example, the document amending the hull limit doesn’t specify variants it can be deployed on because that’s outside the purview of the document.
Similarly the congressional budget document does not specify how the protection is improved, it’s merely summarising in broad strokes, the program goals. In the same way the document specifies that “the armor” being specified as a continuous entity in a very broad and unspecific category, is made by the DOE.
This is what makes them bad sources, they are vague because it’s outside the purview of these documents, hence they don’t provide the useful specifics necessary to prove to Gaijin.
Quit trying to dodge. You’re changing the question. The question was DU in the hulls, which your original point was to come in here and say this proved nothing about DU in hulls. Despite the licenses, reports, budget forms…
Quit inventing new questions to try to deny the evidence that you are unhappy about.
1 Like
Yes. The frontal protection is unqualified. But that’s not an indicator that there is definitely depleted uranium in the hull.
It’s unqualified purely because this document isn’t intending to qualify the actual specification of the protection, just to summarise in very broad terms.
That’s it, that’s my point.
You want specific buffs, provide specific evidence.
You’re doing the equivalent of blindly trusting a used car salesperson.
so you think new shell has any meaning? have to aim for weak spot anyway.
and when you have a fking skyscraper level of tank running with no armor and instantley dead crew a loading speed donesnt meaning shit
The license is quite literally the only meaningful scrap of evidence. It’s the only document which directly comments on depleted uranium hull composites. Every other source dances around the fact.
“Unqualified purely because this document isn’t intending to qualify the actual specification of the protection, just summarize in very broad terms.”
My dude there is a thing called educated guesses (and even then we know from other sources the approximate protection values).
1 Like
the size of M1’s neck that has absolutely no armor can fit your all family in and get penetrated by anything.
Is my stats on m1a1 aim ok (I’m sure it’s skewed a bit cuz of tier 3 apfsds) it is my first real mbt and I am asking here because I’m sure there are many experienced USA mains on this thread
Gaijin doesn’t accept guesswork as a source. They accept documents proving the presence of depleted uranium hull composites in specific variants of tanks. Either produce this evidence or accept the current protection numbers.
Have you forgotten about what youve been doing for 10 years now?
If a tank doesnt match its performance target you buff it with:
new ammunition, if m829a3 is not enough put m829a4 on the damn thing.
New armor package like you did with the T80 that recieved add on armor later.
Or and this might sound insane, reduce their BR??
YOU CAN’T EVEN USE YOUR OWN TOOLS CORRECTLY OTHERWISE YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THE PLATES OBSTRUCT THE COMPLETELY GREEN AREA OVER THE FRONT
We have performance gaps in this game that old gaijin would have nuked with +2.0 br nerfs and you just let them sit here ruin the experience for years.
You say you want to keep diversity in the matchmaker yet half the jet Battleratings are not playable because you ignore issues in balancing for over 5 years now.
1.3 (!!!) br difference for going from 4(8) 12mm to 4 20mm
0.3 (???) br difference and you get a MACH 2 capable plane, 400km/h top speed on the deck, 4 times the climb rate, a vulcan and a2a missiles
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH THIS
HELL WHAT IF YOURE UPTIERED?
have fun trying to catch a plane going more than twice your speed literally everywhere while one of the best dogfighters with 8 times your effective climb boom and zooms you to death.
Or how about we go back to the f8f example. They are completely matched performance wise, equal. Just armament that changes, hmm that reminds me of something.
Oh, established battleratings for years. Gaijin must take capabilities provided by weapons very serious if 20mm upgrade results in 2 full br brackets. Hm surely this will reflect in top tier right?
hm, i guess the armament is not that much better, its just a 23mm in the end and 50cals do have alot of ammo so i guess this is understandable?
Hm yea the rate at which technology advances trough the trees truly is equal at every BR. You don’t have shoehorned 40 years of jet development into the same timeframe that we have reserved for the last 3 years of WW2.
So now lets finish your statement here
See im very glad you think 12.3 are as busted as ever against 11.3 because if you fight a su27 with r73, r27et and r27er in your mirage f1 there really is no difference to fighting a mig 29 with r27er and r73 because both are equally gonna let you have zero chance.
12 Likes
MY DUDE HOW DO YOU THINK THEY DETERMINE THE VALUES OF CLASSIFIED ARMOR? IT’S CALLED EDUCATED GUESSES BASED ON DATA THAT ISN’T CLASSIFIED.
We already know how much better DU is compared to more traditional armors, and we already know how much more weight the extra armor adds. It is basic math to find the approximate armor protection.
1 Like
The only thing that is qualified is the side protection, mentioned only in the turret.
Before you said it was obvious that unspecified M1 turrets having unlimited use was obvious. Then when the hulls get the same status, and the entire frontal protection was improved with DOE armor, you then tried to claim that the side armor was non-DOE even though all the documents you are trying to discredit have said the exact opposite.
DOE armor is used in SEPs to provide improved frontal protection. Full stop. Don’t want to confuse you. The only area that got improved side protection was the turret. That was said to have been done with DOE armor as well. The licenses are unlimited for turrets and hulls.
Then you go on to say the document claimed the side armor was non-DOE armor. It never did. You also claimed we needed proof M1A2 SEP hulls could mount DU. The license showed them as early as M1A1 HA hulls. Which by your standards and logic means it must be in all hulls of M1A1 HAs and later Abrams variants.
You claimed you can read, but you keep making claims and assertions and trying to make arguments no one made. You are only denying evidence while providing evidence that you might not actually be able to read.
2 Likes
Nono, I’t does specify, it says M1, that includes ALL variants of M1. Which means that It does not for example include M60 tanks or Bradly’s or Strykers.
3 Likes
Why do you even think the DOE would be involved with providing the armor if it wasn’t DU?
Okay. Because you’re illiterate, maybe these picture heavy documents will help.
The SEP budget line items mention the DOE armor also being applied to the turret sides. With the license that shows even M1A1 HAs can mount DU armor arrays in the hull. If it’s good enough for the DU turrets you accept no problem, this is more than enough to justify DU in hulls. Because it is in the hulls. Deny it all you want, reality doesn’t care.
2 Likes
