I have talked and studied about this subject for a long time. This is my longest message about it so far, I have made some mistakes and didnt include some thermals, but NGL I am already burnt out from even that amount of info.
Russian Kontakt-5 or relikt, YES!
China FY-2T/FY-2SH, NO!
2 Likes
Lead is well known to be one type of spall liner. It can be painted over white like any other metal and appear identical to steel painted white.
One of the many possible places I’ve seen DU be mentioned is also as a spall liner, i.e. it might be that the interior you’re looking at when it looks like that in some tanks is DU painted white, which would look just like steel painted white.
Lead (and maybe DU is even better at this, is the theory) are ductile and flexible and so catch spall without shattering.
Your actually serious about not knowing the M1s have DU armour huh?
As noted under M1A1 heavy, tanks with DU armour are identified by the U at the end of the serial number:
Like I said we know the M1s have DU in the turret.
1 Like
¯_(ツ)_/¯ I only feel your ill will toward China’s independent research and development of tanks and aircraft.
1 Like
And DU in turret is already represented in WT at least for M1A1 HC forward, what’s in contention is hull armor.
1 Like
The Yak-141 is not a double standard, why do people keep acting like it is? Four prototypes were made and the programme was cancelled due to lack of funding before they could be armed. Gaijin’s standard for such vehicles, for War Thunder’s entire history, has been that they can be added with their planned features. There are loads of examples of this, to name just a few:
- Ho 229 V3 - partly finished prototype, never fitted with weapons.
- XP-50 - single prototype, never fitted with weapons
- Sea Meteor - few prototypes, never fitted with weapons
- Swift F.7 - never fitted with cannon
- J7W1- two prototypes, never fitted with weapons
- S.O.8000 Narval - two prototypes, never fitted with weapons
4 Likes
Your document literally just says “DU Armor” not “DU Hull Armor”. That could be hull, turret, liner, who knows?
Meanwhile, your source also actually confirms that plenty of M1A1’s did NOT have DU, since it lists variants both with and without, so if Gaijin didn’t like it for game design reasons or whatever, they could accurately choose either one as “the variant in the game”: Basic or “D” or heavy or blah blah. So… kinda a weird source to give them.
1 Like
Photos there looked like smooth as a baby’s bottom white painted metal to me, where am I supposed to be seeing clear kevlar here?
Yeah 4 prototypes were made and we get some hypothetical production version.
Yet from their own source that they cling so desperately to we also know that there were at least 5 Abramses equipped with DU hulls and after that the US got unlimited licenses for DU equipped Abrams hulls.
So yes in a sense it is double standard, because the former was added and the latter is denied.
Perfectly acceptable to have China receive spall liners in their later tanks, obviously. Bias needs to be put out of mind.
Question, what do you think the M1A1 HC and M1A2s armour is based on?
Also I already stated the hulls armour is what is unknown, although personally I don’t think it has DU, I think they ended up using the non-DU composites that were comparable to HAP that GDLS had created in the mids 90s and early 2000s.
Your document literally just says “DU Armor” not “DU Hull Armor”. That could be hull, turret, liner, who knows?
All M1s since 1988 have had at least had DU armour in the turret thats isn’t up for discussion.
Meanwhile, your source also actually confirms that plenty of M1A1’s did NOT have DU
Yes the ones prior to the M1A1 HA did not have DU armour, however all US M1s since 1988 have had DU in the turret, also the M1A1 HC is basically the USMC variant of the M1A1 HA and the M1A1 D is an M1A1 HC that got a digital upgrade…
So no it isn’t a weird source, you just don’t have the basic info on M1s:
It is if you have no sources for it…
So no it isn’t a weird source, you just don’t have the basic info on M1s:
Guy who is allegedly the one providing the info (sources) for how he wants a tank to be, “You don’t have the info” … 🤔 Weird self-burn, but okay
I’m already bringing up the Leclerc on TikTok, but I’ll also address some of the other things concerning the Abrams and concerning the rest of the lines.
If they don’t want to give the Leclerc the same reload rate as the Type 90, fine, but split the difference at 4.5 seconds, my opinion.
Aircraft aren’t tanks and we have no rule setting for tanks other than their article a year or so back.
Which is why Type 10’s armor resists its own round and that’s it, it follows the rules set out in that article.
If we want the rules changed… suggestion and/or feedback form for 2024 roadmap.
Tanks aren’t aircraft, and no tank yet has broke their article’s rules and they really don’t want to start with ANY country’s tanks.
In which case the T-80B and T-80U are 2 other perfect examples of double standards from Gaijin against NATO tanks and their sources.
1 Like
Thermals on T-80U is just either that 1987 T-80U or serial T-80UM since 1992, which is what it seems to be considering it has 1991 shell as well.
T-80B could be taken as such but I think its just to put it at bigger BR with worse armour, as T-80BV cant mount later version UFP which is stronger than in game.
Than they should change the name to 80UM imo.
1 Like
Well they do terrible job on showing what version of a vehicle you have in game, at least RN with most soviet tanks, only exception being KVs and T-34s, T-54s
Excamples on where this thing IS present (how bad its done) All T-55s in game, T-62s, T-90A, T-80U, BMP-2/3, IS3/2, T-64B/BV, T-80BV, T-90M.
1 Like