Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

BOTH side hull armor and side turret armor would involve contamination and would need storage of the DU for them (whether uninstalling or installing either way, you’d need storage either before or after).

So if it meant both as different things, and sought to cover that all here, it would need to be a license for “storage of side armor and storage of side turret armor” AND “contamination from side armor and contamination from side turret armor”

2 things (storage and contamination) for 2 types of sides = 4 mentions of sides needed, two in each place.

You only have 2 total mentions of sides, 1 in each place. So it must be referring to the same side thing in both cases.

i think you are misunderstanding.

the turret already has DU in it at the point of this document. thus requiring contaminant storage for NON-DU parts that has been in contact with DU when removed.

the sides might not have DU in them thus NOT requiring storage for contaminants of NON-DU armor since that armor isn’t contaminated. why would the sides ne storage for contaminants if they are not in contact with DU?
the license grants storage, use and possession of DU. they might need to remove DU from other parts of the tank to get to the NON-DU armor in the sides. like if they need to remove the turret to get to the sides.

The front is mentioned in both as it already has DU in them and will cause contaminants and a need for storage since the DU will be reused and put back in.

1 Like

Meanwhile M247 was built to a prototype stage and was a useless paperweight which couldn’t work. Meanwhile in game Gaijin have used magic to fix it. But no, clearly proof of anti-US bias from gaijin…

1 Like

The biggest problem for the “D.U. in hulls” question is that when a tank has D.U. in the turret but not in the hull, that tank is described as “Improved frontal protection” “DOE armor” and “2nd/3rd generation D.U. composites” so these descriptors cannot be proof of hull D.U. composite, since they are very clearly often applied to vehicles without it.

Hence you must find documents which QUALIFY which composites have D.U.

So now we wait for the Abrams blog. I am seriously curious what sources they come up with.

I swear if all they come up with is the swedish tests and the 5 DU hull NRC document again, I’m going insane.

1 Like

I’m sure they’ll only use those sources, and they don’t care if it’s refuted by community sources.

1 Like

US mains should probably stop with the DU shit honestly, by 1999 the US non-DU armour package was meant to be comparable to the DU armour package offered at the time i.e. HAP-3, point of fact I wouldn’t be surprised if even the NGAP armour no longer used DU.

It is likely that in 2002 the SEPs had an improved hull that was improved without the use of DU.

2 Likes

So even when we have protection value for M1A1HA hull, it doesn’t prove that Abram hull armor was increasd over M1A1?

I’m sure that Russian HUMIMT is rattling to see some WT user his/her nerves and leak some intel on M1 armor.

Yep thats the reason to develop a new round to achiveve same capability like the previous one.
It is a good one, simmilar as: “Engineers managed to achieve the same level of protection while increasing the total weight”

3 Likes

So if the armor wasn’t reinforced on abrams, where all those bought packages of armor for hull (for which we already gave you the purchase documents) went then? To aliens? US government spend more than 100 milion of dollars on reinforcing the abrams hulls. What are you even talking about.

This is exactly why we are saying Russian Bias is present in game. For russia everything is taken as granted. For NATO even documents aren’t enough.

When you will remove the era blocks on russian tanks, since we have visual proofs from ukraine war about ERA packages not being filled with high explosives thus meaning that russian production tanks weren’t fitted with this package in it’s “test state”?

2 Likes

I love this reply :D

We won’t add better shell, because it won’t change anything, so it is not needed.

IF IT’S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING THEN IT SHOULD BE IN THE GAME BY NOW THEN.
You’re a bunch of programists, coders, you should know how implication and LOGIC works :D

4 Likes

They did not specify if they mean hull or turret because ANYONE that can use Long rod penetration estimation equation will know the real values with maximum of 5% divergence.

You want this in your public reports regarding something secret. Hiding information in plain sight :D

Literally all gaijin had to do was add the Abrams a spall liner and better hull protection, the leclerc’s a better reload, the leopard a hull equal to the Swedish one, the ariete better protection with the additional weight and adjust the challenger 2s mantlet and literally the majority of the community would rejoice… But nope they decided to add rank 8 will ALL the same issues as the same rank 7 vehicles…

2 Likes

The developers of this game are full of prejudice, arrogance, and stubbornness. When you talk to them about balance, they talk to you about restoring reality. When you talk to them about returning to reality, they talk to you about balance. The game developers and Mr. Balanikov just want to build their fantasy version of a strong Russia in the game. This is why game developers are full of prejudices against vehicles from other countries.

3 Likes

NO no no, they will tell you now how us engineers are so stupid now that they forget about using spall liners, even tho they were using it since M60 tanks :D

When we will show the reports for money spent on spall liners they will say it was for test purposes only.

MAYBE IF RUSSIA WOULD SPENT 1/3 OF US TEST FUNDING ON THEIR TANKS THEY WOULD BE ANY GOOD IRL :D

So SepV3 will be identical to SepV2 in game, because trophy was also tested on it.

1 Like

The entire point of the original report from Kenny was for better hull armor in general, DU or non DU.

It’s just that the devs turned it into the DU argument.

1 Like

“The source has no information about DU armor. Even if we’ll believe that SEP had DU armor in a hull, we still don’t know how the armor has been improved. Developers need at least some values.”

We gave them value in other bug reports but according to the devblog, they denied lol

1 Like

i doubt they will now, i pushed a bug report about the real name of the Tiger UHT which by gaijins standards should be the Tiger KHT.
guess what?
no response

in case anyone is interested to see the report:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/A5sGxG19dOvr
@Technical Moderators

1 Like

basically tells player to stfu, lmao

2 Likes

Which is my point, if you go through most of the documents added in that report (even those added by Kenny), and then look at all the other forums/reports, everyone goes on about it having a DU hull which is probably why the Devs are using that as a scapegoat.

1 Like