That’s not how deduction works.
Supposedly the HA has first generation DU armor, and the HA+ has second generation (same as the HC).
Heavy Armor = Depleted uranium armor
per NRC not just CBO
Note: This is from 1996 so the hulls getting DU in 1998+ doesn’t impact the text here where it says its only in the turret.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1508/ML15083A448.pdf
Their margin for reducing the armor is very small, because according to recently discovered TACOM documents, they manufactured 4 In. DU billets for DU equipped tanks, but it is unknown how they used these billets. In the old forum, someone posted a source claiming that depleted uranium encased in steel was located in front of the 4-inch turret backing plates.
How do you guys get all these documents? Also M1A1 HC and M1A1 HA different right?
Google skillz™
Nah, but just learning how google prioritizes searches and how to add specific symbols to the searches to change the results does a lot.
I personally usually start with a reverse image search if it’s something new, sometimes people here on the forum add links at the bottom of their screenshots of the documents.
This topic was brought up and already answered by the developers 3 years ago so some of the documents are linked in the official post: ( Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams ).
Then you can see what the license number is and google that licence number to find related documents.
A great tip is to add " filetype:pdf " at the end of your search because then all results you get will be pdf files.
Another tip is to use the quotation marks " " to highlight words or part of the sentence that HAS to be exactly like that in the result.
2 Likes
This literally just helped me find a declassified technical report on the CATTB, which I had only been able to find through Scribd with its stupid ads every 5 pages. Thank you.
2 Likes
1000mm ke rha equivalent turret cheeks🤑
1 Like
not all assumptions are made equal.
Deep in the land of Mordor, in the Fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged a master Assumption, and into this Assumption he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life.
One Assumption to rule them all.
1 Like
I’m not entirely sure, I’m about to make a post in the correct forum containing all the information I found, and hopefully someone with some intelligence can break it down. I did find some very cool things though in my journeys.
you can reach other conclusions, a person can reach any conclusion they want, doesnt mean its a valid conclusion.
I would feel that it would be a fair assumption that a prospective DU Hull array it would have similar volumetric efficiency as the turret, which we have the improved values for provided by Gaijin and so just take the RHAe of the Turret array divided by the depth of the array (free choice of left or right array) from the turret and multiply the resultant value by the depth of the hull array to get an approximation.
The Block II SE upgrades was only actually deployed for the Turret initially. Said configuration for the Hull was developed and intended to be fielded as weight permitted, but we don’t know if / when it was refit other than it was the intent of the army to do so, and that weight saving were found.
Yes, there is also the “M1A1HA+” sometimes, as well just to fuck with you too. This likely indicates that there are other differences between the HC and HA tanks, that aren’t related to the armor upgrade.
Did the CV90 ever have it’s IR tracking installed? If it did, even if it was once, then there shouldn’t be no reason for it not to have it. But if it never did, then I understand the situation. Though, I do find it ironic that non-US Apache gets DIRCM on the pretense of, “it can be easily installed/compatible” regardless that it is more complicated than that.
I think they are going based off of compatibility and balance. They could give the AIM the KEW-A2 but that would require “balancing” but it wouldn’t really change much anything since the M1A2 is at 12.0.
This is where a part of the issue lies, if there isn’t a comprehensive guideline on what is and isn’t allowed then post like these come up.
I have no idea why the devs are trying to hold themselves to a “standard” they can’t keep.
The bug report system is also flawed because the burden of proof is up to the reporter to prove the devs are wrong. Instead, it should go both ways. Best way it can be done is to have a database of all sources used should be accessible to verify where they got the information from.
It would make the bug report system so much more bearable.
“But they can’t share their sources as some are from private archives, though”
At very minimum all they would need to do is provide a title, and cover page, and some way to reference a specific excerpt(e.g. figure or page number). Similar to the way we do for reports and let us track them down.
1 Like
Only ever proven in the Technical Demonstrator, which is why the LVKV 9040C has it in-game.
I think the biggest problem many have is that the CV90’s does in fact have a version of air tracking IRL, just in a way that is currently not a mechanic in-game yet. (TLDR; Laser pulse + trigonometry “cruise control” aim. Better explanation here: CV 90 MK.IV data and discussion - #104 by Necronomica ).
Agreed.
Apart of me feels like this is done on purpose to feign ignorance