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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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 ).
1 Like
Agreed.
Apart of me feels like this is done on purpose to feign ignorance
I’ve read the whole 444 replies of the topic in a matter of a few days. And it’s honestly a confusing topic because of the way the documents have been written. I’m not saying what I’ll say will change anything but maybe it can help someway or another?
This has made me think of a logic Bearded is trying to follow and I think I can make a good example for it.
Let’s assume I got 3 boxes. Box A, Box B and Box C. Now in Box A I can have inside unlimited Non-DU Abrams MBTs. In Box B I can have DU in the turret Abrams MBTs. And lastly in Box C I can only have 5 DU in the turret and hull Abrams MBTs.
If I were to create an Abrams with DU only in the turret I’d obviously put it inside Box B. But if I were to make an Abrams with DU both in the turret and hull I’d want to make space in Box C (aka I’d need a license that allows me to do this).
In other words, if I were to only keep making Abrams with DU only in the turret why would I need to make the space of Box C unlimited (classified), if I’m not gonna put anything new in it?
Going back to real life. Why would the army classify the number of Abrams MBTs with DU in the hull and turret if they wouldn’t plan on making said Abrams MBTs? I’m pretty sure the Army/Government/etc wouldn’t waste resources on something it doesn’t actively planning on doing.
I’m happy to hear counterarguments, ways this wouldn’t stand etc. Now obviously I’m not trying to force-feed to anyone that DU does exist in the hulls of any Abrams other than the 5 training ones but I do think this is a good explanation as to why the limitation got lifted.
1 Like
The counter argument here is that the limit for physical amount of DU allowed to be kept, the limit for amount of turrets and the limit for amount of hulls are all in one and the same row. So to make one of them unlimited they made all of them unlimited by default. This might not be the case, but it is a valid possibility.
They also previously had to report how much DU they had and in what form it was stored and where due to that limit imposed. They removed the limit due to secrecy but also convenience as the way the DU was stored changed constantly from packages to being installed so to report each change every time (or even regularly) would be very impractical.
You’d be surprised how many prototypes never go further that just that, prototypes. (Also, i don’t think there is any government in the world that hasn’t completely wasted money in at least a couple of areas over the past couple of decades but that’s a different topic).
The biggest thing overlooked here is the fact that there were armor improvements, just maybe not specifically with DU. It’s completely absurd that Gaijin currently thinks the lower hull array was never changed from the original 1979 M1 Abrams array.
2 Likes
Hm. That assumes though that the US wants to simplify it’s systems. Which considering we’re talking about the (possible in the hulls) existence of DU, would make it weird and potentially dangerous? Also is it really impractical if there is already DU in the turrets? DU turrets already require a lot of work. But only hull-related limits changed classification status. So if they never intended to create/modify hulls with DU why would they bother changing a system that already works perfectly for the pre-existing DU turrets?
I mean… I guess. Prove me wrong but I think that although some prototype programs do require regulatory changes, they are most often than not tied with testing, expansion and applicability for the future and not dormant programs. Wouldn’t a permanent shift from a static, fixed limit to a classified quantity assume consistency with ongoing or anticipated use than a closed prototype effort?
Oh I know. And I honestly agree with this 100%. We have clear (as far as I can tell) proof that the armor between M1, IPM1, M1A1, A2 and SEP has changed. And I’ve seen people try and calculate the armor increase and whatnot based on the weight. And to be honest. Gaijin doing some guestimating wouldn’t be all bad considering some uh… Other additions we got in the game (-cough- KH-38MT -cough-). So yes. An armor upgrade is 100% needed. Whether it is DU or not doesn’t matter so long as it actually happens.
1 Like
Not really, as long as the Army conduct tests to ensure that crew aren’t exposed to radiation above the limit it shouldn’t make any difference.
No, all the limits changed in one go, the DU limitations were grouped together in one line and when the limit was removed it was removed for all things in that line.
It would make sense, but is still an assumption/guess and not really proof of it actually happening. Especially since the limit and licence is for more than just hulls.
Yeah no I get it. I’m not trying to make definitive proof. I’m just trying to assist in the possibility of DU in the hulls. Which takes me to this:
Neither my nor your explanation establish whether DU is or isn’t in the hulls. So since neither argument can define the existence (or lack thereof) of DU in the hulls then realistically the matter is non-conclusive, no? And also
I know. And since both your and my assumptions sound correct and could very easily be correct then I think this also makes this an epistemically capped matter.
So where am I going with this? Well. The sources are ambiguous. And they allow for more than one interpretation. So why don’t we instead close the matter of DU and focus on just the rest of the armor components? Like P51ACE said there’s no way that the Abrams has had the same armor since the 80’s. And if I not mistaken there’s already lots of proof showing exactly that. So maybe focusing on this can lead to better results?
1 Like
That has been my main stance in this entire thread :)
Absolutely the best option yes :)
1 Like
The problem is these reports sit on the bug report page and have yet to be implemented. A lot of people are more than happy to accept fixes to things they can change (bulkhead, turret ring, gun shield, etc), but there is still no action. And I would have thought since an Abrams of any kind came last update, that they would try to implement some of these fixes to line up with the last update, still no changes. So people circle back to this topic.
I am not up to date with this entire drama but are there any documents hinting at how big of an improvement the DU hull is armor wise?
True. And to be honest I think bringing whatever we have here can help with hopefully having changes made. Still kinda baffles me how we got the same hull for like what? 10 different Abrams?
If I’m not mistaken there’s nothing that points to how much more effective the DU hulls could be. But we do have (in other topics, bug reports etc) that the armor has definitely changed and with some rough calculations how much. If I recall correctly there was a topic few months back of someone who calculated the armor increase in the hulls of the Abrams based on the weight increase per generation and weight of materials.
2 Likes
How is he patient? He just says no, because of his own, very specific interpretation that doesn’t follow the rules of interpretation of official/legal documents, where a single term has only 1 meaning. If document is listing improved composite hull, and in other case, heavy armor hull, it’s clear as day hull “heavy armor” has to be significantly different ftom “improved composite”.
And since “heavy armor” can be added to hull OR turret (since the document stated it’s been added to hull AND turret) it’s clear both received an armor upgrade based on similar technology and materials.
Truth is, Gaijin doesn’t want Abrams to be buffed, period. This whole talk is just cat having an argument with mouse. Cat can do whatever he wants, and will get applauded by “community” which is too scared to lift their heads anyway, and I’m fairly certain I’m heading for a ban right now. Cheers
It’s more so that they don’t want to do the work needed to actually fix the issues, which is why the reload buff (10 RPM > 12RPM) was implemented, in place of trying to address any of the existing reports that might fix things.
Further there isn’t anything available that really quantifies any such improvement in terms of the Array’s protective qualities, for the interim models between the Baseline M1 and Swedish export Hull(M1A2). And Gaijin refuses to estimate (or even interpolate) these things for arbitrary reasons.
if you guys all donate $10 or so to me ill buy a abrams and measure it for buffz pinky promise