it was brought up but the devs were wrong
as proven within a day of them posting it Community Bug Reporting System
That doesn’t prove any upgrades to armor in the hull though.
Same as the limits removed. It allows for that to happen but doesn’t automatically mean that it did in fact happen.
1 Like
yes, but the devs have thrown out every source for upgraded hull armor under that faulty reasoning
to this day there has never been a source that actually proves hull DU
yes, but there are tons of sources proving the hull armor has been upgraded
Why not just admit that you’re following the Gaijin guidelines and doing everything possible to prevent the Abrams from getting stronger based on circumstantial evidence? The documents provided by the player clearly show that SEP and SEP V2 should have uranium armor in their hulls, but that’s not in Gaijin’s interest, so you’re trying to persuade the players that they’re mistaken, even though that’s not true.
It’s not faulty reasoning, it’s standard logic for any science.
You are not limited or stopped from buying 500 cats, that must mean that you have 500 cats right now in your house right?
is throwing out sources that prove the armor was improved because they dont say suspension was improved, and then throwing out sources that say suspension was improved because they dont say armor was improved not extremely fault reasoning
especially because included in that is them throwing out sources that say both were improved
I have not personally seen any direct proof of DU in the hull.
I would have no issues with adding armor upgrades to the Abrams, i’m not required to “prevent the Abrams from getting stronger”, i’m completely free to my own opinions on vehicles and what i think they should or should not get in-game.
I’ve taken larger part in trying to gather sources for this (read through the main Gaijins Official Answer for the Abrams armor and you’ll see my comments in there), the IRIS-T SLM and the JAS39E , i try to judge sources based on Gaijins standard and if i think they would pass the standard for reporting or not. You are free to look at my comments in the IRIS-T SLM and the JAS39E threads, i have done the exact same for those threads and the JAS39 serries is one of my absolute favourite vehicles.
1 Like
I have already stated several times in this thread that i think that there is absolutely proof of the armor increasing for several of the Abrams and that should get an increase in armor.
What i have seen no direct proof of is the DU in the hull. Though i really do fail to see how that is the important part if an increase in armor can be proven to begin with.
I agree with you
I just dont like when people bring up that dev response because it has been proven to be based on false assumptions
and has been used to close bug reports after its been proven to be incorrect
so think its important to mention it so people dont keep trying to use it to prevent any hull armor improvements like ive seen before
The DU part of that response has to my knowledge and from what i have seen yet to have been disproven.
The general armor part i have not really gone that deep into, but from the little i have seen it looks at least that some of it has been disproven.
their entire argument against general armor improvements was that the suspension wasnt upgraded
so it has been entirely disproven
most of the post was about DU, and not even that much proving that it doesnt, just saying that a lot of the sources for DU are bad
Fun fact, the eRHA of the composite sideskirts is less than the thickness of the RHA included within them. They give ~20mm to 30mm protection when they should be at minimum 40mm. From my analysis of the blueprints in public domain, the composition is 30mm steel, then 10mm rubber, 10mm steel, another layer of 10mm rubber and a final 5mm steel layer for 65mm total but more than 40mm steel within.
2 Likes
They do not.
This is simply people reading what they want to read, and conviently leaving out important context so that the text suits their pre-established beliefs.
2 Likes
He is stopped from buying 500 cats. I doubt he has the money to do so or the funds to maintain them. He has no place to keep them. Also I doubt he could meaningfully find that many cats being given out in his area assuming he has a job/school. There’s many factors keeping him from getting 500 cats. Not a good analogy (imo).
I find your analogy of what’s stopping him more odd than my original comparison.
This would be equal to bringing up the US budget as an argument for DU in the hull.
This would be like bringing the argument of lack of parking space for the tank hulls.
This would be like arguing that there isn’t enough Uranium in the mines in the US.
Perhaps that is because what I said wasn’t an analogy? Like at all. But rather a notation of how non analogous your analogy was, and how he’d be personally impeded. There are forces outside authority that effect decisions like that which was the point. You’re mixing up analogy & “listed critique”. Which are vastly different lmaoo.
1 Like
Analogies are used to enhance understanding and they highlight the important similarities for the purposes of improving another persons understanding of something. They don’t have to be EXACTLY the same in all regards for it to work, otherwise the use of analogies would have no point.
So in the aspect of; “one thing no longer hindering an action doesn’t automatically mean that that specific action was performed” my analogy works.
Yes, their armor hasn’t changed for 40 years, of course it has, we believe