Me: Here’s the VA saying that DU has been in turrets and hulls as armor components since 1998.
You: THAT’S NOT WHAT THE DRAWINGS WITH ARROWS POINTING TO COLORS SHOWS!!!
Me:…that doesn’t change the fact that the VA explicitly stated that DU has been in hulls since 1998.
You: You only want to believe what you already believed!!!
Maybe because gaijin only care about realistic when it benefits Russian tanks to meet demand of low skill russian main.
Is this the same Necrons aka (James vd Bosch) from the old forum and Reddit?
Given how what and how he speaks I want to say yes.
Also made me realized that he has been running around the reddit spreading falsehoods as well under the Bosch title, just put two and two together now.
Your most played vehicle is the KV-1E and you primarily play arcade battles. Let’s not dive into the interests of others as if it were a sin to enjoy a vehicle from under a different flag in a video game.
There is no point trying to convince other’s on the forum, the devs are very intelligent and have discerned the same conclusion as you. Likewise this is the spall liner discussion thread… there are dedicated topics for this conversation.
“…the devs are very intelligent…”
Is that why every reason they’ve given for the Abrams not receiving upgraded hull armor was already flawed and debunked? Like the license that actually doesn’t limit Abrams to only 5 hulls with DU? The fact that the Abrams has received multiple suspension upgrades over the course of its life? The fact that a DU armor package would actually be less dense than non-DU armor, and not need the volume increase they claimed would be needed?
Or the Stinger nerf…despite the official documents, tracking capabilities, and multiple experts actually proving why Gaijin yet again didn’t know what they were talking about and that their assertions were baseless?
Or what about the M735 nerf, which has been confirmed to have been improperly applied and based on a bad report with inaccurate data and conclusions?
The devs are not intelligent, based on these many instances of them coming to wrong conclusion given any opportunity.
Again, if Gaijin says DU must be in turrets because SUB-1536 has them authorized for DU use “as needed,” why doesn’t their same logic using the same official and legally binding document that also authorizes DU for use in hulls “as needed” mean that it is hulls as well? The license authorizes unlimited DU use in hulls and turrets. They just cherry picked a version of the license from Feb 2006. By Aug 2006, their 5 hull claims were incorrect, but they still choose the same license number to validate their decision. It only proves them wrong.
The reality is, between the m1-m1a1, there was no hull armor upgrade. The suspension was reinforced and adjusted to compensate for the extra forward weight of the turret.
The M1a1HA only had new turrets with the first gen DU armor. The first gen DU armor had increased ke protection, but was not as effective mass efficiency wise as the base brl-1 armor against CE.
This shortcoming vs CE led to the development of the second gen DU armor in the m1a2 and m1a1ha+(heavy common). There were several upgrades that were initially planned for production with the main, that were dropped due to not being funded. And the fall of the Soviet Union. Second gen FLIR, metal/ceramic backpack armor for the hull, etc.
I’m working on an Abrams development and evolution thread which will have many clear manufacturers and development documents that are approved for public circulation.
Can you explain why Gaijin wants to cite an older version of SUB-1536 as proof there are only 5 hulls when SUB-1536 doesn’t actually limit DU to 5 hulls since Aug 2006?
Or where the 1996 armor upgrade to be cut-in to production at Lima fits in following the FONSI of associated risks with DU use, tied to the same SUB-1536 document of Feb 2006 that also mentions the results of the FONSI leading to the late 2001 decision to continue with the AIM and SEP upgrades…in the same document that shows Abrams with DU hulls and the location of the DU?
Because since 2002, there are budget report forms showing armor upgrades. Some explicitly mentioning DOE armor, and the amount of upgrades implemented really seems to jump after 2006…when the 5 hull limit no longer existed.
There is proof that tanks prior to 2006 had no DU hulls in active service. This doesn’t prove that tanks thereafter DID. All it shows is that they could have.
Sure, but none of these explicitly prove the tanks had DU in the hull armor… nor do they show us what sort of improvements that would make in protection.
You should instead be asking why Gaijin insists on not making something up to improve the armor in lieu of real data, since clearly there were improvements made. Your crusade is in vein… and in the wrong thread.
Except that was their basis for MUH 5 HULLS. It explicitly stated that at least 5 hulls had DU in them. Here’s the older license versions in the same format.:
“This doesn’t prove that tanks thereafter DID. All it shows is that they could have.”
Why would the Army have bothered to amend the license to remove the limits then? The “as needed” status of turrets was conclusive evidence for Gaijin to include DU inserts in turrets. The Army requested specifically to remove the hull limits, and every amendment and renewal of the documents shows that turrets AND hulls have the same unlimited DU authorization. Tied to the obsolete version of the SUB-1536 license that includes the FONSI decision of 2001 and shows where the armor would go. That same document never mentioned how much the improvement in protection would be. That’s a red herring and you moving the goalpost.
It does show where the DU would be in the tank, and the same license removes all hull limits…at the same time you start to see more DOE armor upgrades after the Aug 2006 amendment of SUB-1536.
So which is it, SUB-1536 authorizing DU in turrets “as needed” means its obviously in turrets, or authorizing DU in hulls “as needed” means that there were only ever 5 hulls with DU in them?
The license and the attached documentation never specified the amount of armor improvement. But it was enough for Gaijin to add DU to the turret and buff armor. If DU is in the hull, shouldn’t it get the same buff they decided was reasonable for DU turret inserts?
This has already been stated in the other thread. Other people here wanted to take this thread in that direction. A little funny that a dev finally decided to talk about Abrams hull protection in this thread instead of the other, no?
“the devs are very intelligent” Nah not even close and Abrams are not the only tank they’ve ruined to the ground so i guess poor US with 40 percent of win rate continue meanwhile Russia still can have over performing armor and ERA balance isn’t it?
Not just tanks…multiple missiles and projectiles have been artificially nerfed on flawed assumptions, wrong information, and terrible interpretations of the data provided.
Tell me then, why M1E1 (M1A1 Prototype) had weight simulator on hull? Don’t temm me it’s because of turret, because turret had own mass simulators.
Between the M1 and M1A1 there had to be changes in the hull armor. This simulator reflected the added mass. Not necessarily because of the addition of depleted uranium. The armor structure could have changed, the NERA packages could have been thickened. They could have added an extra layer of steel. However, it is not true that the M1A1 hull was not modified.
Additionally, what does “KE backpacks” mean? There is no public information:
Correct me if I’m wrong but I dont think gaijin ever added DU to the turret since their using the armor values from the Swedish test trials which is a non-Du armor package.
They also use that sht to apply on Leopard 2A7V the tanks that have nothing to do with it and turn out it armor still weaker than Strv122
I guess they just increased the armor on the HA and HC variants then…without actually implementing DU like they claimed or having actual data on the performance improvement of the DU inserts.
Something something proof and conclusive evidence…but only when Gaijin cherry picks outdated documents or applies information about an obviously different version of the equipment to what they decide is going to be in game.
The Swedish test trials is the holy bible for gaijin. Imagine using export armor packages to model the armor of tanks made 30 years later lmao.
sooooooo they don’t I guess, they instead use a backing plate that’s twice as effective and basically does the same job. Kinda sounds like it should be modelled
Yes, it was stated that 5 tanks were tested with DU hulls and sit outside army schools. Again - not proof that it had DU in the hull in active service. The removal of the limitation does not suggest that they went ahead with DU hulls (yet)… only that it is possible. There have been many times they made something that simply wasn’t used in service until much much later, if at all.
Would you mind showing any of them that explicitly state the hull was upgraded with depleted uranium?
We know this because there is a myriad of other evidence to suggest it was used in the turrets. Drawing blanks on sources showing it was in the hull as well.
Only if the can definitively show that DU was indeed used in the hull of the SEPV2.
That’s just a tech mod. A user like you or me but with additional permissions who is volunteering to moderate technical support for the bug reporting site and such.
All he said is that he is working on a dedicated thread for such documentation and I assume to help clarify the sources and what they really do for us in regards to “proving” what has what. I haven’t seen sufficient information to suggest the SEP+ models would use DU in the hull, and as Gaijin showed… the hull weight remains the same from M1A2 to SEPV2 with the only change in total weight coming with the SEPV3… and it was 0.1 tons. You can see the enlarged tow points on that model as well.
There is of course the possibility that weight reduction was done in other areas of the hull, that the DU armor is the same weight as the armor that came before it, or a combination of the both. We have no hard data for this. As I said, you’re barking up the wrong thread about something that was already settled and done. Decided. The only way you’re gonna get any usefulness out of this conversation is if you provide Contraire with new documentation that corroborates the use of DU in the hull.
This is done to shift the center of gravity on the suspension to better replicate the future production tank. In this case, the composite hull armor might have been reinforced with additional titanium or reworked. Mass could have been added to the front such as the plow / roller mounts and they wanted to see how it would wear on the suspension. There are a number of reasons the mass is there and there was additional weight added to the front of the hull for the SEP, SEPV2, and SEPV3 demonstrators as well. In fact, I think every Abrams tech demonstrator has added weight to the front of the hull for the purposes of testing. That doesn’t mean it made it to the production vehicle. As we know, the mass of the hull did not change much from M1A2 to M1A2 SEPV2… remaining at 41 tons.
Let me correct the statement for you…
“Gaijin uses the best available information to model stuff in their game rather than anecdotal information”.