Except we have sources…including the license that Gaijin tried to improperly cite. It shows that DU has been in hulls, and that the 5 hull limit they harp on was removed in a newer version of the license only months after the version of the license they cite as proof that it must be in turrets, but only 5 hulls.
Between the hulls received unlimited DU authorization the same year the document shows the location of hull DU inserts, and the VA stating that hulls had DU armor since 1998, you can’t say there are no sources.
We CAN, however, show Gaijin’s faulty and flawed reasoning and logic. It’s been demonstrated repeatedly. The Abrams HAS received numerous suspension improvements over its life, and not just the early time that Conraire mentioned here. The DU armor WOULDN’T be bigger than the old armor.
This is exactly why it becomes a problem so you think smaller nation deserves to be left behind just because noone playing it instead of making worth playing well you are not the first person to say this
Even with source gaijin can literally ignore it Leopard 2A7v case are best example that they missing D tech armor with a lot of source provided and did it get fix? Answer is “No”
What gaijin decision standard at this point? Holy bible of Swedish trials? Man you really need to experience many thing yourself before saying that everything is fine
I hate to be a “historical” person, because this is a game, and no means a Sim, but the Abrams owned by America only, has, and probably never will be destroyed, the only account of KO was from IED’s disabling the tracks, or a Fratricide accident. So this isn’t a matter of if it has spall liner or not, it’s does it have the real armor or not. (I.e. It doesn’t, and Gaijin knows it)
Oh, and also, there’s this. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by ISIS
So no reported losses of Non-Export Abrams except due to Fratricide and to keep valuable info from falling into enemy hands. However, this is the Government we are talking about, just because they have power doesn’t mean they aren’t lying to us. There probably have been some lost, just as a benefit of the doubt, but you never know, maybe the government is telling the truth for once.
Again, reposting the same documents and spamming up the forum thread isn’t going to prove that they actually used the granted permission to install DU armor in the tank hulls.
That’s not what I said at all.
That is very clearly just you misrepresenting what Gaijin was saying, which isn’t surprising since you’re here trying to put words in my mouth.
I didn’t say it is “fine”. This is a video game, the developers don’t have all the information. Their reasons for doing so do not need to be stated or explained. I understand you are passionate about the issue, because you see it as an issue and they do not. They have told us what they need to make the change. It hasn’t been provided. Now you are seriously just derailing this thread over something that has been covered in great depth already.
There have been probably over a dozen Abrams destroyed from RPGs, anti-tank mines, IEDs, etc.
Here is one from an IED.
Three man crew, one died. Occured on October 28th, 2003. This was the first Abrams lost after Saddam was overthrown.
Curious, because they used that same document to say the “as needed” status was proof it was in turrets. The Army requesting and receiving an amendment to remove the old hull limit was done…just for funsies? …and that every version of the license since says that DU is used in both turrets AND hulls?
Strange, that seems to not support their claim that it was only in 5 hulls…and that other sources show DU is actually in the hulls.
You can try to deny and perform all the mental gymnastics you want, but Gaijin’s reasoning is flawed on many issues they tried to rationalize their decision about the Abrams.
Regardless, they used the same license as proof that it must be in turrets. When the same authorization is given to hulls, it must mean that they put DU in the hulls. If Gaijin wants to actually use their own justification on a version of the license that made their argument lose all meaning.
We have sources. You denying that doesn’t change the fact they exist.
You’re literally re-stating things I already addressed. There is a LARGE amount of supporting evidence to show that there was DU installed in the turrets since prior to the M1A2 existing. There is NONE so far for the hull.
Quit running in circles. You’re not gonna catch your own tail.
This is the closest you will probably see of anything literally says there is DU in the hull armor. All manuals that would support what you are asking for are classified and will not be unclassified untill 2029 at the earliest. For the SEP v3 fielding is not planned to end untill 2028.
To be honest, for me Wikipedia is a better source than what you write. You’re like a broken ChatGPT that thinks it’s never wrong. I have found out more than once that your level of knowledge is disproportionately low to your ego. But your calling F-14 or F-15 “3.8 Gen” fighters clearly showed this to me. No one has ever heard of “3.8” generation of aircraft. The moment you disagree with someone and you get irritated, you start to offend. Just like you did with @Dinfire saying that his brain is probably rotten from recording tiktoks. I could argue with you if you could show me a document that says exactly that it was a center of mass test. But I don’t want to talk to you.
I like how he toes the Gaijin line:
SUB-1536 obviously means it is turrets when they say turrets are “as needed” but only means they CAN put it in hulls when they say hulls are “as needed.” Clowns don’t realize the obsolete version they use to make their contradicting argument no longer helps them, and that “as needed” must mean it is in both turrets AND hulls.
Which, I mean, they never specified which M1 turrets specifically have DU. Are you sure DU is in production turrets, Gaijin? If they didn’t cherry pick an obsolete version of SUB-1536, they might have an argument. But they chose a version of SUB-1536 that wouldn’t support their claims in a matter of months when the amended version rolled out.
“NOT PROOF IN HULLS! BUT SOMEHOW PROOF IN TURRETS! GAIJIN DEVS SMART!”
Okay. We’ll just ignore every other time they’ve been wrong about the Abrams and many other things.
Unfortunately, it has been necessary. As Russian mains still come in saying something that has been disproven over and over again, and need to be shown these things over and over again. Yet they get hung up by a lack of colored pictures sometimes, or struggle to agree with Gaijin’s flawed logic of “as needed” must mean there are DU in turrets (unspecified turrets mind you) but “as needed” only means they MIGHT have put DU in hulls…despite being attached to a document that shows them having put DU in hulls and where it would be. “As needed” means it is in hulls too, fam. Cope.
