you obviously are new, since you dont know how many times gaijin have stated " historical accuracy "
all abrams after 1998 started receiving upgraded hulls
They advertise it as a realistic historically accurate game in their description, and ask people to give them historical documents, so yeah it is supposed to be
Why does everyone insist on using sources only talking about export models for the US as proof? They are inaccurate because they are export models, the US isn’t going to sell their best tech to other countries until it is almost obsolete. There is a reason the F-22 hasn’t been exported yet, just as there is a reason DU armored Abrams haven’t been exported.
1 Like
Because the guy I’m replying to specifically claimed Australia has tanks equipped with depleted uranium armour. I refute that, specifically, Australian Abrams tanks have depleted uranium armour. Perhaps other Australian tanks have such armour.
The left cheek, right cheek and frontal hull composite arrays are not identical. Different physical dimensions and volume for each piece, they are not interchangeable parts.
In the basic M1, all 3 frontal composite arrays are designed according to the same principle.
M1IP and M1A1 basic, they are using modified composites in the turret, but not in the hull.
M1A1HA/HC we see changing of, at least, front turret composites to a new type including some depleted uranium. How much depleted uranium or the exact composition of these arrays is unknown to me.
It is possible the dimensions of the hull composite array, in some way restrict the effectiveness of depleted uranium within the array.
Arrays are effective for holistic reasons to do with the reaction of the projectile and the different materials in the composite, the order, angle and structure they’re placed in and so on.
Slapping depleted uranium in or replacing a part of it may not be so effective, or may be even more effective. Simply it’s not necessarily predictable, so needs specific proof.
The existence of these prototypes at best indicates interest in wether it is feasible to cope with the additional weight of new composite arrays, at best it indicates a desire to replace these composites with different and heavier ones.
This is not evidence that mass production M1A1 through M1A2 SEP v2 include new arrays.
Again.
Documents showing there isn’t a specific limit to the quantity that could be produced using depleted uranium hull arrays, does not mean that mass produced vehicles include such arrays.
It means it is possible, not that it is certain.
The core point of this is.
- Gaijin has many Abrams variants using a frontal hull composite which provides the same CE and KE protection.
- Community members dispute this on grounds of historical accuracy.
- Gaijin requests evidence, to the same standard whenever any claim of historical fact is made.
- In order for the evidence to be acceptable, it must state in no uncertain terms, specifically words to the effect of “X Abrams variant normally (as part of mass production or a common/standard configuration) has a hull composite with improved CE/KE protection compared to older variants.” preferably with some kind of figures about how much improvement there is.
- Such evidence (to my knowledge) has not been produced.
Until that evidence is produced, there’s no historical basis for change. Most of it is documents which are very evasive and do not directly address the point.
All I’m saying is, if you want change, that’s the standard which must be met.
The other method is to make it a suggestion, but that would depend on the rhetoric and Gaijin’s whims.
I’m supportive of the goal to make War Thunder more accurate, I prefer it grounded in realism as much as possible.
The swedes tested the non-DU composite export armor. Its should’nt even be valid for the US Abrams.
1 Like
Didn’t the manufacturer claim it’s as good as the depleted uranium composite?
No, I need to dig it up but the internal report after its failure in trials caused development of traditional composites at the level of DU, hence why the AIM has comparable armor to the M1A2 or better.
2 Likes
Nope the Sweden export package was worse than the US DU armor. This was only fixed on export packages that were sent to Greece and Turkey later on.
8 Likes
The SUB-1536 was what Gaijin used for proof of DU being in the turret, but not in the hulls at the time. You don’t get it both ways. Especially when sources state that the SEPs and later Abrams variant have 3rd gen DU inserts.
There are multiple sources, including official government sources, that state 3rd gen DU includes hull armor.
3 Likes
GDLS wanted to sell the Abrams with the DU armor package, the DOD put an export ban on it. GDLS had to rush to make a non DU option that did not exist at the time. You are talking about “American Exceptionalism” while jumping to conclusions with zero evidence.
Remove your hate boner.
2 Likes
If what you’ve said is true and the evidence has been provided to Gaijin, I look forward to improved Abrams armour.
1 Like
They gave us faster reload, I’m trying not to be one shot. The problem is the Abrams in real life have a higher survival rate than in game because of its armor. Gajin is ignoring this.
Fix our ARMOR!
1 Like
None of this invalidates my hypotheses.
I point out that, the rhetoric of the justification given by McVey hinges upon it.
It’s a shock it didn’t win. America only makes the best tanks, is the implication, this is clearly a temporary aberration which is immediately rectified.
The evidence of those trials is it’s not the best and not even purely on armour grounds.
The US messed up quite badly in those trials, amongst other export trials for various reasons.
It’s a tank like any other, some strengths and weaknesses, suitable for some situations and not others. Clearly not suitable for Sweden, even if perhaps due to cost differences compared to refurbished 2A5’s at a mark down.
So now it’s corporate greed and incompetence?
They just didn’t think it possible someone would ever want a tank without radioactive armour, or that it’s something worth thinking about? Or that export could be blocked of such, presumably lucrative, armour?
I find the idea that depleted uranium is so important to be quite flimsy, also the idea that they’re caught so off-guard and unprepared that they can’t figure out a decent alternative, to be similarly weak.
1 Like
I think the anecdote about M1A1 up armouring is about how the depleted uranium is just somewhat better and not like a revolutionary improvement. Seems like it’s more to do with making efficient use of the existing volume. Or just having lots of the material around anyway.
Granted, I’m sure more advanced composites likely make better use of it. M1A1HA was early days with it.
I think it’s also about being scared that maybe 2A46 could deal serious damage, even though I think intelligence services knew the ammunition available wasn’t top of the line.
Also the US I suppose were anxious not to lose any soldiers, so they tried to ensure everything was as armoured as possible.
I think it speaks a little to how the M1A1 isn’t exactly massively well protected generally.
2 Likes
That’s fair. Especially considering there were many different programs to improve M1A1 protection, aside from DU inserts. There were parallel advancements in ceramic armor and laminate techniques.
2 Likes
We can have a WW2 only mode then thanks
I will never understand why you all keep typing this year after year there will never be a " ww2 mode "