So glad that people have already bug reported it with numerous sources showing where the D.U Arrays were on the abrams, so people like you can keep wasting time making pointless posts.
Americans should swap games until they give us the armor. Also, when has an Abrams turret ever popped off?
1 Like
There has been one. It took an 1000 lb. IED.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fe2wm27nvmcx21.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dd42e16c4e60703f71a445bcfd2d628b811bac294
never from what i know
They dont even represent the tanks that were upgraded in 1998 :D, everytime i see the randoms keep brining up the " swedish test trials " i just sit back and laugh.
Hey you wanna post things? Ok, then lets go Shill.
1 Like
Try actually reading all the sources in the bug reports.
Nothing will change because the U.S. is very hesitant to allow anyone to make statements about the protection of current arrays.
You won’t find evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that D.U. is in the M1A2 SEP v1/v2 frontal hull arrays or that it improves protection against KE and/or CE.
If something does change, it will be Gaijin basically caving to complaints and submitting to pressure, nothing about decent evidence.
Links to;
“Forces Network.” a mouthpiece for the MoD (Very unbiased and neutral source.)
“Defence-UA” or properly “Defense Express Media & Consulting Company”
and finally “Newsweek” which uh “Unlike most large American magazines, Newsweek has not used fact-checkers since 1996”
and “CRUX” aka a mouthpiece youtube channel for the largest Indian petrochemical corporation, “Reliance Industries”
I really wonder what would broadly western aligned “sources” with quite obvious conflicts of interest have to say about such things.
Remind me again
lmao
Someone got really mad.
Love how I dont even need to say anything about sources, wasnt planning to really continue on with you but here we are.
Gaijin already made up most of the SEPv2 armor values, using documents from years before production even started as proof for their made up values. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, so it’s just as much on Gaijin to proof that the SEPv2 didn’t have DU armor as it is on the community to proof that it did.
And they could use the 50% increase in KE protection that DU offers on other vehicles already in game.
Or are you just threatened that you might actually have to aim as a russian main?
2 Likes
Yes, it’s all made up values, of course.
But I think Gaijin is at liberty to use their own estimates based on the research they’ve done and what’s been submitted.
We don’t know what research they’ve done and what sources they really have.
Gaijin have clearly decided there’s no hull D.U. They aren’t obliged to justify their decision.
If you want it to change, then it’s on the community to provide positive proof that there is such a hull array, what protection it provides and which variants used it. So far I haven’t seen any substantive evidence in line with Gaijins reasonable standard of evidence.
In any case, D.U. Isn’t a supernatural material, according to computer simulations it provides 20-30% more RHAE than steel, granted these models may be wrong and the kind of models required to accurately simulate these things are precious secrets. So where this 150% of 370mm (555mm) comes from, I am not sure.
Since I can deal with a BVM when I’m driving my Challenger DS, I can aim just fine.
I honestly wouldn’t care if the Abrams armour were made thicker since frontal hull shots in most situations won’t oneshot an Abrams, there’s also no composite in the turret ring, which is where you have to shoot to have a chance to oneshot. It changes almost nothing about how to practically deal with the Abrams.
I’m only being pedantic (if you can call asking simple questions, pedantry) to point out that, the evidence provided so far is simply insufficient to justify the change on realism grounds.
It does not make a convincing case the sep v1 or v2 have, as standard, a hull composite which provides meaningfully higher KE and/or CE protection.
My turret keeps exploding in my sep after this last update. I didn’t realize we kept our stored ammo in the bottom of the tank…
2 Likes
Its a video game not a simulator.
Yeah by using a document from 3 years before SEPv2 production even started.
It;s simple. We have the M1A1 in game without DU armor and we have the M1A1 HC in game with DU armor in the turret. comparing the protection values of the turret cheeks of these 2 shows that the HC with DU has 50% better KE protection than the M1A1 without DU armor.
So these are based on Gaijin’s values. So you can’t deny it without denying Gaijin’s values.
2 Likes
If that’s the only source they’ve got and there’s evidence SEP V2 is specifically different in armour from V1 then that’s not a good leg for them to stand on.
Why should two different composite arrays with different dimensions and internal volumes necessarily scale to the same degree?
I Don’t see it as a reasonable inference since the dimensions and volume of a compsite array largely define the parameters of its protection, just like how the types of threat protection define the materials within said array.
There are more reasons they are incomparable, or at least may not clearly be directly analogous, than that they are comparable.
Additionally, proof would be needed that the targets protected against are assumed to be the same. For all we know, front turret could be optimised against the expected KE threat and hull could be optimised against an assumed CE threat. Simply no way to know.
Why do you think M1IP improved front turret but not the hull? Why didn’t M1A1 basic improve the hull either? Why apparently wait until SEP v3 (which I do believe is where hull DU starts) before changing out the same composite from 1979? I don’t know, but it at least demonstrates some hesitancy to touch the hull composite for whatever reason.
They are 2 identical composites, except one has DU and the other doesn’t.
Except they did increase the hull armor, there are photo’s of the M1A1, M1A2 and SEP test vehicles all with weight simulators for the additional armor.
Why haven’t they been applied? Probably the same reason why some NATO armor packages are less effective in game than Russian rubber…
Their main evidence for no DU armor in the hull is a 2005 document stating that the US army only had licenses for 5 DU abrams hulls.
The same document was found from 2016 which stated that the amount of licenses was changed to “as needed”. Keep in mind that this couldn’t be the SEPv3 yet as that wouldn’t be delivered yet until 2019-2020.
The same document was again re-signed in 2019, which lines up with the introduction of the SEPv3.
It’s obvious that before this update Gaijin just picks and chooses sources to implement NATO vehicles in whatever screwed up way they wanted, while anything would do for Russian vehicles. It’s just that the community got sick of them pulling NATO values out of their ass and found some better sources.
9 Likes
abrams turret can be easily penetrated with dm53 at a lot of angles.
2 Likes
2 gen du armor, sepv1 have 3 gen du armor
