That is a problem of your reading comprehension and not the provided documents.
4 Likes
Yes. Now find a second source since Gaijin always asks for two to corroborate.
Sorry here is a better version:
4 Likes
I mean you can complain about it. But Gaijin is quite specific in this devblog they haven’t read any good evidence. I happen to agree with them on this.
Want things to change? Find better evidence.
Done. Its like people always forget the previous sources. I think we might just have to include an entire 1 picture that has them all or the gold fish memory kicks in.
21 Likes
Separate source, first one I posted is Tanks by Michael Haskew. This one is Armored Cav: Guided Tour, by Tom Clancy.
4 Likes
you sure its page 176? that page is about system engineering with no mention to armour. heck the entire pdf doesnt reference the M1A1 heavy or DU when doing a search, sorry if im being an idiot just wanna make sure is all
Gaijin decides what is a trustworthy source based upon their opinion and not fact. Real Official documents are being denied. We saw this with the stinger missile where they said and i Quote. We dont “believe” it can pull 22 Gs. Believe being the key word here and denying actual sources.
12 Likes
If they don’t want to give us DU armor it’s… ok (not). Then give us the upgraded hull front armor starting with the M1A1 HA/HC which should bring the hull front armor to 500-600mm RHAe vs KE.
-
M1A1 hull front armor weighs 3,115lbs.
-
M1A1 HA hull front armor weighs (Unknown).
-
CATTB hull front armor was not upgraded over a unspecified M1A1 (M1A1 HA) and weighs 4,060lbs.
-
If the CATTB’s hull front armor is the same as the M1A1 HA, the M1A1 HA hull front armor weighs 4,060lbs.
-
“As of 1989, the frontal armor of the M1 tank has risen to 1000-1200mm RHA against shaped charge and 500-600mm against kinetic energy projectiles” which tank was in development in 1989? The M1A1 HA.
The M1A1 HA (1989) clearly has upgraded armor over the M1A1, or they installed a new 945lbs radio inside the hull front armor module?
9 Likes
Gaijin addressed this source.
So I would say that you might be able to justify inclusion of the hull composite.
1 Like
ah sweet, its 176 in the document but page 188 in the pdf thats why i couldnt find it
Daniel already provided more.
1 Like
Never trust digital page numbers as a heads up for research.
1 Like
@Stona_WT so you want to tell us that those 5 abramses in tank school have armor that is worth more than 100 million of usdollars? Only FY2004 states 89.7 Million dollars for hull uparmoring :D
And i was thinking that leclercs were expensive, while only hull armor for abrams costs 20 mil bucks XD
6 Likes
The point of this is the usual point.
Marketing brochures make claims, which are technically true in very limited circumstances.
Is it at all possible a stinger can pull 22g? Yeah probably, but since Gaijin AFAIK implements single axis G pull in a more general sense, then they can turn around and disagree with it.
Plane G load is a good example, because those use sets of curves giving you a lot more information and they specify fuel loads, various altitudes etc. It’s a comprehensive set of information.
“Can pull 22g” is a statement which needs some more context to be usable.
If you want historical accuracy, then give it the M829A3 from SEPv2. If you think the M829A3 affects game balance or is unimportant, then give the DU armor back to the M1 series. If you don’t want to give M1A2 new shells or armor, then please lower the weight of M1A2 and above. I think the gaijin team just needs a reason to refuse to strengthen the US land combat technology tree, rather than considering the problem from a real or balanced perspective. As a game developer, this game development team is undoubtedly unqualified or failed.
9 Likes
You guys have some audacity to try to place this as a source when it absolutely doesn’t even go up to your “standards” of historical reports.
Nowhere on this document is the M1 variant specified, nowhere does it say “M1A2 SEP V1” or “M1A2 SEP V2”, if this document had pointed at DU inserts on the hull, you would have very much denied it. As far as anyone is concerned this document could be talking about the M1A2 base variant.
This is just a fallacy, just because you don’t see a massive increase in mass does not mean DU inserts were not placed, you can’t just assert that. Usually in these engineering projects, specially when it comes to heavy vehicles that require certain upgrades that would at the base significantly increase the mass, other parts are optimized, there are a thousand ways to reduce weight by switching materials, using new forms of conception and geometries that reduce volume without increasing internal stresses, obviously this isn’t cheap but there’s a reason why the SEP program is worth hundreds of millions of dollars…
18 Likes
Clancy making a guess that some parts of the front probably contain DU isn’t very convincing.
Note he uses “hull” in the third instance to describe the metal surrounding the composite, not the hull of the tank.
Off top of my head there was briefly a period where they were looking into swapping the hull armor back-plates with titanium alloy to save weight. I don’t think we’ve ever seen the Army confirm they in fact did that though. We know they swapped the blowout panels and the gunner sight cover with titanium though.