Modified M60’s used M900’s during Gulf War.
As you can see, topic is still opened.
If we will have something to add to it, we will do it here, or in new article.
Breaking forum rules will only put punishment on your profile, that’s all.
Please RE-READ forum rules before you post anything else. Cheers!
6 Likes
Oh no, Stona in red 😨
-
Amendment no 9 clearly says that it’s based on the 22/02/2006 application. So 5.a.2 is part of it, unfortunately, we are missing the first points 1-4 so there is some unknown ground. It could just as easily be a simplification of language if we look at 6." Pumose(s) For Which Licensed Material Will Be Used.
The license is for the use of DU material utilized as Armor in tank turret/hulls of the
Abrams MI series tanks at the locations listed in item 3 above. The turrets and hulls are components of the Abrams M1 series tanks. The scope of the license is for field (user) possession, usage and storage only. The license does not cover repair or maintenance work directly on the DU Armor." There really is no reason for pointing out the hull limit. -
No, it really doesn’t and doesn’t say DU in the hull armor. If you read the paragraph it says "This option would include a program to convert oldest Abrams. I, and I think most strongly suspect that the IP/A1 update already changed the Hull armor some so to update the hull would require change the hull armor and if you go up a bit you will see that the UK provided the US with a new version of Chobham in 1990 that was more effective against CE, incorporating this in the “short front hull” seem like a good idea.
-
I think it’s very unlikely that plates of titanium were used in the hull, Steel is more effective than titanium in stopping penetration when it comes to distance, so by using Titanium you are using an expensive material that needs to take up more room thereby lowering your protection against CE weapons.
I am not sure I am understanding you completely here, why do you call it misleading that there are differences in load that’s the whole point of the paper to create a hypothesis for a suspension where both tires of a roadwheel is loaded evenly.
It’s easy to say “switch weight around a lot” but you stil have to keep the heavy DU armor upfront in the turret. You still have to add weight to the engine area to balance out the front full armor, so every time you add weight to the front hull you have to add just as much to the rear to keep the tank reasonably balanced. So, for every ton you add to the front hull, you add ~2 tons to the vehicle overall.
I answered this previously, but I see why its confusing, what I meant was that Inetres doesn’t have any speculations but are merely re-reporting official releases about features added to the Abrams.
Why do You assume that this 380mm plate is even correct?
Like Santa, but the one who brings coal, bans and salt tears ;)
Guys, we are reading your posts and pass your concerns to Dev team (like we do with all the topics like that).
Swearing, insults, personal trips against people who got different opinion and different point of view than you, other rule breaking posts is making our job much harder and move this discussion thread on much lower level.
Leave the trolls without food, they will go away.
And in meantime, have a great Christmas :)
17 Likes
I get it that insults and swearing is meaningless but sometimes it’s difficult when Gaijin seems to be completely blind to some documents and raports and on the other hand they nerf FW on a whim without any solid evidences.
5 Likes
You too :)
2 Likes
I assume that part of the dev team is also celebrating christmas right? I guess larger balance changes likely aren’t expected to happen until at least late ish January right?
Merry Christmas too you as well!
HAP isn’t Chobham 2.0, that would be Dorchester. HAP was no longer really considered “Chobham” like BRL was, probably because HAP has quite a unique layout.
Also what Flame is talking about has nothing to do with the 2002 improved armour package, its most likely referring to HAP-2, although HAP-2 also added multi-hit capability to the armour.
The improved frontal and improved turret side armour seems to be referring to HAP-3, because the Improved frontal and turret side armour did not exists in 1990 because its first design review was in 1998, and it ballistic testing of that armour didn’t happen until Q4 of 2000, as noted in the development status section:
Also it wasn’t the M1A1 AIMs that received that, because afaik the original AIM had HAP-2. Regardless all tanks being upgraded from 2002 seem to have received that improved armour, i.e. this would be tanks being upgraded to SEPs, AIMv2/SAs and FEPs.
1 Like
Are new informations about suspension and other ones are also includes to this?
Cause it will be nice to see that Devs can realize Abrams did get improved suspensions in order to compansate extra weight.
2 Likes
Do not expect anyting untill the new year, it is Christmas time.
- I do not see how you come to that conclusion, at all. how is 5.a.2 still valid if the points 8.A and 9.A/B in the amendment changes the scope of the licence to “as needed” for both hulls and turrets?
the items 1-4 are listed in the start of the original document https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf (page 3). they are just document number, names and addresses. it changes nothing. it just says where the DU is allowed to housed (i.e the building in which the tanks/armor resides).
the numbers in document 1 (original) and the amendment do not correspond since the amendment has more information added in the form of docket numbers and such. so a change to, let say, number 8 in original document won’t be numbered 8 in the amendment.
both 5.a.2 in original and 8.A in amendment deal with the same point “Maximum Amount which will be Possessed at Any One Time” thus changing the original licence to now be what is stated in the amendment “as needed”.
- The M1A1 got that armor package already though, and then after that got the “special” version.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA323152.pdf
“Table 6” also mentions that half the M1A1 has the special and half has the Standard (standard here already being better than the IPM1). so the M1A2’s special armor is by default better than the standard M1A1 which in turn is already better than the IPM1 armor.
- thing is. you are not straight up adding DU armor just like that. you remove the old one first, so you don’t just add a ton, you also remove 80% of that weight in old armor.
Imgur: The magic of the Internet
it does not add as much weight as you probably think it does.
and you don’t need to “add” weight to the engine to compensate, you can, but you can also move components around from the front to the back of the hull and vice versa aiming to have the heavier components closer to the back to even out the weight.
3 Likes
You da best
Not sure if this is already a thing, but could there be a document on the forums or War Thunder site talking about what “pass[ing] your concerns to [the] Dev team” means or a more concrete way of showing the developers are considering things in depth? For a lot of people in the War Thunder forums, especially this thread and the previous spall liner thread, saying something was passed to the developers does not mean much.
You are aware of the hundreds if not thousands of US and UK servicemen who died of cancer as a result of nuclear testing right? Just sat them out there in the open or on ships the let the bomb off. Who knows what the future holds for the users of both DU shells and Armour? You are a fool to trust the military, just saying.
Du isn’t the same as bomb testing DU shouldn’t give out much radiation
2 Likes
Hey if you say so…
Challenger 1 did have a asbestos liner so not 100% safe
3 Likes
In actual fact Depleted Uranium used in Armour is quite similar to Asbestos in many ways to be fair in as much as it can be shielded but also it is more of an aerosol effect that causes the issue, like asbestos if you don’t interfere with it by cutting or drilling it is quite safe ,its the dust that is the issue. I know DP is not the most dangerous of toxic metals, but there is controversy surrounding it and the dangers of asbestos were covered up for years.
Anyway, not really a game issue, I guess I am dragging us a little off topic so my apologies for that.
3 Likes