Those two boxes are just SPACER BOXES. This is correct.
Just do a search on TUSK’s ARAT ERA and you will get the answer.
2 Likes
I generally do not get why they keep side-grading the Abrams over just giving the community what they clearly want; every Abrams in the game is essentially already a Frankenstein mess of different variants. I generally don’t see why they didn’t. Give the M1A2SEPV2 one of the DU hulls with the SEPV2 turret; very few top-tier vehicles are accurate to their real-life counterparts. I don’t see the point in not just admitting this and balancing the abrams to perform how it should be over having this back and forward over numbers no one will find without going into classified documents.
14 Likes
no china bro.
1 Like
Cant wait for the M1 DU hull armor premium.
28 Likes
The 80 dollar premium at 11.7 because we are still going to be there next year.
2 Likes
you lie, misinform, and neglect.
shame on you Gaijin.
There’s more than sufficient proof in this thread alone.
your beliefs and presumtions are irrelevant.
16 Likes
Obviously the crews are just getting fatter leading to an increased weight inside the tank.
Open source US office of veterans Affairs says its used too.
5 Likes
So where is your evidence of this claim and also where is your evidence that in 30-40 years DU armour didnt go through weight reductions. your claims are based on nothing and to be frank if this is “main” reason why its denied DU then im done with GRB
36 Likes
Since the release of M1A2 there has been extreme disappointment for Abrams players. I am convinced Gaijin dosent want an Abrams with an impenetrable LFP… so many updates hoping for an Abrams with upgraded armour just to be disappointed incredibly.
I’ve seen so many people giving so much time finding any source possible to prove armour upgrades occurred, especially for SEP and SEPV2. You guys at gaijin only choose the sources that fit your narrative of bias.
Gaijin has effectively insulted some very intelligent people who carefully followed your requirements to provide proof and spent lots of time digging for info.
Gaijin choose all the sources that fit their Russian bias, but none of the other sources that fit common sense and real world application.
Any other fairy tale vehicle you guys wanna add that aren’t historically accurate…. but then need the MOST specific proof to get an armour increase in the abrams hull after 40 years of service and upgrades.
20 Likes
@Stona_WT I know many people ping you i have a simple question.
Is Gj planning to do this kind of devblog on all top tier MBTs?
That player base would know on what they are and what can they do.
Oh and about Abrams thumb up.
When will we be seeing your responses to the tens of other sources that blatantly prove the sources you cite to be false or at the very least out of date? Have your technical moderators and/or devs even been keeping track of the mountain of sources seen in the other thread?
4 Likes
Gaijin this 100% contradicts your suspension theory, we need answers. There are multiple sources saying the suspension has been upgraded without changing the armor profile.
61 Likes
Ide also like to point out this source actually contradicts your claims.
“Conscious decision to drastically reduce weight will result in compromised protection” page 36 of that source, the entire premise of that graph is to show how weight increase has lead to poor mobility and serviceability of the Abrams MBT so by them acknowledging if they reduce weight to improve mobility they are reducing the protection so what was the 7 ton weight increase for between the M1 Abrams and the SEP V2 for?
Your source isnt concrete evidence nor does it prove the non existence of DU in the M1A1SA and after variants
21 Likes
Can’t believe I actually forgot about Project Hindsight Revisited
2 Likes
What about this? here even on congress level it’s said that the Abrams received hull and turret armor upgrades
41 Likes
Every M1 abrams used by the U.S. Army starting with the M1A1 HA/HC should have 500-600mm hull front armor vs KE according to Mr. R.M. Ogorkiewicz, a noted international expert on tank development and author of over 400 articles and several books, even TACOM and TARDEC mentions him on their reports, but for Gaijin he’s not credible…
54 Likes
We know for a fact that current ingame armor values for the Abrams are based off the Swedish trials of an Export model of the Abrams that was purposely made weaker to keep the armor technology secrets from being stolen. Recent vehicles sent to a recent warzone were purposely downgraded to make sure the latest technology is not captured. One of the biggest issues for abrams tanks in American service is the armor upgrades are so significant that the weight has become a problem and they canceled the SepV4 because the weight needed to be brought under control. Recent upgrades to the wiring and electronics inside the tank were made to reduce the weight by 2 tons. Gaijins answer to the weight increase is we believe that the armor was never made stronger/upgraded and is infact weaker then actual us documents and that a export model in an old Swedish trial is more accurate. This is Insane. What makes a single trial in sweden the Ultimate document of US technology?
6 Likes
Which could easily include the modifying of the turret rotation mechanism to be able to support the heavier M1A2 turret compared to the turret previously mounted on older hulls.
It is simply not proof there is DU in the front of the hull.
2 Likes
It seems Gaijin is more interested in gaslighting the community about western vehicles rather than changing things based on publicly available data. A la this post here.
“ The protection in an armoured vehicle is a model based on available open information. In some cases, it might be calculated based on publicly available data. Examples are photos and videos of destroyed vehicles. In other cases, protection will be assessed only on the appearance of the vehicle, the location and size of the armour modules, as well as possible threats and requirements that could be presented during the development of the vehicle. ”
Given this. Even taking for example “possible threats and requirements that could be presented during the development of the vehicle” 3BM46 was already in service by the Sep Programs introduction. Which has upwards of 500mm flat pen. An INFERENCE can be made that the protection must AT LEAST achieve something like this.
But none of that matters. The gaslighting is completely ridiculous with cherry picked sources.
They seem to assume that the correct method is not having complete data on something does not call for an estimate to be made based upon it, the only option is to omit it entirely.
We know the torsion bars were upgraded, we know the hull limit was removed. And we know the weight went up, and we know the new weight was simulated.
It has DU. Period. Stop with this nonsense.
There is a very clear bias here.
22 Likes
@Stona_WT please check this source. is it credible enough to confirm the existence of DU hull armor on production variants?
2 Likes