And what happened? Where can I open up a suggestion or topic of discussion about it?
Google books only has a snippet so don’t suppose anyone could find that in a library or archive somewhere.
There’s quite a few things from 1988 when they publicly announced the DU armor.
8 Likes
Whats the books name?
I remember it was in the datamines on dev server for the update with the Leopard 2A6, never made it to live but it was something like ERA effectiveness x.3 or something like that.
What is more offensive? Gaijin using creative license or simply omitting things form the game if they are not sure?
Presumably if the Amata tanks were introduced the amount of speculation would be immense so should Gaijin go ahead with it to make a better fairer game or would it cause outrage? Could the older Russian tanks be realistically nerfed to what we all expect they should be and the M1 raised to what it should be as a result of the Amata now becoming top tier instead? It all hinges on battles we have never really had historically.
How many vaguely modern allied tanks have ever faced anything on their own level?
Only really Ukraine and we don’t know the circumstances of NATO supplied tanks getting knocked out.
The whole point of the M1A2 platform was to add thermals for the commander and second generation DU armor with a graphite coating. AND the SEP upgrades added MORE DU armor to the platform. It’s stated in many official US documents and publications, of course they don’t state the thickness or how they effect incoming threats, but of course they don’t, it’s all classified. But to blatantly say that it was not added or that it’s not clear what models it was added to is complete BS, its an excuse not to change the M1 series in game.
ALSO why are they ignoring models like the M1A1HA that added DU armor?
The M1A1HC added second generation DU armor, what about it?
The M1A1AIM added third generation DU armor, the export model had the DU removed.
In conclusion, the US stocks of M1A1, M1A2, and all their variants had DU armor, the only M1A1 and later models that DIDN’T have DU armor where export models
10 Likes
That’s really all I got, I’m not really sure why it lists volumes 7-12 unless it’s a book compiled of said volumes.
Bottom has a link to worldcat which lets you search nearby libraries.
1 Like
Alright. I’m going to open up a gameplay suggestion on the suggestion part of the forum about the anti-era tips when I arrive at home. I’ll surely need to brace myself for the eastern nation players because they will not like it.
1 Like
gaijin " doesnt believe this to be the case "
1 Like
What do you mean, the report is still open.
Remember Gaijin no longer is situated in the realm of reality only " Belief "
6 Likes
looks like some mad keyboard spam to me.
stay mad, and remember " No Russian Tank Will Ever Defeat A M1A2 Sep Variant "EVER in the real world
1 Like
Lol.
lol you know its true.
That means nothing but saying the army shall conduct and inventory like what was done in example. Doesn’t mean the example is the inventory.
Oh no they guy that said the Javelin couldn’t pen modern Russian MBTs made a video about the Abrams. After he had to remove his video of the Javelin after being proven wrong.
7 Likes
Respectfully, you’re wrong. This the “Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
Amended” is all one phrase. It’s part of the Form 374.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1536/ML15364A497.pdf#page=23
You can see that in another Form 374 that some other entity filled out in this link here:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1316/ML13165A077.pdf
The entire purpose of the form is for a renewal of the existing license. It also appears below that the changes made to the license are done by the NRC, not amendments to the license to change what they are licensed to do.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1619/ML16190A100.pdf
This is where I am speculating, but I believe the whole purpose under the Atomic Energy Act is to be accountable for radiological materials, and to systematize safety standards to all who wish to be extended the privilege of working with radiological materials by the US Government. Yes the US Army is part of the government, but safety standards have to be documented regardless, and this is part of how it’s done.
I don’t think these documents imply that only 5 hulls were made for DU, and I don’t think it implies that all hulls from x date to y date are DU as well.
I would move on from this document, I don’t think it’s supportive enough.
Removing the DU from M1A2T’s being sent to Taiwan is a much better supporting argument, as it implies the M1A2 has DU by standard construction, which is also documented in other materials, in this thread.
Ultimately nothing matters but competitive balance. If you think this is going to get the Abrams 1M of KE protection in the lower hull, you’re crazy. Period.
3 Likes
There is also no proof that russian ERA can stop nuclear blasts, DM9000 and Railgun shots…
But it still does ingame…
That’s not K5 retard. You can pen the BVM at the same spot in game as well. Stop spreading missinfo, it helps no one