It doesn’t mean the overall conversation shuts down as he also provided some small suggestions to help improve the Abrams such as adding the turret basket, the pending turret ring thickness improvement, adding Trophy, make ERA optional, and removing the blowout panel failure if HEAT is loaded. There is a lot of positive discussion that can be had outside of DU.
5 Likes
what?
Evaluate can also mean to compare things to see how they stack up to your standards.
this is not a valid sentence. what do you mean?
do you know the definition of evaluate?
Very much yes.
What you said made no sense.
His conclusions (watching it currently) where he based his opinion only on primary documents, not looking at the relevant secondary sources:
- He thinks it doesn’t have DU in the hull before the SEPv3
- He thinks there should be a Pre-SEPv3 Abrams with DU due to the prototypes, however
- He thinks it doesn’t have a spall liner
Obvious limitations:
- He only was basing his opinions on direct primary sources, which limits what evidence he considers by quite a lot
So long story short it’s just emblematic of the whole thing that SPANISH_AVENGER wants to change, seen here: Suggestion: Integral rework of modern MBT armor implementation (Poll)
14 Likes
Then you should also have the source for the British " evaluation " too right?
i’m not questioning anything other than the sentence you wrote, i genuinely don’t know what you were trying to say.
it cant be both “actual” values and “approximate” values at the same time.
evaluation can mean to compare values. if you shoot at ten different armor plates you can evaluate each plates performance by measuring how far the shot penetrated.
you do know that evaluate can be used both as “form an idea of the amount” (estimate, guess) AND “find a numerical expression or equivalent” (find out, measure) right?
they had physical plates, shot at them and measured performance. they didn’t “guess” anything.
I made a suggestion for the Trophy APS to be added to the V2, its still pending approval 2-3 weeks later…
7 Likes
I agree!
The “we must limit ourselves to PRIMARY SOURCES only” mindset is the reason why our Leopard 2A7V isn’t a Leopard 2A7V, but Leoprd 2 TVM; and why our M1A2 SEPv2 is actually just a Swedish trials M1A2.
If we insist on limiting ourselves to the few 1980s-1990s primary sources available instead of taking the step of accepting modern day secondary sources, we will never have present day vehicles perform as such; we will only have the 1990s vehicles the only primary sources available are limited to with a coat of “modern vehicle” paint.
19 Likes
I think hes still way misinformed about the DU limitations as there were a few other credible secondary sources, and he didnt mention the restriction removal.
Spall liners. Maybe. Atleast give us body armor and the turret basket + engine sound fix and turret ring fix.
I made a thread almost immediately about the Trophy APS and it wasnt very popular. Didnt get many US mains in it. And my suggestion to add it has been on hold for weeks.
Hilariously I submitted as a bug and got “not a bug” meanwhile ive seen like 5 things that are totally similar get acknowledged and submitted to devs from bug reports.
Its clear gaijin has an agenda against the US here
10 Likes
I hope we atleast get the army schools M1A1’s that we know had hull DU.
Peak Comedy: It’ll be an event vehicle.
1 Like
A crafting event like no other
1 Like
thats why im asking you for the source.
10 Likes
they dont care, they will just ask for a PRIMARY SOURCE, THEN IGNORE IT.
1 Like
The thing that really made my day is was stumbling across this on NRC:
source here: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2006/20061129en.html
So much for that NRC license stating there’s no DU in turret side armor lmao
16 Likes
That’s actually funny finding that information through a work place accident report.
2 Likes
I know right? I found that and just broke out laughing.
2 Likes