Polish edition is much better, it was edited by known polish specialist. Editor changed information about almost every tank in this book.
1 Like
8 Likes
I have this book in Polish and it still has a lot of errors and is a poor source of information.
Oh the one hand, I would not expect GD to bother with this…
ON THE OTHER HAND, I would actually somewhat expect GD to make at least a superficial statement!
After all, the Abrams tank is one of their main products, and War Thunder has become a big piece of media.
The poor depiction of the Abrams tank in War Thunder could be considered to be negative marketing.
Therefore, if I were GD, I would bother to at least release a statement on the lines of “our product is being depicted in an unrealistically negative light in regards to its armor protection” at very least, and maybe even an indication as to whether it should be improved or not and to which degree.
2 Likes
And then official Gaijin statement that GD announcement can’t be taken as primary source with post scriptum saying " They didn’t bother to give us exact values of Sep/Sepv2 armour so we can assume it still has protection from 1990s" xdxd
21 Likes
And if GD gave numbers: “since they are the manufacturers, those numbers are likely exaggerated propaganda xdxdxd”
19 Likes
Topped off with…
‘We BELIEVE and ASSUME that the armour is identical to an M4 Sherman - since they APPEAR to be similar (tracks, turret, gun).’
11 Likes
Yeah no, I think I’ll prefer to insult the insulter when it warrants it. Attempting to assuage yourself of your behavior by saying ‘he was disrespectful first’ when you were the original problem is your own fault.
Furthermore, your claims have been faulty in several areas.
Either apologize, man up, and be constructive, or leave the conversation. Choice is yours, I’m going to mute you if you keep it up.
Far as I’ve been made aware, Gaijin’s damage models are allowing for overspalling with HEAT rounds in the M1 series Abrams, and these need to be addressed. Not only that, but considering that volumetric armor is not likely to show anytime soon in the mix, we’ll need to approach this with a different angle. The only angle I can come up with is reintroducing the concept of APFSDS-T and APFSDS shattering at extreme angles, like they had in the Dev Server, and program it so that various metals shatter and behave differently according to their known characteristics.
Also, flak vests, which are already programmable into the system.
Finally, fix the hull armor, because it didn’t stay at the same rate even if it lacked depleted uranium in the first place.
The estimates they’ve given are quite clearly low, and they need to fix the turret ring.
15 Likes
Yes ! XD “They gave us inflated numbers 100% and our experts think, the same as manpads case, it cannot be that good with this correlation of mass, volume and materials because T-90M still use hull from 1990s so Abrams too, so we will just address it’s reload once again and gave it spare loader that ride on this chair on top of Click-Bait xdxdxdxdxdxd”
4 Likes
Ehh I’ve dug, tried numerous rabbit holes, there’s enough stuff to debunk quite a few of gaijin’s statements involving this topic but its been a constant chain of findign the opposite of what I want
The June 1999 version is even more explicit
https://www.hsdl.org/c/abstract/?docid=770258
I can understand details being lacking for the later M1A2’s which is why I went for the A1’s and early A2’s but the thing I’ve been questioning the entire time is where are any sort of radiation measurements for the hull armor or mentions of it in any safety manual involving DU armor exposure, the military wasn’t shy in giving out measurements for the turret.
I focused my search on the M1A1’s and the original M1A2 for that reason.
I now know far more about depleted uranium mesh, the billets they are made from and suspension upgrades to abrams than I ever needed to.
But like the hulls exist and there’s vehicles in game which combine vehicles or include components only used on a smattering of vehicles so why can’t we get a A2 with the DU inserts in the hull, BRL’s estimatees for protection against KE and CE on their imrpvoed hull exist so its not some wild guess on their part.
I’d assume tankers are typically trained to aim center mass so why does the Abrams have a giant weakpoint WWII guns can pen in the center mass thats somehow even more prominent on the A2?
We know in a FF incidnet a A1 upper plate deflected and shattered a DU round so why does the upper plate frequently bounce darts into the turret with enough pen to go through the ring or hit the breech?
There’s a wide variety of things that’d greatly increase survivability gaijin could do if they were inclined
15 Likes
I believe the last time it got brought up Gaijin said something about Swedish trials having computer models of darts of a certain length bouncing instead of shattering outright. Been a minute since they last commented on that though.
If you have anymore information regarding DU, please can you send me links or the PDFs? I’m very interested to gather more material regarding HAP-1 armor modules.
Also, to answer, yes, we’re trained for center mass, because realistically we DO NOT play COD in urban environments.
Gunner HEAT PC shows this to extremely good effect. Now if only I had the computer to handle it at high speeds without freezing.
(Me weeping in GTX 960 card, but grateful for my friend’s gift nevertheless.)
5 Likes
Even that 1999 report is still talking about the older tanks. Referring to the “newest” M1A1 as “heavies” shows that this was pre SEP and pre AIM.
1 Like
Certainly.
You can also see the documents in their bit about DU weapons also only go up to M829A2 and don’t mention A3 which was fielded in 2003’ish.
The SEP’s, especially later variants certainly have sone extensive modifications done ( cant wait for the V3 to arrive with none of it anyways) and I don’t mean to imply this applies to those as that’s far beyond the scope of my digging.
3 Likes
It’s some good info, but we already knew that none of the pre SEPs had DU in the hull:
M1A1 Block II = M1A2
3 Likes
Because I am a stubborn fool who had already dug far too deep and despite having seen that kept going until I reached this point.
1 Like
fair enough
B Co. 3-66 Armor, Abrams (Bumper # B-66): This was the Bravo company commander’s tank. It was hit by three 120mm DU rounds with one striking just below the turret, killing the gunner. None of these rounds penetrated the DU armor panels. At the time it was hit, it was moving in a different direction than the rest of the company. This may have contributed to the misidentification. Three soldiers survived this attack, at least two of them with severe burns. One of the survivors had fragment wounds as well.
B Co. 3-66 Armor, Abrams (Bumper # B-22): This tank, reacting to the fire that engaged B-66, turned in the direction of fire and was hit on the front slope by a 120mm DU round.[[165]]There was no internal damage to this tank. The driver was wounded. It is presumed that this tank had its full crew of four at the time it was struck.
A Co. 3-66 Armor, Abrams (Bumper # A-14): This tank was struck by a 120mm sabot round fired from an Abrams tank. Three soldiers were wounded. It is presumed that this tank had its full crew of four when it was struck.
A Co. 3-66 Armor, Abrams (Bumper # A-31): This tank was struck in the left rear by pieces of a 120mm DU round.[[168]]A report prepared by the Radiation Control (RADCON) Team from KKMC states that the four-crew members of this tank all received fragment wounds and were evacuated back to Germany. The Company Commander, who relayed this information to the team in late April 1991, also stated that numerous individuals were exposed to smoke during the resulting fire. One member of the RADCON Team advised the Company Commander that all individuals involved in the DU incident should receive an appropriate medical exam. The commander was given a copy of a health hazard message dated April 11, 1991 and a copy of TB522.[[169]]
A Co. 3-66 Armor, Abrams (Bumper # A-33): At approximately 4:30 AM on the morning of 27 February, A-33 was struck in the engine compartment by a TOW anti-tank guided missile probably fired from a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The uninjured crew were evacuating their disabled tank when it was hit again, this time by two DU sabot rounds[[170]] that hit the vehicle in the left side and exited through its right side. The tank commander, driver, and gunner sustained injuries from fragments. The loader, who was already outside the tank, was apparently uninjured, but may have been at risk from inhaling DU aerosols created on impact. At least one of the individuals involved in this incident is enrolled in the VA’s DU Follow Up Program.[[171]]
Found those FF incidents form Gulf war, some interesting bits there…
6 Likes
Thats literally what I said
Then why are you arguing with me?