Yeah once I realized it, I was fine with it. Just annoying for those of us that don’t like air so much. It was a pain grinding the few bits I did until I unlocked the jets I started wanting. Not to mention a pain for my wallet.
It’s probably a lot of the same people as me. They’re not a huge fan of air and don’t want to grind it to make their lineup balanced.
That said, it’s also not really balanced(it is and it isn’t) because the SP value to spawn your CAP for AA is just too large comparatively.
I still don’t use CAS, only CAP.
Maybe I should though, might help our win rates
I think y’all are too harsh on him, agree or disagree I think he’s reasonable as far as his arguments go. Wrong opinion or not, I enjoy reading his posts, it’s a lot of the other detractors that make me want to claw my eyes out.
I’m not sure he’s Russian, or worth going as far to block
M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, Owners’ Workshop Manual - Says the M1A1 SA featured hull DU and that the SEPv2 featured all of what the M1A1 SA and SEPv1 had, and that hull DU was a part of the Abrams-family-wide Common Abrams modifications.
It’s obviously DU. There was testing with DU hulls on M1A1 from at least 1997-2006, then in 2006 the M1A2 SEP retrofits (and production vehicles) got a new armor package the exact same year the DU hull limit was removed.
When I made the Abrams bug report gaijin ended up wanting actual protection values on armor that is classified lol. Makes me wonder how they will model sepv3 since there is literally no data on the new armor package. All we know is that its in hull and turret and that it was a direct response to the t14. Gaijin also holds the Abrams to such a strict standard when it comes to armor buffs and other bug fixes compared to other tanks were they literally made up the values for better or worse. I mean we cant event get the turret ring fixed. Meanwhile the leo2a7 gets its ufp armor fixed and the type99 gets frontal armor model reworked. Gaijin priorities are completely screwed or they choose intentionally not to fix the Abrams with the many bug reports waiting to be implemented.
You do realize none of these actually say DU in the hull, right? They all just say that DU and chobham are used in the tank. Nobody is debating that part. The debate is over whether or not DU is present in the hull. Thus far, there’s no evidence to support that. Seriously. Numerous credible sources explicitly say ‘DU in turret cheeks’. None explicitly say ‘DU in hull front’.
Pulled directly from the documents. All M1A1s on the front lines use DU. Anything with DU is considered upgraded Chobham and Chobham is used in both the turret and hull.
Also this
-Estimated Numbers from A Russian Magazine. Also confirming same armor values in both the hull and turret(Translated)
“The exceptions are zones “B” and “K”, located in the sector zone ±30 ° and having an anti-projectile resistance of about 700 mm and an anti-cumulative resistance of 850 mm. Anti-projectile resistance of any fragment of protection equal to 700 mm means that if an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile has an armor penetration of 700 mm, then this fragment is not penetrated by this projectile”
You are drawing conclusions from unrelated documents and unsourced claims. Notice the document that claims ‘This improved Chobham armor uses depleted uranium’ cites sources for many of its statements but not the one on which forms the crux of your argument. It also claims m1a1s have DU in them, which is patently false unless they are referring to M1A1 HCs.
Also this
-Estimated Numbers from A Russian Magazine. Also confirming same armor values in both the hull and turret(Translated)
The ultimate credibility for western weapon systems; an unsourced magazine from 1990s Russia.