I know it’s from Wiki but it references Steven Zaloga’s book.
“M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well.[145] This variant was designated as the M1A1HA (HA for Heavy Armor).”
And these guys aren’t?
iii
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ITEM UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY FOR
THE LEGACY COMPONENTS OF THE US MARINE CORPS M1A1 ABRAMS
TANK
Edward Y. Blakiston, Major, United States Marine Corps
Carl J. Punzel, Captain, United States Marine Corps
Richard A. Jennings, Captain, United States Marine Corps
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
December 2008
Authors: _____________________________________
Edward Y. Blakiston
Carl J. Punzel
Richard A. Jennings
Approved by: _____________________________________
Geraldo Ferrer, Lead Advisor
Daniel Nussbaum, Support Reader
Terry Rea, CAPT USN, Acting Dean
Graduate School of Business and Public Policy
Nobody is claiming M1A2’s, M1A1 HA’s and M1A1 HC’s do not feature DU armor packages, this is just a typical strawman attempt.
I’m once again finding it extremely tiresome to be in a discussion with you, so I’m going to ignore further replies.
You still haven’t posted any further documentation and now you’re leaving the chat. I see how it is, you can’t find anything else to support your claims yet you sit behind your computer and claim everyone else is wrong. Too funny.
It has “authority” in regards to non-classified information from 2000 and before, not non-classified information post 2000. From what I can tell, DU hulls were first added to Abrams’ in 2006.
Edit: Also, you’re referencing the wrong field manual, it should be FM-8-283, as FM 4-02.283 is restricted to US government agencies only: Army Publishing Directorate
I’m just going to but these UNCLASSIFIED documents here proving DU armor on all M1A1 variants and above so yeah haters can hate but they’re wrong. The abram’s needs to be properly modeled in game
Look at the post I made above and you’ll have more proof if you want.
yes for war thunder yes its way to much to fix us ground top tier
Appreciate it! At this point people have to provide information that says there there is NOT DU in the armor. What I posted proves there’s DU in both the hull and turret.
I have found other stuff I found by looking on hours on google that have the black classified on the front doc page, but unclassified on the actual pages, so i’m not going to risk it even if it is on google and should be fine. Didn’t even ss it to be safe, but yeah it has DU and it should be impenetrable to an extent at around 1km.
Don’t chance it :)
Does anybody here know the validity of this chart
It’s supposedly form 4 days ago
Those types of charts aren’t too reliable, since winrate is affected by too many things to accurately draw a conclusion from. Look at mid-tier Germany, they have the best tanks, but some of the worst players.
The data isn’t also all the potential data too. I highly doubt that Rank I italy, USA, China, and Sweden all have winrates well under 50%.
Everyone knows there is DU armor on the M1A1HA, HA+, SA, M1A2, SEP, and SEPv2, the main points of contention are when (if at all, although it’s most definitely when) DU hulls were added and what sort of armor the SEPv3 has.
The Abrams’ versions that should have DU armor in them are modeled with non-DU export packages based off of the Swedish Trials, which has been explicitly stated to be worse than domestic packages.
The stuff you posted has been seen already, it’s just that the M1A1HAs used in the Gulf War as far as I can tell did not feature DU hulls, and the other document showing DU hulls has been used in the past to say that DU hulls were not a thing in mass-production.
With extra documents (including an August 2006 amendment to the NRC license), we can see that the limit on the number of DU hulls was removed and then a new armor package showed up with the production dates being hidden/not stated.
It’s accurate in terms of winrate, but that doesn’t necessarily mean vehicles are good or bad based off of them.
As someone who’s struggled through most of the Italian tech tree now, the vehicles at Rank I are so bad that you won’t be able to influence the matches much at all.
Thank you
Iirc it uses the data from thunderskill, which only takes stats from people who are being searched/refreshed on that website.
So unless some dude is searching every player that plays somewhat regularly on thunderskill, these winrates will be based on incomplete data.
It only keeps track of the data for a certain day, iirc, so all of it is time accurate at the very least.
No you, or someone else, still have/has to manually update your account on thunderskill.
These guys have no deeper access to stats than that, only Gaijin has those stats.
Honestly imo the turet ring of the Abrams IS a problem missing that 300mm plate or whatever it is, but I still think the lower plate is the bigger problem I ALWAYS die to the lower plate every single time I die in an Abrams, bot having the DU inserts is detrimental but I know they wont fix it after all we had an entire thread about that one issue
Every MBT in the entire game has a weak lower glacis.
You’re essentially fully exposing the vehicle and then expecting your opponents to be unable to penetrate the lower glacis with APFSDS, that seems rather silly to me.
There really isn’t anything to fix regarding the lower glacis as it stands.
If at some point a authoritative and publicly available source is provided that confirms the use of DU in the lower glacis for one or more of the in-game M1 models, then it should be implemented.
But right now, no such source exists.
The existence of a thread doesn’t somehow prove that the contents of said thread are true.
If I make a thread about the M1A1 actually using a KwK 43 88mm gun, does that make it factual?
