Then explain why the M1A1HC and M1A2 have better armor than the Non-DU M1A1 and they have officially stated on their wiki that the DU is present within the turret.
Saying “Composite change” is not correct and easily disproven. There isn’t a single DoD document that mentions a switch in composites between the M1A1 and M1A1HA. Only the addition of DU.
because they developed better non DU armor when they wanted to export the abrams
the game wiki is a terrible source and many of its pages are wrong
there is though
DU wasnt the only change it is a completely new armor package
Because it is “pretty much identical”. The only thing that changes between the trial model and the domestic M1A2 is that the two backing plates (the only DU elements in the HAP array) are replaced by tungsten…
If the entire armor array were made of DU, there would only be a compiling 1% difference in between each and every element of the composite array.
And? Do you think the domestic DU armor packages are simply Clark Kent with his glasses off?
There’s export and domestic production packages. The only reason why the armor package is non-DU is because there was a worldwide embargo of DU shipments anywhere over 1.5 tonnes.
Where is such said?
In what way would removing depleted uranium and replacing it with tungsten result in the protective capability being “significantly worse”?
because it wasnt them just replacing DU with tungsten
they might have done that for the greek trials but in swedish trials it was a completely different package
Where is a single DoD source mentioning that they changed the Armor of the M1A1 and M1A1HA aside from the addition of DU?
You’re claiming with absolutely no evidence. Just “Trust Me Bro”. I need proof to believe this. I have tons of documents saved and read through, and never seen any mention of what you speak of.
Pray tell, what else was changed about it? Are you saying Sweden received a T-72-aluminum-oxide-esque downgrade that effectively removed all armor in the vehicle?
I don’t care about “may haves” or “mights”, what else was changed. What package was used.
those sources dont say they just added DU they normally say they introduced new armor which includes DU
No, they don’t. I have the document, which talks purely about DU when upgrading from the M1A1 to the M1A1HA.
so how else do they magically have a new significantly better armor package 5 years later for the greek trials when according to you there were no upgrades to domestic armor in that time frame
or are you suggestion that they were offering a better package than the domestic one
why dont yall look at this and trace his sources instead of just repeating the same illogical things M1A2 SEP V2 doesnt have better LFP armour - #1871 by SpeclistMain1
Care to elaborate the exact model which was trialed? I care not to go on a duck hunt. Especially when I do not speak Greek.
Funny thing, actually. I have a document from the DoD that states DU was not added to the SEPv2’s hull because of weight concerns. This directly contradicts the TLDR given by this random dude on the internet. Most documents do not show any proper DU upgrades for the SEPv2’s hull and to rely on a single random source for this information is a bad idea. This is what has led to the Merkava Mk.4 being 65 tons in-game.
You can also physically see the additional protection on only the SEPv3.
The guy might be correct on most things, but stating the DU isn’t intended to be there is false. Gaijin is just wrong and not modeling correctly as usual.
well, Germany didn’t have much of a say on that matter, since Sweden bought the licence of the Leopard 2 and the right to modify. so the Strv 122 is not even on par in terms of armor, it’s even superior.
did you look at the post he linked that had sources for most of this?
can you post this anywhere? or are you just claiming to have secret documents with no proof
yes but that isnt proof that the armor wasnt upgraded previously
they copied values from a source testing armor that explicitly does not contain DU and was not equivalent to armor with DU, they did nothing to compensate for this so it is unreasonable to say that the in game armor contains DU because it does not
In what way do you see it as “magically [having] a new[,] significantly better armor package 5 years later”?
FMS and FMS-IP had the same protective capability… FMS-IP simply have a thicker backplate that put it on-par with HAP-2.
Why don’t you go ahead and quote exactly where I said such.
I do not care to go on a duck hunt for you. Cite your sources within the book, not the whole book (in case you didn’t understand that, it’s a metaphor). Like seriously, that’s a lot to read through and I don’t want to be on the forums that long. I’m not terminally online.
Gaijin would probably strangle me, but I’ll take a gander through my hundreds of documents again to find the exact line. These things aren’t exactly small, you know.
Visual identification and documents do not state a major improvement of armor outside of DU. Some use wording which can be assumed as such, but I have yet to see any solid proof that these vehicles received major armor reworks in production models, especially when it’s hard to get the DoD to do anything at all.
It’s even harder to take this random guy’s word for most things when he states the M1A1SA could have received DU hull inserts, which is laughable. The hull would destroy itself from that.
You’re still assuming that because Gaijin can’t model protection correctly, the package isn’t present in-game. This is just not a good way of thinking. It’s more likely they did it incorrectly than not at all, especially when they have reaffirmed the turret has DU in-game at several points.
A vehicle’s armor being bugged doesn’t mean that it’s non-existent.
and you are still not holding gaijin accountable for their mistakes
if they model a tank without a specific feature it is only valid to say that it lacks that feature in game, yes it is gaijins fault but that doesnt change the state of the game
Oh no, I am fucking livid how badly they’ve butchered Israeli vehicles within the game. I have the largest Namer armor post on the forums and many more.
then dont say they have modeled things that they havent as doing so is just covering up their mistakes
The difference in protection starting with the M1A1HC, which remains identical across the M1A2 series, shows that they intended to model DU. It just isn’t very accurate.
Let me remind you that Israel’s Namer and Merkava still have the incorrect armor type and are vastly weaker than they are IRL.
it just shows they intended to model armor upgrades not DU
and even if they intended to model it they effectively did not so saying that they did is covering up their poor modeling