Why there is no DU package on the front In M1 family going From M1A1 HC while this image clearly shows its used in M1A1 HA version so any version above it should have it installed.
2 Likes
For balancing I guess.
5 Likes
There is also the fact that nobody has been able to provide any information that any production Abrams has DU in the hull (which is hard due to it being an in-service tank and classified, but you would think their would be some references publicly available). Every one of the posts claiming it dose have DU in the hull use the claims that “everybody knows” or “it’s common knowledge” as “sources”.
5 Likes
wasnt their entire argument disproven within weeks of them saying it, by showing evidence of abrams suspension upgrades?
edit: yep
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nMSA2BTBlnFg
lets see, devs throw out sources for upgraded armor because no suspension upgrades, then throw out sources for upgraded suspension because they dont say upgraded armor
2nd edit:
it wasnt within weeks, it was the same day
9 Likes
shouldve been russian tank lol.
1 Like
Not beyond 5 that did have DU in the hull
These sources only talk about the M1A2 and M1A1
Using the M1E1 program to to complain about the modelling of A1HC/A2 SEPs is a take I guess
Even if you convince Gaijin that all modern M1s have DU hulls, I doubt they’d make the lower glacis have the anywhere near the same protection as the turret face (translation: any value that would seriously change its gameplay) given the volume discrepancy.
look at this report (that was closed because of that dev statement)
a lot of the sources already mention suspension improvements
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jh4806nWWEYT
even adding like 100-200mm protection (which is reasonable by in game standards as M1HC and on have 50% more KE protection than M1A1 in the same armor dimensions) would significantly reduce the spalling caused when a round pens, and combined with the fuel tanks would be able to stop some badly aimed shots
2 Likes
Yes, that is why I specified production models, not a limited number test platforms. Those would be cool event/ squadron additions though. Hell, even add them to the tech tree, there are plenty of test vehicles in the tech trees already.
When they add the SepV3 and M1A2T, I won’t be surprised if they apply that same inconsistent compatibility standard (which was only meant for aircraft btw) and just give both tanks the same loadout and armor with minor tweaks.
There are weapons in game that don’t exist at all and have never existed.
This excuse no longer holds water.
We have documents confirming that the hulls received the same license for DU armor as the turret had before, unfortunately the doc is from ~2006 so it would likely apply to only SEPv1 and SEPv2 (either way a good upgrade).
Aside from that, the M1A2/M1A1HA remains elligible for getting the actual DU hull that was tested in the 90s, which improve KE/CE resistance by 35%/25%, since the T-80B was a one-off prototype with thermals, same as T-80U being the Swedish prototype with thermals.
the m1a2t wouldnt have DU if the sepv3 did since its exported
According to the devs, exports don’t matter. As long as it’s compatible, then it can get said equipment. The taiwanese 64E is a good example of that.
Exported m1s usually have classified technology stripped from them, like DU
Its been widely debated if they had armor in the hull and such on earlier models, I’m not to into the whole debate on it, but what I do think is that since all armor values in game are guesses anyways they should just be able to adjust the armor value as needed for balance purposes and honestly making it so the plate is strong enough to at least stop lower end darts from punching through would be cool.
To me just seems the issue is the Abrams was added a long time ago when rounds in the game had far less penn and they have just kind of kept that value around without tweaking it.