Some concerns/questions regarding Materials License reports:
First one states: A. 275,000 kg, but only for the turret frontal armor packages, and B. 25 kg for turret side armor.
Second one states turret side armor, but A. is limited to 4535 kg whereas B. is limited to 25 kg.
Surely those weight figures for side armor are drastically too low to be of any practical use in armor plates?
Do you have the full contract? I´m going through DoD´s database and they only have contracts starting 2014
Nah, you got it wrong.
Turret and hull front armor has its own license ie:SUB-1536
This one is for turret side armor only.
A. For use (excluding repair and maintenance) and storage during removal of side armor turret and
installation of new side armor in M1 series tanks.
B. Contamination resulting from removal of side armor turret in M1 series tanks.
Unfortunately no 😕
Though I don´t interpret from the material licence that the new side turret is supposed to have DU elements (I don´t see the practical benefits of that). Rather, and given the timeline, all turret armor is to be dismounted, frontal HAP-3 replaced with NEA and side turret module with an improved array.
Only benefit would be added protection in urban environments much like the ones they were in during the time. Adding more armor to the sides of the turret will help protect Crews from ambushes.
isnt that what tusk for
Yes. But if you notice there is more ERA on the hull then the turret. You will need extra Armor to protect the turret sides from what ERA fails to stop.
what theyre saying is DU = increased armor. most arent saying how much exactly it should be rhae but what is being said is unclassified - du being used in armor should increase the armor effectiveness compared to not being used and being replaced by worse SD materials
From what I gather from sources, DU elements don´t do much if anything against HEAT so placing them on the turret sides doesn´t make much sense to me.
if you look at all the game bug fixes and realism adjustments with a heart and then take a look at who made those bug reports you notice that it was forum members and many bug reports also happened because people shared information to make it possible, on the forums
think for yourself
The game at top tier is less like real combat than 6BR .All it needs is for the computer monkey at Gaijin to make the M1 take a few more hits and bingo we have a game.
so you weren’t able to argue against anything that i said when i replied to you, instead you had some random rant.
ok proves my point bye have fun lol
Sorry I didn’t realise you wanted a shitty argument
Not to sure. I know IEDs and tandem warheads were a primary concern for forces during that timw period. I think there were a few tanks left over too.
But it goes on to say: ‘’(non-DU)‘’. :
It then states ‘‘front armor (DU)’’
This implies side armor does not make use of DU, only front armor does.
The other license sheet has the issue of extremely limited weight being listed that the lincensee is allowed to possess.
If you play War Thunder then you’ve already suspended disbelief to the point at which vehicle realism is semi-irrelevant. Every change that a vehicle “needs” is simply a request for balance.
It’s a F2P video game that makes money via premiums and introducing new vehicles. Gaijin doesn’t owe anything to you or I, other than to keep the lights on no matter how much money we’ve spent.
Vehicles may be unrealistically nerfed or broken but that’s kinda just the way it goes with Gaijin. Unless those issues seriously throw off the balance of a vehicle, they may as well not exist.
I’ve stopped caring about bug reports and issues with vehicles and just play the vehicles I enjoy and have a passion for IRL.
Removal of non-DU, and installation of new side armor.
Which suggest there’s no DU in old armor but the new side armor has DU.
Weight are consistent, 25 kg is for B. Contamination resulting from removal of side armor turret in M1 series tanks.
I think is has something to do with the lack of KE performance on the ITSA, they’re using DU to increase the Abrams survivability in LSCO environment.