it was Block 1
Yea but does anyone have anything on the Block 1 B-kits? According to Raytheon it had better resolution then the Block 0 FLIR that the SEP used:
Block 1 second generation FLIRs will improve Block 0 performance and put more capability in the hands of war fighters. The new system generates a clearer image with more scene contrast, less jitter and higher resolution.
Actually have a theory of how to connect TCA (Tandem Ceramic Armor) with DU information. There is a chance, that TCA implemented in M1s is using for its ceramic element one of the uranium oxides
1 Like
yess!! please gaijin make this game balance, give M1A2 DU armor and balance this game, the new update just like copy paste from M1A2 SEP, and you give the job to the internship to do an improvement :(
So. Sources below align with each other. Its funny. We shall wait and see the gajin reaction
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jh4806nWWEYT?comment=pklKGqrbT8IIlqaz09geqWny
1 Like
Thats because NGAP/NEA, armor now used on SEPv3 and future generations is DU-free.
It also talks only about M1A1. Not M1A2
where does the Abrams weight growth data come from?
From New FCS, added armour inserts, improved transmission and improved ATG 1500.
@WaretaGarasu @Kenny110 @_Renzo
Did we ever have a response concerning the value found in the declassified CIA report?
That one? It could be what we need regarding the armor value they’ve been asking for.
5 Likes
is it even reputable at this point ?
More so than Gaijin at this point.
1 Like
I already attached a source which shows the armor values, hopefully its not needed but eventualy we can use that as well
The values are quite on point regarding the M1, M1A1, and M1A1HA.
1 Like
(They don’t, it’s manufactured by a lab in Idaho.)
My bad no I was referring to the actual document that the image came from.
Regardless I don’t think I would have used that growth chart, because according to it neither the SEP or SEPv2 received improved armour at all until 2012 - 2016. That growth chart and this overview from the 2006 CBO study contradict one another as well.
Perfect, the hull armor in that chart also aligns with the 35% KE improvement mentioned in the other document. Food for thought if they refuse your other source.
5 Likes
I know, I wanted to see if they knew what they were talking about.
I am pretty sure it is still made by Bechtel BXWT in conjunction with the Department of Energy, I know for a fact this was the case at least up until 2003 as noted on page 2 of this document.
1 Like
XD
Well, they already tried to move the goalpost by denying the Army licenses as enough proof even though that was the basis for insisting that only 5 hulls could possibly have DU. They shifted to the GDLS license being the final say, claiming it was a license for GDLS to manufacture. It wasn’t of course.
He’s already denied what these documents actually say on numerous occasions. Granting the hulls the same status as turrets now means, according to him, that they didn’t removed the 5 hull limit. Even though that limit in no longer to be found anywhere on later license forms.
The document talking about replacing turrets, guns, NBC, electrical systems, and armor apparently only meant it was an NBC upgrade, according to his fetal alcohol syndrome brain.
5 Likes
Yea I have seen that guy on a few posts, this new one made me realise there is no point discussing stuff with him. He seems to have some weird anti-Abrams stance or something.
2 Likes