It will be wild to see the kind of mental gymnastics that the developers create to deny the overwhelming sources gathered for them.
4 Likes
It honestly would not surprise me.
5 Likes
Also just an FYI that was a nerf, they nerfed the turret traverse speed down to the original M41s turret traverse speed values, which is amazing as the major upgrade to the M41A1 was the turret traverse speed being increased.
Go figure how Gaijin keeps nerfing US stuff based on bad info.
7 Likes
It’s par for the course with Gaijin.
No fixes for US APBC performance.
Not giving US tanks early and late APHE.
Cherry picking the worst variants or combinations they can.
Using lowest available performance figures.
No M833 for M60A1 TTS to M1 Abrams, despite equivalent rounds being available at those BRs.
9 Likes
that might could hurt ru drivers
not just us only, every nation except russia
We don’t do that here xaxaxaxa
2 Likes
But was this from a book or from a website?
If only we could still pass these and the book sources from Count to the devs. Would be a shame if the report gets denied because of the lack of sources with values.
@Smin1080p sorry to bother you again, but is there anyway to get some extra sources for the improved SEPv2 LFP armor to the devs, without a bug report that contains them instantly gettijg marked as a duplicate?
it’s pathetic that all M1’s have the same hull.
,The steel plates welded to the front of the turret and hull to simulate the weight of heavier armor" - Hunnicutt
M1A2 1993
M1A2SEPv1
M1A2SEPv2
M1A2SEPv3 ( The M1A2SEPv3 has an improved hull confirmed by documents )
hull front being opened (external steel plate is cut off) to replace old armor package for the newer one at the factory (unknown version)
6 Likes
Someone once said on this topic, Gaijin I slike kid who bring the ball and that kid make rules for himself to be the best out on the field
Without lack of sources they could just bring us these M1 models with this additional plates welded and it would be better than nothing. But, someone without any common sense would stare at this photos and point out that they improved protection from version to version with mass coming from additional armour.
That table was not taken from the original CIA report.
there was a post about that table in the previous forum.
Original document from the CIA:
Amazon link to the edited report:
https://www.amazon.com/Performance-Intelligence-Assessmant-Historical-Sanitized/dp/B00BLCK3D0
What this is, is a version of the document that was released from the cia library. That has had some of the missing redacted/sanitized content edited back in from what appears to be someones notes on the vehicles, etc. It can be a useful document, but note, that the chart with the Abrams armor equivalence values, appears to be completely based off of Paul Lakowki’s estimates.
1 Like
That is actually very good to know, thank you for the information!
Would sources like the one in this comment from Count_Trackula be good to potentially somehow get to the devs?
I’m just very curious if the bug report has a chance to cause a change to the SEPv2, seeing the basis for the denial for the Leclerc armor bug report.
I looked at the book and found so many serious errors.
Amazon reviews also point out. so, it’s not reliable.
Spoiler
https://www.amazon.com/Tanks-Inside-Out-Michael-Haskew/dp/1782747273
As a former M1A1 armor crewman, I suggest that the author do a little more research. I find it ridiculous and offensive that this guy has made money off of a subject on which he’s clearly ignorant.
This book has some nice images, photos and good descriptions. Unfortunately I noticed some very bad mistakes.
In the Sheridan tank section it describes an M-60 tank as a M-551 Sheridan (p. 217). Hard to understand hence it is so easily identifiable. However the biggest error I found was in the M-1A1 tank section. It shows a photograph of the M-1A1 interior with a full detailed description. Well the problem is that is the interior of an M-109 SP howitzer which is completely different from a M-1A1 Abrams (p. 265). How can a well researched book describe M-1 tank components that don’t exist in the photograph? It goes on to describe a “gunners controls”, “auxiliary sight” and “turret basket” all which the image does not have. The M-109 does not have gunner controls or auxiliary sight as described in the image. Those are azimuth and quadrant sight controls. Also the M-109 does not have a turret basket nor is shown in the image. I find myself at a loss why such a well researched book has this mayor error. I really hope that the author did not intend to purposely deceive the readers. If a M-1’s interior image was not available, I think it would be better not to add an image of another vehicle and called something else.
BTW I have been a crew member of both vehicles in the U.S. Army.
M-1A1 tank crewman 1994- 2002 and M-109A4 Self Propelled Howitzer 2002-2005
For starters two Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) on the cover (NOT TANKS), this book is filled with errors and will make you sound like a fool when you try to sound cool about your “Tank” knowledge with people, especially those who have lived in these 70 ton beasts, and now will be pointing and laughing at you.
Lots of cool diagrams, but full of major errors. I won’t repeat what other reviewers have already written. Today I was reading the section on the IS-3. The 3 drawings on pages 102-103 are NOT of an IS-3, but an IS-2. The IS-3 has a distinct “upside-down bowl” shaped turret, and has a “piked” nose.
This book misinforms newer readers, and makes semi-knowledgeable readers mad. I suggest you DON’T buy it.
I am afraid that I am very dissapointed with this book. A lot of the material is from the publishers other books and the drawings are not of a high calibre. Some of the text and photographs are new but don’t really add anything to ones knowledge of tanks. It is also a very big/large and heavy book. Too big to justify its place on my shelves, to heavy to sell on Amazon or, to carry to the charity shop. I don’t really know what to do with it!
This is a typical picture book for a child.
This is typical for tank encyclopedias of this type. I also have something similar, lots of errors.
It is not considered a trusted source because it has serious errors in the most important M1 part.
Author is not even an expert of modern tanks.
these books are intended for people who have no idea about tanks, but they are still bad because they have a lot of errors that can lead to further misinformation.
I’m curious. I don’t know if you can even answer this, so apologies for asking if you can’t,. But in your opinion, does the bug report that was made even have a chance to get the devs to change something about the SEPv2 armor?
Genuinly a question out of curiousity for your opinion.
I think DU is definitely in SEP/SEP V2, but uncertain in M1A2.
Problem is that there is no solid source for what protection values they have.
Steven J. Zaloga mentions in his book:
There is no unclassified data on M1A1 protective levels from US official sources. The data below for the M1A1 is based on Soviet estimates. No data has been released on the amount of additional protection offered by the M1A1 Heavy Armor upgrade, so the data here should be regarded as estimated.
12 Likes
Thanks for the additional information hopefully gaijin can just ball park an educated estimate regarding the armor value.
6 Likes