That’s been the most compelling part I’ve seen… but it doesn’t have any statistics to go with it.
The US has a habit of not saying “this is how much we’ve improved the armor” in open letter brochures- which is great for protecting knowledge of their capabilities from the world at large… but kinda hamstrings US mains in Warthunder.
There’s no “US Armor is immune to 3BM59” to go off of.
(Because unlike certain Governments/MoDs who like to lie through their teeth to the world… to their faces about equipment, the US doesn’t work in that. I suppose it helps that the US government finances the R&D and later sales are nice for the contractor, as opposed to having the sales fund the R&D forcing one to lie like used car salesman.)
I’ve spent too long being slapped down on that hill by double standards and blatant bias to want expend the effort. I have other games to play.
SoD just came out… ASA is out, D4 is getting a new season, DF S3 is still goin… etc.
At least the premium I got that is presently being wasted was half price…
Apparently “as needed” now. I guess the 5 limit wasn’t as big of a deal as once thought? Maybe those 5 in 2006 were testbeds for something around the corner in 2007 (SEP v2)?
On second thought, who can make sense of this NRC document? If I think I am reading this right isn’t this stating their are two different types of DU armour types i.e. an A. and a B.
This would actually backup what Count posted in regards to the SA:
“The M1A1 SA modernization includes steel encased depleted uranium for increased frontal and turret side armor protection”
Yea this is why I don’t really bother with making reports about the M1s armour, I read TrickZZters report from a year ago and realised they wanted actual values, and yea that isn’t going to happen, that shit is highly classified.
I am passing the torch or the tortuous 6-8 hour rabbit hole document dives for Bug Reports to you.
KotA/Trick archived/Not A Bug’d wayyy to many hours of my life to to be worthwhile for me to do.
Just passing the word of wisdom:
You need explicit statements, and they need to be reports with statistics.
Research Papers, Program Presentations, and researched books are Secondary Source. (Used to be that you just needed a preponderance of secondaries in lieu of primaries, but that standard has been conveniently dumped.)
We know that the 2006 NRC license was for 5 hulls, possibly testbeds for the SEP v2 with improved armor packages. Because by 2016, that 5 number wasn’t a big deal any more, and the license is issued “as needed.”: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1619/ML16190A098.pdf
So by 2006 we were getting DU hulls, confirmed. SEP v2 rolls out 2007, now all Abrams hulls are licensed as needed. So we can’t prove there is DU in hulls at all?
The dev log for the SEPv2 dropped, completely useless. Just proved they don’t care and want to give as much possible insane additions to Russia. No M829A2 nor DU hull just “Gen 2 thermals, Remote control machine gun, and ARAT II”
