Hell, F-16C and AV-8B+ are ALL you need
HSTVL, Sepv1, ADATS, AV-8 ,F-111 and maybe AH-64D not AH-1Z
go play US before talking
They buffed the AH-1Z with the good hellfires it’s a solid alternative.
Also I just like it more
You absolutely wanted the 1Z even prior to getting Hellfire Ks, AIM-9M >>>>>>> Stingers + MAWS + the Cannon is better for self defence , I think the Zoom is better too ontop of the 9Ms being linked to HMD. Only reason to take the 64D would be the Radar and tbh it’s a bit of a detriment now high tier RWRs can detect it, the Flight model is a little less brick-ish but it’s not so bad on the Viper these days.
1 Like
The 5 DU-hulled M1A1s that have been around since at least 1997, and then the unlimited number of M1A1s, M1A2s, M1A2 SEPs, etc. with them since 2006: Gaijin is ignoring us.
I would still take the AH-1Z over the AH-64D, especially now that the 1Z also has 114Ks.
If I want to play an apache I would play one of the actually good ones like the british or israeli one. Of course I just don’t like playing helis in general.
Ah yes, the age-old argument. I love how you’ve taken the information given to disprove DU hulls and try to use it for your argument.
Such as? Everything I’ve seen points towards HAP-2/3 upgrades only pertaining to turret front (HAP-2) and turret front/sides (HAP-3). NGAP is the first package to directly name the hull as an upgraded feature since BRL-2.
4 Likes
I’m almost confident the M1A1 HC and beyond (to include the M1A2 SEPv2) does have it based on Conte_Baracca’s discussion and work background [he’s a former USMC Tank Commander and would “work acquisitions for Project Manager Tanks as a Marine Liaison to PM Abrams (the US Army Abrams acquisition program)” whom Gaijin itself recognized], making himself a credible source, but the problem is there’s little-to-no unclassified data (measurement specifics) to back it beyond stuff that’s already been discussed. Since there’s no hard numbers, Gaijin won’t do anything with it.
Spoiler
A USMC veteran on the M1A1 Abrams tank: “This tank was designed for assault!” - News - War Thunder
It’s unfortunate if nothing is done but it wouldn’t be the first time considering the Ariete, Leclerc, Challenger 2, and Merkava’s are also in terrible shape.
Even if we assume these tanks were the same exact hulls over the course of nearly a decade, there were more DU M1A1s than T-80Bs with thermals, Yak-141s in existence, Ho-229 in existence, etc.
The hull limit was removed in August 2006:
How many M1A1 hulls were there…? Oh, right! 5!
There were 17 T-80BVs with Agava… 2.4x more.
There were 200 known T-80Us with Agava-M1… >40x more.
The Yak-141 is irrelevant to the topic, don’t try to derail.
The Ho-229 is irrelevant to the topic, don’t try to derail.
Ah yes, more copy/pasting this!
Yes, it does say it can be used, transported, or stored in the form of turrets and hulls… But what do you have saying it was used in turrets / hulls? There’s insurmountable proof that it was used in the turret, yes, but nothing on the hull…
There are thousands of laws surrounding weed attainment and use in the US… Does that mean everybody in the US possesses and uses weed on a common basis?
It even says they can! That must mean they do!
T-80BV =/= T-80B. We have the T-80B in game.
I never mentioned the T-80U (but since you mentioned it, yeah the T-80U should not have them [since it is not a T-80UM]).
The Yak-141 is a prototype vehicle, which is very relevant to the “prototype” M1A1s.
The Ho-229 is a prototype vehicle, which is very relevant to the “prototype” M1A1s.
The fact it says “as needed” and not “5 tank hulls only” while also saying it can be used in “tank turrets and hulls,” is all the proof necessary regarding this document.
There’s literally tons of proof that it has been used in the hull: the whole Frontal Armor Upgrade designation changing from FY 2004/2005 onward, the M1A2 having proposed armor upgrades while there being no proof these were not implemented, and all of Gaijin’s arguments being debunked is enough proof.
Can I get any source for that?
I know there were plenty more Agava’s made than you named T-80B tanks, but seriously where from?
It’s Agava 2.
I really don’t think Amendment 9 to SUB-1536 is the smoking gun everyone want it to be. Previous versions of the license (for example amendment 6) look like this:
Spoiler
While Amendment 9 looks like this:
Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that because the limit on 5 tank hulls has been removed that must mean the Army requested the limit be removed so that they can use DU in more tank hulls.
However amendment 9 of SUB-1536 says this:
You can find the “letter dated February 22, 2006” here. The letter in question is the Army’s request for license SUB-1536 to be renewed. In it you can see that the army have requested the license to be renewed, not amended:
And furthermore on the form that the Army completed to renew the license they stated that they still only wished to use DU in 5 tank hulls.
So if the army included the 5 hull limit on their application form why isn’t that limit present on the amendment 9 version of the license? Well this letter from the NRC to the Army states:
So it seems that in their letter dated February 22, 2006 the Army requested the license to be renewed with the 5 hull limit still in place, but the NRC decided to remove that line from the license. If I had to guess I’d say that they did this because they felt it was unnecessary to list the same material on the license twice, and it would be simpler to include both of the requested uses in a single entry.
But ultimately it doesn’t matter why the NRC decided to change the license in this way. The army’s request for the amendment 9 license still had the 5 hull limit in place, and it seems to be the NRC who decided to remove that limit. Therefore you cannot use the removal of the 5 hull limit from the amendment 9 license as evidence that the Army intended to produce more than 5 DU hulls, because the Army didn’t asked for the limit to be removed.
2 Likes
There’s no proof I am not in fact an insterstellar flying spaghetti monster.
Therefore it’s indisputable that I am.
10/10 reasoning.
2 Likes
As I’ve said, we have an amalgamation of all.
We have the weaponry of a 1982 T-80BV, the protective kit of a 1985 T-80BV, and the base armor/composite mixture of a 1979 T-80B.
We have the engine 1980 T-80B.
We have the thermal sight of a 1983 T-80BV.
Tell me again that what we have isn’t a T-80BV, or you can try to say what we have isn’t a T-80B. It’s a lovechild of every T-80B model mashed together so the gameplay experience can be more enjoyable and progressive.
The T-80U we have in-game is the 1992 model, which is the date in which T-80UM modernization had begun. The second the SSSR stopped producing T-80U models, many had been outfitted with better weaponry and sensors.
Seeing as we have the T-80B monstrosity, whatever disasterpiece the T-80U-E1 is, I’d say it’s safe to say that variants of the same exact year can be incorporated into our 1990s T-80U.
All the proof necessary to say that they are allowed to be used in tank hulls/turrets.
By this point, the only possibility of new production hulls incorporating uranium elements into their armor would be the FEP and POSSIBLY the SEPv2, although there is no proof of SEP → SEPv2 upgrades including an armor refit.
To…?
Proposed armor upgrades…
A lack of proof for them being implemented is equally as damning to your argument. As I said, the only substantial proof towards hull upgrades goes to the M1A1FEP and the Aussie M1A1SA with domestic armor packages.
I’ll have to dig it up, but KMZ gave a figure for 17 pre-production Agava complexes before the production of T01-P02 and stated such in their museum.
There were more Agavas in total, yes, but there are 4 different variants of Agava thermal imagers.
T-80UMs were given Agava-M1 (T01-P06), while Agava-2 (T01-P02) wasn’t produced beyond 1992.
Except it was done that way since 1997, so it couldn’t have been redundant.
It is only that the Army submitted the February Amendment and then later on the August Amendment was put into place, not that it was solely the NRC’s decision. Additionally, the 2016 NRC License uses the exact same wording as the August 2006 NRC License wording, and people interpret that to mean there were DU-hulled Abrams.
We have proof that the BRL made a better hull armor proposal, every counterargument to hull upgrades has been debunked, and there is no source stating that there were no hull upgrades done (that are not debunked themselves).
That’s quite a bit different than what you described.
It should just be a T-80B, yes. They should remove the newer weaponry, newer protective kit, and thermal sight.
It existing in the same year as a modernization doesn’t mean it should get the stuff from the modernization if it isn’t the modernization. T-80U =/= T-80UM.
(Frontal Armor) 1-98-05-4545 → (Frontal Armor) 00000000000 → (Armor) 1-99-05-4555
There are multiple secondary sources stating that there is DU in the hulls, no restrictions on DU in the hulls, and no primary documents saying they are not in the hulls. I’m not sure what else you’re supposed to think in such a situation.
9 Likes
Nah that would make it 9.7 or so. Better remove thermal and give it five layer T-80BV armour, or do nothing.
1 Like
Su-24M in game is Su-24M2 and you see it in modification, same for 2S6M1.
So only thing devs should do is change NVD upgrade modification to T-80UM modernisation.
I mean it’s not like Russia is lacking in the 10.3 lineup, it wouldn’t really change much.
Honestly I think those sort of modifications are weird, because it seems to be applied rather arbitrarily. I mean you could more or less take all the M1A2s in game and just make the SEP and SEPv2 be modifications, but they’re not.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, because if you’re referencing D-Type armor from what I can tell Germany did field it on their 2A7V, Gaijin just rejected it because the Swedish Trials (just like the Abrams’ armor).
If a proposal is made, we have tons of secondary sources saying hull armor improvements took place, and no valid arguments saying that the hull armor was not improved, then yes we can assume that the hull armor was improved.
Which have been debunked? I haven’t seen anything that’s been debunked. The things I’ve seen are:
- It couldn’t handle the weight of the new armor - The M1A2 (and DU-equipped M1A1s) got improved suspension and the M1A2 specifically got at least 3 tons of weight shaved off
- A medical “battlebook” shows the armor is only in the turret - It refers to the M1A1 HA as the most recent version of the M1A1 (the book came out in 2011 and the tank was first used in 1988), with its references being a 1987 Army Technical Bulletin and a 1996 CECOM paper.
- The Swedish Trials - An export version of the M1A2 without DU that is explicitly stated to be worse than the domestic package.
Did the T-90M have DU hulls made for nearly a decade, had a limit on DU hulls removed, had a new (Frontal) Armor package created at the time of the removal, and multiple secondary sources stating that it has DU in the hulls? To my knowledge, no.
3 Likes