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.
1 Like
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.
Exactly, it does not state this side armor uses DU, whereas the following statement regarding new front armor is specifically stated to use DU.
If the newly implemented side armor made use of DU, why isn’t it phrased the same way as the front armor is with a clear: ‘’(DU)‘’ -description?
So how is 4500 kilo’s sufficient for a fleet of vehicles?
Remember, the other sheet states 275,000(!) kilograms for front armor packages, that’s a weight number that makes sense when required to outfit countless vehicles with DU packages.
I’d imagine you wouldn’t get much further than 7 or so vehicles if you were limited to 4500 kg of DU.
1 Like
Why does it needs a description? It already differentiate with “non-DU”, if new armor doesn’t contain DU, then why differentiate them? Why does it needs a license at all?
And if side armor doesn’t contain DU, then where’s this “contamination” come from?
As for weight concern there can be several explanation.
275,000kg is for both frontal and side armor, maybe side armor uses less DU to save weight?
Maybe that 4,535kg is for a small batch?
I could think of several possible answers, all of which are of course complete guesses:
- Perhaps there’s a very limited amount (singular digit) of M1’s equipped with DU side armor.
- Perhaps because the areas are adjacent, and the removal of side armour exposes the DU layer present in the frontal armour.
- It also states ‘‘Any’’ instead of ‘‘Solid’’ under ‘‘Chemical and/or physical form’’, this implies it is in some way different from the ‘‘Solid’’ frontal armour packages. Contamination does not necessarily have to be DU and only DU I would think, I could imagine other heavy metals/materials being harmful as well.
(Original M1 turret, I know, just trying to illustrate how the removal of side armour could expose the front armour packages as well)
Which brings me back to my original point, ‘‘A.’’ is listed as involving two things: Removal of front armor (DU) and removal/installation of side armor (non-DU).
Given the way that’s formulated, I would assume the 275000 kg of DU is dedicated exclusively to the front armor packages.