Again with this “secondary sources”, asking for classified stuff is illegal, maybe for once for the sake of balance make a change? 50mm thickness isn’t much, fixing it would mean alot and can make the Abrams competitive with 2A7,BVM,T90M,SRTVs.
My God, it’s like arguing with someone who flatly refuses to accept that anti-ERA technology exists or that can’t take measurements of a turret ring with pictures from the factory.
Please go away.
So what you’re saying is that you don’t have a source?
Ok good so your complaints are invalid as they cannot be backed up with evidence.
Maybe take the time and check the acknowledged turret ring bug report?
2 Likes
“I don’t have to explain shit”. Then you’re just here to drag the convo even further off. You’re the one who has assisted others in derailing Abrams’ threads for months, not me. Hence why I’m hostile with you. Now get.
4 Likes
a random picture is not proof
if videos of a chinese tanks reverse gear can be dismissed as possible sped up propaganda footage the same can be said about supposed pictures of the abrams turret ring.
Again, want it changed? Provide the necessary sources. It is that simple.
It’s amazing how they have all this time to spam comments in threads concerning corrections in the Abrams, but not their own tanks.
It’s almost like their opp.
2 Likes
Your Chinese tanks are not in question here, provide proof for your own wishes in your own thread for own tanks. Goodbye.
lots of reports go “acknowledged” but don’t actually end up being pushed through as there is insufficient evidence, one such report being the sea fury engine power report for example.
Which they’re illegal? so you’re asking for something thats illegal.
I’m simply pointing out the double standards in your claims. pictures and video can be edited and thus do not count as a real source, only as supporting evidence.
Comparing yet another vehicle bug report to the Abrams in the Abrams’ correction thread. We’re not here for your apples to oranges comparisons. Either address that yes, the Abrams is due corrections, or simply say you don’t think it is and leave it at that. If so, this thread is not for you. Read the room.
The turret ring issue is acknowledged 7 months now, which is alot of time they took to just make a simple fix, instead of 50mm of thickness they can change it to 300mm, whats so hard in this?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K
3 Likes
A lack of viable sources is not the fault of Gaijin
He literally just posted that they acknowledged sources as viable. Leave the thread.
clearly they aren’t enough for Gaijin if the turret ring is still 50mm
Not to mention that the 10.3 M1 ring is already better than other abrams, but if i post it again they will ignore again as usual
1 Like
And yet again, proving that you’re not here for corrections, only rebuttals. I swear to God, you all lack the consideration of boundaries of others. And then you whine when people get heated at you and talk smack about your argument methods.
clearly they would’ve already implemented the turret ring change if the sources were sufficient, there’s a reason it only got forwarded as a suggestion and not an actual issue with the damage model