Considering yours is a private account, I’ll take that as a compliment. Making claims about working on Abrams but with no background is, you know, kind of a question of integrity.
Why does this not surprise me in the least?
I could tell you why my account is private.
But you’ve not got a high enough category of security clearance for that information.
1 Like
Awesome, and if you claim the Abrams is ‘accurate’ in War Thunder, I’m still laughing. If it’s a psyop you want to let folks underestimate the equipment, by all means.
4 Likes
@Conte_Baracca also did, except this is a proven fact; and he stated, in regards to the Abrams, recently;
The fact that 5 hulls were built with DU is enough to put them on any of the Abrams from the M1A1 HC and Beyond. I worked the Abrams program and there is plenty of unclassified documents that show this to be the case. You are arbitrarily preventing the use of it in any of those vehicles. That is to say, your logic is flawed with a further understanding of how the Abrams program works.
(First comment here: [Development] Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams - News - War Thunder)
His background:
I attended Officer Candidate School while attending the University of Oklahoma and was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the USMC Reserve after I completed my degree. In the USMC at the time the Reserve commission was more of a legal matter, I would serve on Active Duty in the Marines for the next four years before transitioning to an Active Commission and serving another 16 years. I was commissioned as a “ground” officer and after training at The Basic School for 6 months I would be designated a Tank Officer and begin tank officer training at Ft. Knox, Kentucky.
During my career as an officer I would serve in various positions. I would also work acquisitions for Project Manager Tanks as a Marine Liaison to PM Abrams (the US Army Abrams acquisition program). There I would work on various modernization programs for the tank. I retired from the USMC on March 1, 2017.
(Source: A USMC veteran on the M1A1 Abrams tank: “This tank was designed for assault!” - News - War Thunder)
So… yeah. Leaving aside my extensive independent study on the vehicle over the years, I think I will trust the 50 year old proven veteran who served for longer than I’ve been alive and has demonstrated to have first hand knowledge about this matter and extensive experience on the field; not just as a veteran who served on the Abrams, but specially as someone who worked on the tank’s acquisition programs. I don’t know, he seems to know a thing or two about the vehicle.
9 Likes
This made me blush.
Allow me to clarify and get a little technical:
Seriously, as documents show the hulls of all modern Abrams Variants ( M1A1 FEP, M1A1 SA, M1A2 Sep v.X) are all built on old M1A1 hulls. They bring the tanks and remanufacture the INTERNAL components. This is armor, electronics, mechanics, … everything. We colloquially referred to it as turning a “rusty” into a new tank. Therefore, all Abrams M1A1 hulls are CAPABLE of having DU hull armor.
As to the weight issue Gaijin brings up, this ignores the Track Width Mine Plow (and the dozer blade adopted by the USMC) which both add similar weights to the front. It also ignores the well documented suspension improvements to the M1 series of tanks.
Essentially, all M1A1 or M1A2 variants in the game could be given DU hull armor. Any asks for “documentation” or complaints about “weight” are just smokescreens or ignorance on Gaijin’s part. If there is a BALANCE reason, then Gaijin needs to say as such.
We all know that, in fact, modern NATO tanks are vastly superior to their Russian/Chinese counterparts. NATO tanks are larger, heavier, and cost many times as much as their Russian/Chinese equivalents. Furthermore, NATO nations are technological leaders and innovators and China and Russia cannot produce quality microchips, automobiles, or civilian aircraft. I cannot divulge classified information (obviously) but the falling foreign military sales of Russian equipment, the inability for China to project power, and the earlier mentioned facts should paint a clear enough picture.
10 Likes
Quite indeed.
So, here’s the situation; we may not have Primary sources specifically stating that SEPv2 (for example) has improved armor or by how much exactly… but we have;
-Primary sources proving that the Abrams CAN have improved armor.
-Primary sources hinting, indirectly, that this improved armor was implemented.
-Secondary sources stating that it HAS improved armor.
-Secondary sources stating that the improved armor is somewhere on the 530-600mm KE range.
2+2=4. The primary sources don’t provide ALL the information; but they provide enough information that can be “completed” with secondary sources.
The M1A2 SEPv2 is the current workhorse of the United States (SEPv3 is the next standard goal, but it’s a gradual process); OF COURSE the thing is still extremely classified and therefore we just won’t be getting any detailed official information on its armor anytime soon.
Gaijin’s expectation of finding all necessary information from a primary source on a present day vehicle of such classified nature is unreasonable and unrealistic.
We are at the point when Gaijin should drop the “we need a document signed by General Dynamics and the seven Founding Fathers stating specifically how and by how much the armor was improved for us to even consider implementing it ingame” requirement and just work with the information that is available, even if it’s not officially certified.
Also wholeheartedly agree with all the points related to the weight and suspension. All of that is nonsense.
Hehe o7
6 Likes
Casual reminder that Gaijin has placed the 1991 M1A2 Abrams at the same BR as a 2017 T-90M.
The 1984 IPM1 at (nearly) the same BR as a 2016 T-72B3M.
The 1995 Leopard 2A5 at the same BR as a 2017 T-80BVM.
And the 1972 Leopard 2K at (nearly) the same BR as a 2006 TURMS-T.
That seems to me to be a pretty solid indication that Gaijin also doesn’t believe Soviet/Russian designs to be superior.
I get the distinct feeling you have a hard time accepting this video game (and it is just that at the end of the day) bases it’s vehicles off of publicly available source material.
The moment Gaijin says: ‘‘Oh, you claim to have worked on the development of [X] Vehicle and you claim it’s protection should be higher? Alrighty then! We’ll get that fixed right away!’’ You’ll get hundreds of people claiming they worked on a certain vehicle and the protection (of their personal favourite vehicle of course) should be much higher.
What keeps this from turning into a complete mess is that people have to at the very least present some sources to support their claims. Is this a perfect solution? No, obviously it isn’t.
But do you happen to have a superior alternative?
Now I can already hear people say: ‘‘Just make some stuff up!’’, but at that point one might as well play the big rival tank game that shall not be named.
4 Likes
The issue is, precisely, that they do not do this.
Because they openly and repeatedly deem the publicly available source materials to be insufficient or unreliable, and they consistently demand for more and more accurate and official information to consider applying changes.
Over the years, Gaijin has been given over 30 different and independent sources indicating that SEPv2 and AIM have improved hull armor; yet it’s never been good enough.
“Not official enough.”
“Does not specify values.”
“B- but suspension couldn’t handle the weight.”
“We do not believe it.”
Etc. Even if all of them add up and sum to the same conclussion.
5 Likes
This, and the FACT that documents show that 5 hulls DID have this is all you need.
I just want to be clear that this is my position. I will not discuss what we actually did.
7 Likes
Yes. That part.
And everything Conte brought up.
It’s like we have detailed ALL the armor upgrades, ALL the transmission upgrades, ALL the suspension upgrades, and they still use the same 1996 hull and turret arrays because THOSE are the only ones publicly available from a foreign nation, rather than recognizing the work other games have already made guesstimating.
Steel Beasts guessed 950mm KE and over 1600+ CE protection as a maximum limit over 20 years ago, and it fits what’s public knowledge from observation.
5 Likes
Same with Leopard 2A7V.
They decided that Leopard 2A7V, just recently put in service, has BARELY the same armor as the pre-2A5 TVM prototype from the 1990s just because THOSE are the only sources publicly available. And, somehow, worse armor than the Strv 122s from the early 2000s.
Instead of recognizing the countless secondary sources indicating the armor was significantly improved, they decided to base the armor on the primary sources of an old pre-2A5 prototype.
They really need to drop the whole primary source obsession when it comes to classified vehicles and start using more common sense, logic and secondary sources instead.
They claim it’s already the case, but their actions say otherwise.
4 Likes
I feel as if the best thing we can do is wait until the sepv3 comes, as it’s a known fact the armor in the hull and turret were improved plus you get hard kill aps and it should get m829a3
4 Likes
If it ever arrives, they might well leave the turret ring the same.
But M829A3 should already be in game.
2 Likes
Steel Beasts can’t be considered a valid source for vehicle improvements. With that said, that doesn’t mean Steel Beasts isn’t necessarily wrong either.
2 Likes
Because we’re talking about France and the Devs don’t care about the world’s second arms exporter for some reason
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/TXk5MVR0kcTR
Currently, the Leclerc’s track are loud as fuck
1 Like
I understand and agree we can’t. I use them as a cross reference since they are THE milsim of milsims, and their adjudication for armor thickness was overly fair even to their Russian counterparts.
I agree that they should be more open about their restrictions, you’re well aware of my meme template I would presume:
I made this specifically about how they messed up the Strv 122B+
The majority of them weren’t, many such sources included personal blogs, foreign papers that came out shortly after the vehicle itself, news articles, Wikipedia knock-offs, and many more that just aren’t trustworthy.
This gets into the Strv 122B+ issue, it’s concretely stated that it featured improved protection, but Gaijin chose to copy/paste Strv 122A values.
This one I also find rather silly.
I think this should be changed to: ‘‘Devs internally have evidence that says otherwise.’’
I’ve created numerous bug reports over the years, and as such have had discussions with technical moderators, in many cases they came back to me with sources from the developers that I hadn’t seen shared online before.
As has always been the case, there’s a language barrier here and a lot of comments are not translated particularly well.
I don’t believe there’s an inherent bias within Gaijin that purposely nerfs Western equipment and buffs Russian equipment, I’ve been through too many cycles of NATO stuff curbstomping Russian stuff to believe that any more.
And I’ve seen all those sources and also side with Gaijin in this case, of the sources publicly available, the most authoritative ones claim no such improvements were carried out.
I don’t claim that such improvements haven’t been carried out, I’m merely saying that the currently available sources point towards it not being the case.
If at some point sources are revealed that show it did happen, I’d be the first to use them in bug reports as I’ve also done with the M1’s turret side armour and it’s hull traverse rate.
2 Likes
I wish most NATO tanks had their Steel Beasts protection as they are FAR more fair in their estimations.
But we don’t live in that world, we live in Gaijin land where everything non-russian is estimated to the lowest possible value found and no critical thinking is involved in protection estimations.
2 Likes
As far as I could see, Steel Beasts’ values are proportionally correct for the most part; except they are all consistently overestimated by around 15%; both when it comes to armor and penetration values (so the inflation cancels out).
And, as you said; even if we can’t take Steel Beasts with absolute certainty, it’s always interesting to remember that it was never meant to be a “game” to entertain civilians; but rather, one of the official collective military training pieces of software of many armies across the world.
I doubt NATO would be training its tank crews with an inaccurate simulator that would educate them with wrong information.
In a way, I think this logic alone should be enough to trust their values may not be all that far off after all (save for the general 15% inflation).
3 Likes