Please, tell me in the where in the Aug 2006 version of the SUB-1536 license where the hulls are limited. Because here is a 1999 version in the same format, where hulls listed separately from turrets, and given an exact limit.
…and yes, these amendment forms are actually due to changes in the SUB-1536 license.
Then Aug 2006, hulls are authorized unlimited DU use as are turrets, categorized in the same line item.
Can you please explain this to the devs so Gaijin can pull its head out of it 4th point of contact like you did with M735? Maybe it’s a language barrier thing, but they cited SUB-1536 completely wrong, and it proves the opposite of what they are saying.
Just because the limit was removed in 2006 doesnt mean they were upgraded then.
I would agree on the SEPv2 and below not having any LFP improvements, however the SEPv3 does have turret and hull improvements as stated in unclassified reports. Honestly I thought about this if the SEPv2 and below has LFP improvement there probably would have been leaks already confirming the matter.
Reminder that prior makes of the M1 before the SEP V3 specifically state new generation armor sets, but do not specify what exactly they change for security reasons.
The SEP V3 improvements make the same claims the prior upgrades made without much change in overall wording thus, if we hold them all to the same standards, its easy to believe that the SEP V3 has no changes either per others musing here.
Don’t forget SEPv3 upgrade program makes no mention of an upgraded suspension and per Gaijin, no upgraded suspension = no upgraded LFP armor.
Yep, cant upgrade the armor without making the ride stronger … even though the added weight from the other armor kits in other versions was added without such upgrades being done or protection improvements.
Come to think of it as well, do we have any proof that any of the recent T series tanks had suspension upgrades for their armor additions? Or are we just accepting that bolting half a vehicles worth of extra junk onto the exterior of a T-80 or T-72 in Ukraine does not effect them in the slightest.
He formed his opinion that there is no improved armor/DU/spall liner by only looking at primary sources, of which there are very little, rather than looking at the relevant secondary sources that pretty much all say that it has all of those things.
I do find it interesting he said the SEPv3 definitely had DU in the hull armor since I’ve been struggling to find any primary sourcing for DU hulls in general. Much less the SEPv3
I would like to know as well, because now people are tossing the statement around as fact due to the video and I’ve yet to see and reference of actual DU related changes in the hull or the turret arrays for the SEP V3.
Of course there is the generalized “improved survivability and armor” but its already been beaten to death that gaijin ignores those statements.
Considering the new armor upgrade is called NGAP (Next Generation Armor Package) there is the possibility that the new armor composition doesn’t use DU anymore. Either way it’s a pretty big upgrade since you can physically see that they had to extend the turret and hull further out to fit in the new NGAP package in.
Now now, we don’t know that. Maybe they simply had to extend the hull when they ditched DU to get the same effectiveness /s
Edit: Yes I’m that pessimistic.
This is wrong. The AIM and SEP programs included the new armor package. The budget forms, FONSI statement, the VA, show that Abrams hulls have them, and the 1999 amendment of SUB-1536 show that the 5 hulls were already being tested to have them.
As I said before, there’s no need to be tied to the fact that there’s (or not) depleted uranium in the hull, it just stricts main position. It’s publicly known engineers made non-DU packages, so the main point is to indentify protection upgrades
You don’t get it, furry can’t be wrong.
Pack it up, folks. The furry has spoken.
Thus why I’ve said I’d settle for simply upgraded protection of some form.
