http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm
I found this by the sub project manager Rickard O. Lindström
I’ll reveal a secret to you. Gaijin took the “Relikt” data from the same kinds of sources — not official ones. So what makes those any worse?
1 Like
BTW Polish Ministry of National Defence claims that out SEPv3’s (MP) lacks DU.
Hence DU within domestic variant M could be a thing.
.
.
.
.
… whatever
There is no one who can specify the composition of this special armor, for Gajin this wasn’t much of a problem unless it involved an Abrams. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Where does it say in there that SEPv3 has no DU? Special armor is referenced in US reports all the time as DU.
This is the literal link-adress you posted: https://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/abrams.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Notice the end part there? :)
1 Like
What’s wrong with that? It’s a great site, and the armor data is clearly laid out. Why not use it? After all, Gaijin also took the “Relikt” data from who knows where.
Its a random dude named Fabio with no credentials that runs a blogsite.
It cannot be used in any way shape or form for reporting, it’s not even considered third party at that point.
“whataboutism” will not get anyone anywhere and does nothing but derail the discussions from the topic resulting in actual hindrance in progression.
5 Likes
Since gaijin can use data from various sources, even dubious ones, I think the site I cited could also serve as a source.
Please provide proof of this claim.
As if the X-38ML/MT case didn’t existed: A dubious introduction with a couple of PDFs saying “uh muh missile has IR seeker and does AGM stuff” without proving its capable to even track moving targets at all.
Anyway.
The first image is what Gaijin used as a basis. But there’s no original source, and no one knows where this screenshot came from.
That’s all. The second picture is dated 1993, and I have no idea what armor it’s talking about, what shells were used, or what range they were at. It’s just a ploy to point something out.
3 Likes
This is getting of topic now, if you want to continue this discussion I’ll happily do so in the correct thread or through private messages.
There is no proof provided that they have used any of this as sources.
That’s a fair ask. If our data requirements are so high… why wont they show us the data they use as a standard?
1 Like
Should still be a thing. Even though this is a comic it’s considered to be an official Technical bulletin by the US Army. TB 43-PS-692
1 Like
First time I ever made a bug report, but I reported the inconsistencies with the add on plates on the turret cheeks, although it’s likely known WiP and other people have probably already reported it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ARFq8zEBHWIN
Bet two to one that you’re getting the infamous ‘game convention, not a bug’.
Already went to ‘have the same issue’, but still.
1 Like
Oh I don’t have any expectations for it.
But looking at the bright side, I guess it’s a good way to get experience with making bug reports.
Honestly, if they make the cheek RHA plates be actually 150mm thick (and not 88 as now), I’d call the turret armor settled.
Sure, it’s not really how the turret is designed, but the protection values would probably be close enough to the real thing, so it would be good enough for me if that’s how they simulated them.
1 Like
Prediction: Accepted. Plates removed.
2 Likes