Jump to content
Just now, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Nowhere in the documents is stated that the M1A2 being offered was a different "export variant". And not only the numbers in the documents DO indicate a different armor composition on the turret (with DU inserts) than in the hull (good old BRL package as used since the first M1), the "export" M1A2 DIDNT EVEN EXIST by the time of the swedish trials!

The document also mentioned a upgrade package for the M1A2 armor.

Neither did such thing existed in 1992, so I can assume the base tested tank had DU removed, it (DU plate) or substitute (other armor plate) can be added on to increase protection.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Nowhere in the documents is stated that the M1A2 being offered was a different "export variant". And not only the numbers in the documents DO indicate a different armor composition on the turret (with DU inserts) than in the hull (good old BRL package as used since the first M1), the "export" M1A2 DIDNT EVEN EXIST by the time of the swedish trials!

 

It wouldn't say that as there was no reason too as it has been stated US policy since the DU was even considered never to offer it for export.  And on top of that, the A2 was barely existent at the time in the first place.  I can assure you, the swedish A1 and A2 they tested was *not* DU. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image015.jpg

3 minutes ago, Loongsheep said:

The document also mentioned a upgrade package for the M1A2 armor.

Neither did such thing existed in 1992, so I can assume the base tested tank had DU removed, it (DU plate) or substitute (other armor plate) can be added on to increase protection.

strv_ny-16.jpg

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the fact that we're getting the CR2 and the Ariete preserie, one can infer that we'll be getting other tanks of a similar time period for the other nations. I'm curious as to whether all of CR2's protection will be based on soviet ammo, and if so will comparable models (like the T-80U/T-90A) be able to penetrate the turret? And furthering that thought, will some nato ammunition completely ignore the CR2's turret armour much like with the CR1?

I know the CR2 will be garbage on the majority of maps because they're all knife fights in phone booths, but on the rare occasion I'll be able to get hull down, will it even be worth the effort?

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know the protection levels of a M1A2 with DU? As that book states the CR2 offered 10-15% less protection against KE than a M1A2 with DU but it offered significantly more protection than the M1A2DU against CE. If we know those numbers we could figure out the KE values for CR2

Edited by *oppsijustkilledu
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Loongsheep said:

The document also mentioned a upgrade package for the M1A2 armor.

Neither did such thing existed in 1992, so I can assume the base tested tank had DU removed, it (DU plate) or substitute (other armor plate) can be added on to increase protection.

The swedes were not satisfied with the tanks protection levels  that were presented. Thats why they designed add-on packages for the M1, the Leclerc and the Leo 2A5. The latter went on to become the Strv-122.

 

Just now, PantherAl said:

 

It wouldn't say that as there was no reason too as it has been stated US policy since the DU was even considered never to offer it for export.  And on top of that, the A2 was barely existent at the time in the first place.  I can assure you, the swedish A1 and A2 they tested was *not* DU. 

By the time of the trials the Abrams hadnt been exported yet. There was no M1A2 "S" or "E" or whatever. Only years later when US bribed some arab pockets they got to sell downgraded variants, even if i wanted to believe you you should post some evidence pointing to what you maintain.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCheshireCat said:

Based on the fact that we're getting the CR2 and the Ariete preserie, one can infer that we'll be getting other tanks of a similar time period for the other nations. I'm curious as to whether all of CR2's protection will be based on soviet ammo, and if so will comparable models (like the T-80U/T-90A) be able to penetrate the turret? And furthering that thought, will some nato ammunition completely ignore the CR2's turret armour much like with the CR1?

I know the CR2 will be garbage on the majority of maps because they're all knife fights in phone booths, but on the rare occasion I'll be able to get hull down, will it even be worth the effort?

Ide rather they fixed how composite is modelled so it 'works' more effectively than it currently does (i.e. flat pen matters more than angled pen)

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1A1HA and M1A2's both use DU, SEP2 a touch more.  The values existent on public forums are naught more than wild guess as it is still officially a classified secret.

5 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

By the time of the trials the Abrams hadnt been exported yet. There was no M1A2 "S" or "E" or whatever. Only years later when US bribed some arab pockets they got to sell downgraded variants, even if i wanted to believe you you should post some evidence pointing to what you maintain.

 

 

So all those Egyptian M1's in '88 are all make believe?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PantherAl said:

M1A1HA and M1A2's both use DU, SEP2 a touch more.  The values existent on public forums are naught more than wild guess as it is still officially a classified secret.

If you dont believe me, check this and keep in mind that higher density materials are less efficient vs CE than KE. LFP as a much higher CE vs KE protection ratio than the turret, that indicates that the latter is using a much higher density materials.

 

1346282254_M1A2conclusions.thumb.jpg.6cc

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PantherAl said:

M1A1HA and M1A2's both use DU, SEP2 a touch more.  The values existent on public forums are naught more than wild guess as it is still officially a classified secret.

well... since the Swedish test rig was made to US specs, and the export A2 is ~ as well protected as an A1HA... and we have the turret protection against DM53
leopard+abrams+leclerc+turret+comparison
(Red is dead) ...then we kinda know the protection of the A1HA

Edited by dotEXCEL
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dotEXCEL said:

well... since the Swedish test rig was made to US specs, and the export A2 is ~ as well protected as an A1HA... and we have the turret protection against DM53
leopard+abrams+leclerc+turret+comparison
(Red is dead) ...then we kinda know the protection of the A1HA

 

Only sorta know it - it gives a good estimate, but the performance isn't quite the same. There was already an Export Armour Package and a Domestic.  The issue is that we offered the Swedes an Improved Export Package that was intended to be DU-like without the DU.  How close it was to DU, is a good question - especially since there was a lot of discussion about giving that info to the Swedes in the first place since there was the fact that Sweden would release said data to the public much earlier than the US would like (Swedish Classification Laws are a lot more looser than the US). Whilst there is no documentary evidence of games being played, when this subject came up while I was working on the MGS at Aberdeen, I got the impression from the answers I did get that it was close yes, but not that close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PantherAl said:

 

Only sorta know it - it gives a good estimate, but the performance isn't quite the same. There was already an Export Armour Package and a Domestic.  The issue is that we offered the Swedes an Improved Export Package that was intended to be DU-like without the DU.  How close it was to DU, is a good question - especially since there was a lot of discussion about giving that info to the Swedes in the first place since there was the fact that Sweden would release said data to the public much earlier than the US would like (Swedish Classification Laws are a lot more looser than the US). Whilst there is no documentary evidence of games being played, when this subject came up while I was working on the MGS at Aberdeen, I got the impression from the answers I did get that it was close yes, but not that close.

thats why i said: ...then we kinda know [...]

;)

Edited by dotEXCEL
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well M1A2 with no Du is around 600mm against kinetic so with du it's unknown and for chemical protection Challenger 1 had 1000mm so Challenger 2 it's unknown but it would obviously be more so maybe 1300mm but that's a guess.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

well... since the Swedish test rig was made to US specs, and the export A2 is ~ as well protected as an A1HA... and we have the turret protection against DM53
leopard+abrams+leclerc+turret+comparison
(Red is dead) ...then we kinda know the protection of the A1HA

These graphs hurt my eyes. What numbers in regards to armour against KE and CE show on the Abrams.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, duckmartin said:

Well M1A2 with no Du is around 600mm against kinetic so with du it's unknown and for chemical protection Challenger 1 had 1000mm so Challenger 2 it's unknown but it would obviously be more so maybe 1300mm but that's a guess.

Who said that M1A2 has no DU?? really this is getting old...

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Who said that M1A2 has no DU?? really this is getting old...

Sweden wouldn't have bought an Abrams with DU armour or ammo. The political climate is not suitable for it.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Who said that M1A2 has no DU?? really this is getting old...

 

Once more, Export M1A2's have no DU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm

This site, who is updated by the same author as of the leaked document  states the Swedish spec Abrams had export armor

Nowhere it says such a thing, the word "exportversion" (or even "export") is only mentioned ONCE and referring to Leo 2. Lets not make things up.

 

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
  • Haha 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Nowhere it says such a thing, the word "exportversion" (or even "export") is only mentioned ONCE and referring to Leo 2. Lets not make thing up.


"M1A2 hade ett ballistiskt skydd i exportversion"

Google translate

"M1A2 had a ballistic protection in export version"

 

I have a Danish buddy who knows Swedish so maybe he can enlighten me fully

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:


"M1A2 hade ett ballistiskt skydd i exportversion"

Google translate

"M1A2 had a ballistic protection in export version"

 

I have a Danish buddy who knows Swedish so maybe he can enlighten me fully

And right afterwards it continues "Skjutförsök mot dess bästa ballistiska skydd gjordes i USA". Unless "export" armor was better than the armor that was in US service i fail to see your point. 

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

And right afterwards it continues "Skjutförsök mot dess bästa ballistiska skydd gjordes i USA". Unless "export" armor was better than the armor that was in US service i fail to see your point.

Nothing suggests that that it was better or worse then the US armor but states that shooting tests for the best ballistic protection were done in the USA.

 

Edited by RoflSeal
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

And right afterwards it continues "Skjutförsök mot dess bästa ballistiska skydd gjordes i USA". Unless "export" armor was better than the armor that was in US service i fail to see your point.

 

Yes, it says very clearly, testing against the export quality in Sweden compared to the best versions avialable in the US - thats TWO different armours mentioned.  Hence, it is pretty cut and dried there was no DU A2's in Sweden.  And, as Roflseal said - Sweden wouldn't permit DU to be used in the first place for legal reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

lets speak sound design here: gaijins sounds are bad...
i was helping Point back in the day with Epic Thunder. You wouldnt believe how many sounds they just copy pasted to make development easier... its a mess. hence why im using ETSM

 

Tell me about it... the Challengers still run on the Chieftain sound and miss any sort of turbo charger whizz. But you have to give them credit for the lack of the sound of a shell casing falling down after a shot. It's using a bag charge, after all. 

 

46 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

i know that... but do you know which CR2 they used to model the IGN model? i do not

 

Well if they put in a British Challenger 2 then they should not model them after a Omani Challenger 2. I'm being pretty rough here, but they either do it properly or they better do not do it at all! 

Edited by DELTACLUSTER
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt all the talk about the challenger 2's ammo completely useless in the end? gaijin has that "perfect universal formula" now, which ensures the "tanks shells will perform perfectly accurate and according to IRL performances"

any kind of improvement i can see for the chally2 would be maybe ~10mm more pen

 

and armour? well, the chally1 armour doesnt really help ingame, so why should the chally2 be kinda protected?

 

thats sadly all i expect about the chally2 in WT, as the past has shown me how much gaijin "likes" the british techtrees - they "always" "get" "what they deserve"

 conquerors belly plate, viable CAS options,a competitive top tier tank, javelin, 9.7 stock APDS,......

 

the ONLY advantage i currently can see for the brits is what inflated that nation all this time:

they dont have to fight the Abroomz - its the single and only advantage.

so why not scrap the whole TT and make it a part of US and A? (this was a sarcastic idea. it wont happen cause it would improve the brits)

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...