Abrams frontal armor

It faced russian tanks in the 90’s and didn’t get penned once in the UFP or at all. The “LOLPEN” UFP is not a thing and has never happened. lol

Some of the Russian tanks used 3VBM-7 rounds and yes - they are sabots. . If the Abrams “LOLPEN” were a thing, it would have been exposed during the war.

1 Like

Neither is that gauge? That’s 100% a $50 UTG with a high margin of error. You can’t tell if that’s the max or min.
Hell, he’s probably not even measuring it in CD01… If you want the most accurate reading, you need CD0X.

It faced T-54s and T-55s in the 90s. Only about 15% of the vehicles the Abrams faced could classify as T-72s, and even then that’s hoping they aren’t '172Ms…
Ammunition from the late '60s to early '70s doesn’t help the case either. It’s the exact reason why I say that the Middle East does nothing to prove capability.

1 Like

regardless of the back and forth arguements for or against something needs to be done about the Abrams… it is miserable to play in the current meta.


I’d say it would only benefit with more detailed volumetric modeling. That is the only issue holding the turret ring protection back, as well as places like the driver hatch.

I would also love a more detailed composite / NERA penetration model, but I honestly have no clue what could be changed for better accuracy.

I get the feeling my comment about you being very young struck a nerve.

Besides, we’re all War Thunder players here, so we’re all on the spectrum.

I asked you to show me sources that overrule mine, I also said that if you did I would be open to reconsidering.

You then neglected to respond at all. I’m thus to conclude that you don’t have any sources which have higher validity than those I shared.

So I repeat: If you have sources that show the upper glacis plate of the M1 to in fact be 2 inches instead of 1.5, please share them. ‘‘educate me’’


No source will show an Abrams with a 2" thick UFP. No source will overrule my ruler.

1 Like

Were you there?

1 Like

This videos are worthless

1 Like

Does it matter?

You’re forgetting to compensate for the thickness of the CARC paint. Though it would of been nice if he’d set the gauge to metric mode instead of imperial measurements. I’d eventually like to start using my UTG to measure armor on a few vehicles. Mines a TM-8818.


Yes, when you act like a trove of knowledge it’s nice tonknow where it comes from.

1 Like

And anecdotal tales will tell you that?

Are you asking yourself that or me? I was there in the early 90’s…were you?

Again, does it matter?


So me personally being there sways the information as to the amount and types of vehicles that took action in the wars?

I’d like to see where they did that though, especially since ~3mm is a lot of difference for just paint.

Abrams top surface paint is made to reduce thermal signature and prevent wear from stepping on… it also has an uneven gravely surface for grip to avoid crew falling off. It’s rather thick.

1 Like