Oh, I remember that debate back on the old Russian forum. Everything got stuck on the question: ‘What armor penetration did the Americans assume for the Soviet 115 mm APFSDS when building the Abrams?’
No, at that point it would have been for the Rh-120 L/44. The M1E1 program’s 120mm PIP uses the US variant, the (X)M256 which includes changes to the mounting block.
Further what was tested was the Rh-120 L/44, not the (X)M256, thus they are slightly different.
This Timeline comes from;
Reclassification occurs November 1972.
Tri-partite MOU on Standardization is signed in 1974
Trials of Rh-120/L44 held in 1975
Gun mount Design frozen in July 1976
M1E1 program stood up in 1978
First XM256 gun delivered in 1980 (Note specific mention of GE design in the excerpt)
1 Like
Doesn’t matter if it was a RH120 or M256. My point is that the rotor design was for 120mm gun, not the 105 on XM1. Don’t cloud the point. No need for further arguement about this issue.
1 Like
Yes it does, it is known that the M256 uses a revised rotor due to the change to the Recoil mechanism and Breach block.
Sure, but we don’t have an M1E1 (First 14 production hulls ) in game, we have the M1A1, which don’t use the Rh-120 L/44.
My only point is that, that said Proof isn’t as definitive as you make it out to be.
Depends do you have further evidence to back up your claim that the revised rotor shares the geometry?
We know that it is also changed for the L/55 Testbed (M256E1).
The rotor drawing in the XM1 slide is literally the one used for M256, not RH120. Can you please just search before argue? Even there is a photo of a real M256 with its rotor assembled. Compare them, are they any different? Please stop such pointless discussion.
6 Likes
The rotor does need to be redesigned to reflect more modern Abrams models.
Abrams_X, is different real life rotor thickness different for each tank in-game or is that a flat value?
I believe I read somewhere it was 45mm? Is that the same for the Abrams, Leos, T-series, etc?
1 Like
Vehicles with old damage model use flat value with that being different for each tank, however they can be updated to use volumetric armor model to accurately reproduce real life structure in game.
1 Like
I see, thank you for that answer.
We definitely do need the gunshield armor looked at though. The Abrams most certainly is missing 100-200mm in the center.
I have already forwarded two reports regarding the gun shield composite armor and the rotor ass’y shape. They are internal and not posted on CBR, If you don’t mind you can create reports in CBR so I can link them to the internal ones. Please remind that the issues with modern composite armor are always considered as suggestion.
2 Likes
Understood, thank you. I do have an additional bug concerning the HSTVL I have been neglecting to post as well
M1A1 and newer Abrams models missing additional gunshield armor
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/YVUw8YxygHZd
M256 Abrams models has the incorrect gun rotor model
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0CEliKysu4wu
3 Likes
Just want to add what it seems you guys have not noticed yet.
In the IPM1/120mm gun shield there is an additional plate on the front of the rotor
It’s tricky to see on the recent picture share of the bracket Special Armor but it stands proud of the rotor with amble room for an additional plate
So, 1-2" of additional armor is on the front of the rotor so the gun rotor depending on location
And regarding the armor of the rotor being significant armor or not.
While the back is somewhat hollow the front part is clearly much thicker than it needs to be to support the gun, because it is part of the armor just like the original M1 rotor. The rotor is 12" thick so the outer edge provide ~300mm of cast armor and the center part is about half of that so at least ~6" or ~150mm
We can see from the Mg port and auxiliary sight that it is of significant thickness.
And from this drawing it appears that the thickness goes slightly past the center line so 6"+
This also accords with real photos; it doesn’t appear that the rotor is any deeper that the surrounding gun rotor mount
7 Likes
Buff for abrams? Impossible
3 Likes
Great catch, I added it to the rotor bug report as both were accepted but commenting for the gunshield armor was closed. Thank you
3 Likes
And have the reports on the Abrams turret ring been accepted or not?
Yes about 2 years ago M1 Abrams (all subvariants) incorrect turret ring // Gaijin.net // Issues it’s never getting fixed at this point, like the many other abrams bug reports that are still waiting to be implemented. I’m sure the gunshield bug report will end up the same way.
3 Likes
Oh. It says there that Gaijin doesn’t care about the work done by the author, and that they make such holes in the armor deliberately.
easy to under stand, abarms’weakness is just because of Russian bias, their just pretend nkt to have seen taht
1 Like
This is what amazes me about how Gaijin treats a lot of vehicles. They’ll make things up and extrapolate and other times they wont. So you wind up with the P-47 flaps issue, even though it’s hydraulics are practically the same as the corsair’s
Gaijin being picky choosy with top-tier jets on what missiles they get, their performance, Remember the F-15E? Or the fact it’s supposed to have an AESA?
or what about the fact the F-8E is still missing ACM?
But don’t worry. Reports on Russian aircraft mysteriously stay open or you get stuff like this
1 Like