Yeah, you can see where it was supposed to go with both photos together. They actually modeled the sides of the piece in question that protrude out but not the 6-10" of solid steel that sits behind the gunshield itself
2 Likes
As I am looking at it now, this piece seems to be simplified to be this whole gun mantlet structure showed here :
In the game, NERA array covers almost whole plate in the top part of this …:
…But here is like 1/3 of whole plate, behind this you have element “missing in the game” and then the motor. In the game they simplified it, slapped entire structure as an NERA composition and that’s it.
You have even this side plates modelled and its not looking like 12.7mm of armour what so ever:
And turret cheeks NERA arrays have cut of where motor should be placed shown here :
In conclusion, mantlet is modelled fairly good but simplified for me. I don’t know what would happen when they model it like it is, with still unknown number how much RHAe is it and exact NERA composition.
One thing modelled wrongly is the “trunnions” or actual motor itself, should be closer to mantlet NERA and should be modelled as CHA structure from what I can see. That’s why you assumed that there is missing element. With motor being closer and bigger, it looks in good shape with whole turret armor composition. And it looks like there is no room for another piece of armour there.
Using my superior editing skills i ve tried to show it and it look like this:
One thing that concerns me is that plate, definitely mounted in front of the motor itself but it looks like its not that thick, maybe an inch or something like that.
And from my perspective, this is armor that is missing, plate that @Abrams_X showed and correctly modelled motor.
yes. the rotor is mounted too far back in game, giving the appearance of a random gap, most of which wouldnt be there.
Addition to last post, you can clearly see backing plate here :
Motor on IP M1 is modelled closer to NERA array
Another thing is mantlet on IP M1 Abrams is underperforming compared even to base M1 ( or base M1 mantlet is overperforming) as shown here (M900 as a reference point):
IP M1 :
Heading angle is different because constructional slope of the armour is as well different.
Basic M1 105mm
M1A1 (120mm, different gun assembly)
All of the Abrams models in game from M1A1 have the same protection of gun mantlet (except IP M1, not so Improved Protection) so its probably wrong but Its snail and they are lazy to model it right, with volumetric armour and such.
You have
Rolled homogeneous armor (38mm) checks out
External composite armor with NERA elements (305mm) checks out
Rolled homogeneous armor (18mm) this number should be at least 300mm at it’s thickest point since it’s angled.
They did not model the gunshield properly, that’s why it appears as such.
Half an inch is not wide at all. Those side pieces are there just to keep the front shield attached to the inner armor profile. They serve no purpose otherwise.
What they need to do is model the M1A1 trunion. They are using the M1 trunion instead for every abrams with the M256 cannon. Once they’ve done that, they can properly figure out the overall thickness that is missing from the gunshield. There is no dead space between the M1A1 trunion and the external gunshield armor.
Assuming their game dimensions are correct, if we add 38mm, 305mm and 18mm of the gunshield’s xray, we get 361mm total. Now scale the gunshield pack to 361mm and we can get a close approximation of how much armor is actually missing. Extremely rough photo but I’ve drew in what the trunion should kinda look like. Now we can figure out the approximation of how much is missing by scaling the 361mm in cad. Around 260mm by my measurements but again, this is an extremely rough estimate.
If we assume that those measurements are correct. The missing armor would be something like this
Rolled homogeneous armor (18mm)
External composite armor with NERA elements (224mm)
Rolled homogeneous armor (18mm)
OR 260mm of just homogeneous armor.
In addition to the gunshield armor
Rolled homogeneous armor (38mm)
External composite armor with NERA elements (305mm)
Rolled homogeneous armor (18mm)
2 Likes
usahec.org link to file where these images are from.
ALOG ALMC PAPERS; BOX 2B, FOLDER 18, CHRYSLER, TANK FABRICATION, UNDETERMINED
1 Like
I am pretty sure NERA array is not up to scale as well and numbers of protection are taken from Swedish trials.Am I right @Conraire ?
@ileaveuptiers You can’t just measure it in CAD, take dimensions from in-game spec and measure the gap behind with it. We assumed motor carriage is modelled wrong, with whole mantlet being a few separate pieces rather than single NERA block with additional plates of unknown material and thickness, and from videos inside the Abrams there is no armour behind the motor what so ever. So Gaijin could, but Gaijin is Gaijin, maybe in few years we will get proper modell
The motor carriage is modeled wrong. Even if it was moved up to the correct position, there is still a large amount of armor still missing. In front of the rotor (the portion the gun rotates vertically on) the complete gunshield package is almost as thick as the turret cheeks themselves. The Abrams needs a complete redesign there’s TOO much wrong with it to just keep using it as is.
The red arrow is the complete length of the gunshield armor. You can see in the second photo the seal compared to the first photo.
How it’s in-game now
Assuming the rotor is really that far further up. The red shaded section should be solid and bolted to the rotor
8 Likes
They also need to update the effectiveness of the armor.
M1a1 and m1a2 got s2 materials. Very similar to how Chobham and Dorchester or the 2a4 and 2a5 endgame have the exact same nera dimensions and armor but are 25-40% more effective.
The m1a2 completely retooled the Nera arrays when adding the DU. That’s why all Abrams in incidents have to come home and be recertified. Because they now use ceramic tiles from United defense and high hardened steel.
The fact that every other tank is now using high hardened steel and the m1a1/2 isn’t for its 38mm upper, or the face on the turret or hull is insane.
Every single modern main battle tank uses that as the initial plate on it skin or the first plate on the array.
Do you want your hardest steel in the very beginning so it won’t deform and we will defeat the round if it’s too soft.
There’s also a reason they use the thinner plate in the front and the thickest plate in the rear. The thickest plate has to be softer. Otherwise, he would crack because it’s so brittle.
The Abrams would not only be 19 and 38 mm except for the fact it uses high hardened steel. If they were using normal RHA even if it ricochets at 81 degrees It’s going to warp or ruin the whole upper front plate.
HHS is in between ceramic and steel so it handles shots a lot better, but doesn’t break on every instance.
Lastly, the M1 A1 physically added hull armor on top of adding better materials. When they lengthend the hull, by more than a foot it was increased. Probably by 2 array blocks which is 8 inches.
This lines up with every number we have from Jane’s to Hannicut to Doyle to multiple senators like McCain bragging on camera he got the funding passed for the M1a1s frontal protection increase.
Also, there’s a congressional letter in 1995 from a few congressmen saying they were pissed some of their constituents children had to ride in less protected in ones while the others got M1a1s and they got a reply back saying, he check army ordinance and all M1a2s will be receiving 2x all the frontal armor.
He then goes on to say the M1 was insufficient to stand up against Russia’s latest round. The M1 A1 did better on the turret, but still missed the mark. The M1 A2. Will be completely in vulnerable And he said specifically “ I was in a classified briefing, they can be shot at high or low and it won’t matter. We are sparing no expense.”
And the list goes on and on and on. The armies reason for not needing DU in the lower hull was its protection was being increased and is already gaining 2.5 tons. It can add 2 tons in the lower and DU.
So why we don’t know specifics, we do know it’s damn well, not the same number the M1 is in game and it’s at least with the leopard has.
Thats why with the Sep general dynamic said all we can do is add a ERA and imaging systems because we’ve already upgraded the quality of armor and used every inch we can….
But if you go look at the M1 A1 or M1 A2 in game you can see a fat 8 inch gap where there is no nera for no reason. Tanks take a crap ton of weight to cover. You would not leave an 8 inch gap for no reason. There is no dead space in tanks. If they had that extra 8 inches, that would be enough to store half of their electronics and computers, and they wouldn’t be fighting to make room elsewhere.
Gaijin is so off on everything with the US
The m735 is the perfect example…. The M111 from Israel is literally a licensed copy of the M735 that they used to joke around that was an American round.
My friend still fires them in Israel for training because they made so many of them…. The Israeli tanks boars produce produced way less pressure because they were based on the L7 not a high-pressure bore.
Since it is Israeli, it gets almost 340 mm of Pen from 1455 m/s…. But since it’s American 290mm and it’s faster by 41 m/s.
Literally the same round, shot at 41 m a second less gets 50mm pen advantage.
Or how about the m111 and m735 both testing as 390mm and 400mm against flat targets and getting 50-100mm nerf.
How about the fact that the M735 was superior to all of our steel darts but it has the same exact penetration as a 90mm t95e1 with a shorter rod made of steel at less velocity?
How about the 76 mm that’s super short and has less velocity on the Italian dart that only does 15 mm less pen while being half as long, 30% less mass and much slower?
It’s nonstop. But they hate the Abrams and the XM one was king for to long. They nerfed it three times a year for three years in a row until it finally died.
Look how quickly they nerf any American outlier while the Russian outliers simply get power crept.
The 57mm aa that one shot anything is still OP but it’s not top-tier any longer. The object 279, is7, kv220, kv1e, T 44, T 54, t64 were all absolute scary monsters who never got nerfed. They only came out with new tanks.
Meanwhile, anything US like the hellcat goes from 4.7 to 6.0 or the T 29 6.7-7.0 to reload nerfed.
3 Likes
That’s the breech of a xm1 prototype, not production models.
As far as I understand, the M111/DM23 is based on the M735, but it’s not an exact copy, as Israel modified the tip of the penetrator to make it better.
The problem in the game is that a report lowered the penetration of the M735, when in reality, the M735 was only marginally inferior to the M111. Apparently, they used data from the XM735, not the production version.
No it is not that of XM1. It is standard design for M256 120mm gun. XM1 does not have 120mm gun. Just because slide says XM1 doesn’t mean it is meant to use in 105mm XM1. In fact the 120mm gun was already in plan when XM1 was in development, and of course a design for 120mm rotor was also created around that time. That’s why the slide says XM1.
2 Likes
You are nothing for them except money.
Spoiler
Actually, you also become a target of their historical grievances and lingering resentment.
1 Like
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.
4 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