Abrams sep 1

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
1

The Abrams m1a2 upgraded sep v1 variants had upgraded armor by coating the depleted uranium armor with graphite coating.

If they upgraded the turret….they certainly upgraded the hull as well(regardless if DU were used). There’s a reason the Abrams tanks do not add any additional(era) armor to the frontal hull and turret. Its armor values need to be fixed. Gaijin should provide us with another dev blog- just so we know they hear us.

I believe not upgrading the hull in game is keeping the Abrams from being accurately rendered closer to the real world Abrams…. I believe it’s lacking the realism warthunder strives for. I think the devs should reconsider and change the sep and sep v2 with increased hull armor values.

IMG_3997
IMG_39971249×438 320 KB

Also, I recommend to all USA players to continue pressing this issue. It’s feels as though gaijin is intentionally disrespecting USA player’s(win/loss ratio).

I believe gaijin is not purposely appearing biased - I hope. I believe they are wanting to be fair(asking us to disprove their armor values) to all other players in game.

Although, The laziness with the Abrams armor value miscalculations in the model provides reason to believe the Abrams are intentionally neglected. I hope this isn’t the case though. The Abrams need positive attention from the devs.

Lastly, with the M1a2 creation- they made the frontal hull and turret armor strong enough to prevent any tank shell(from that year) from penetrating it. They had to increase armor protection in the newer variants to protect it from modern tank shells of all types.

Can anyone provide counter evidence to the estimates included in the photo?

3 Likes
2

That’s quite the leap of logic there.
The Leopard 2A5 featured substantially increased turret armour over the previous Leopard 2A4 itteration, yet the hull on both models remained C Technologie.
Furthermore, the TVM prototypes also showed that applique hull armour was available for the Leopard 2 fleet, yet Germany decided not to purchase/implement it anyways.

Perhaps because the hull armour was deemed sufficient against existing threats? Keep in mind that the hull armour is still invulnerable to ammunitions used in the various conflicts that the M1 took part in during this time period.
Furthermore, weight constraints, budget constraints and production limitations also play a role in the development cycle, it’s likely that armour upgrades could’ve been available, but that the trade-off in weight increases was deemed unacceptable.

Further studies also show that the lower glacis would only sustain around 5% of total shots, as opposed to 65% across the turret front and 30% for the upper glacis.

TADC4R2
TADC4R21600×1030 398 KB

What’s the source for the link you provided?

The low winrate is simply due to the U.S. being the only nation to have received a new top-tier premium in the form of the M1A1 Click-Bait, though the addition of the Leopard 2A7V being the new shiny top-dog doesn’t help.

The M1’s aren’t any worse than the Challenger 2’s, Leclerc’s, Ariete’s, ZTZ-99’s, Leopard 2A6’s, etc. yet all of those nations have higher winrates.

I’ve personally bug reported the lack of turret side armour on the M1A2 SEP, so some parts are certainly missing armour, but I haven’t seen concrete evidence that points to DU hull armour being implemented, though general armour improvements without the use of DU are very much possible.

2 Likes
3

If the hull was considered sufficient then why would the turret not be sufficient? Clearly they felt the need to increase armor values enough to combat Russian MBT’s in the gulf war- which was all open space combat. Hull down was not a very feasible position to take.

I’m not talking about only 2 variants, the Abrams had been through multiple test & upgrades between the base M1a1 & the sep variants. The fact we still have the same hull values is outrageous. The reason for the M1a2 upgrade/creation was intended to combat new Russian MBT’s with the Abrams turret and hull armor as their main concern.

My main concern is fixing the armor. That’s it. Even if the DU isn’t included, it seems gaijin is stuck on the Abrams variants having only upgraded turret cheeks.
That’s not even close to the truth. Yes, the real armor values are classified but come on…. They are just bullying us at this point. I can find multiple sources to provide that includes the words “increase protection” & “3rd generation DU armor upgrade” & “added heavy armor package”& “increased armor in hull”………… but I cannot find where specifically it was added in hull and how much armor was added(it’s all classified). But I know for certain the armor throughout the tank was upgraded throughout the years- not only the TURRET CHEEKS!

(M1A2 SEP v2 Abrams Main Battle Tank | MilitaryToday.com)

4

When it comes to the win ratios although partially is the click baits fault- that’s not the actual cause. Yes, the reload is nice but the Abrams is way too fragile for the reload to boost the win rate. I can shoot leopards in the “weak spot” multiple times under gun mantlet or drivers port area and my sabot shatters in the “shot trap” which is correct because that’s how the Abrams and leopard were both designed. The Abrams turret ring should be a shot trap too but it’s modeled incorrectly. The steep angled armor over the driver should deflect almost every sabot into turret armor causing it to shatter -“shot trap”. That’s where the Abrams engineers believed the shells would hit the most if not the turret cheeks. Popular belief is the turret ring is lightly armored, but it’s really not. The shot would have to be perfect to actually hit the ring itself. Most shots would slightly hit under cheeks or steep upper hull armor causing a deflection.

Instead in game, it’s modeled as a massive weak spot on the Abrams. There is no evidence I’ve seen that’s provided the turret ring as a weak point on the Abrams. It should be its best asset.

Also, the creation & design & upgrades have all been around the crew survivability. Why would this be the easiest tank to destroy in the game?

5

Because as I explained, the turret is 12x more likely to be struck than the hull, and with weight limitations in mind, the turret takes priority.
The design threats are also U.S. ammunition. BRL-1 was rated to protect against XM774, BRL-2 was rated to protect against XM833 and HAP-1 was rated to protect against M829E1.

In hindsight we know that the Soviets did not field ammunition equal to M829A1.
Various reports from the '90s also talk about how Soviet ammunition capabilities were overestimated during the '80s, and the fall of the Soviet Union led to many programs being cut back or cancelled altogether.

A combination of weight, budget and production constraints led to the armour not being upgraded.

I qoute:
‘’[…] and weight contraints prevent the addition of much of the planned armor until future weight reductions can be realized. Therefore, the army’s belief that the Block II (M1A2) tank’s survivability will be increased may not the substantiated. […] Since the time the analysis was conducted, the Army has determined that all amor cannot be added to the tank because of weight constraints. […] Development of new armor packages for the Block II survivability enhancements will not be complete before the Army’s advanced procurement decisions are made.‘’

  • NSIAD-90-57

But the sources aren’t valid. You’re qouting some random website that doesn’t cite it’s own sources.

Just you wait until you figure out what the protection and survivability of the Type 10, Ariete, Challenger 2, Merkava, Leclerc and T-72B3 are like.

False, the current M1’s are massively overperforming in terms of UFP protection. All in-game M1 Abrams variants are immune to any and all APFSDS to their UFP, this should not be the case:

Primary source documents disagree.
M1A1 turret ring armour 2 inch

Of course, volumetric modelling would improve the situation regarding the turret ring, but it should not remove it as a viable weakspot.

To suggest that the M1’s are less survivable than a T-72B3, Merkava, Leclerc, Type 90, ZTZ-99, Challenger, etc. is preposterous.
You sound like someone that only plays U.S. tanks, and fits the common saying of: ‘‘Grass is always greener on the other side’’.

6

To many quotes.

No the M1 most definitely are not over performing and the UFP most definitely barely Deflects. The turret ring acts like a giant magnet. lol

Even if it were over preforming(which it’s not) with the UFP- it wouldn’t matter because how massive of a shit bag the sep 2 is. Everywhere else they can shoot you! Especially the massive weak spot!!! ….the so called UFP and turret ring.

I do use the Abrams literally everyday though.

2 Likes
7

Have you ever played high tier USA?

2 Likes
8

You’re acting like I’m claiming the Abrams is the worst or least survivable tank(highest tier) with no proof supporting it. What corroboration do you have to back your claim of the sep v2 not being the worst when it comes to survivability?

The win/loss ratio for high tier USA. (No it’s not the players) is the only proof required.

2 Likes
9

Most of the Abrams sources used in bug reports have been government documents.

They just don’t provide any armor values for gaijin to use.

You claiming the sources provided to gaijin are bad shows you haven’t been following along, you kinda just stopped by in the comments to stir up a discussion you don’t have the slightest clue about.

2 Likes
10

Any devs want to comment? That’d be awesome

2 Likes
11

877ef0c8a4c8559c30b955f82d65e1771dec098f
877ef0c8a4c8559c30b955f82d65e1771dec098f1583×1200 230 KB

12

None of those countries have any relevancy to the USA when we are discussing military capabilities & equipment. They are not even in the same ball park. The fact we are arguing over which of these nations have the worst tanks is laughable. It’s even worse that the USA is even a contender………on top of that, the USA also has the worst win rate ratio in high tier play.

Sorta- kinda- maybe- more than likely- almost positively- 100% for sure that the devs aren’t being very trustworthy in their unprejudiced decision making of their claimed to be unbiased -phony- bogus-artificial - counterfeit creation of the pretending to be- realistic representation of the Abrams tanks.

Military budgets:

USA- 877 billion
France- 60 billion
Israel- 24 billion
Britain- 55 billion
Italy- 8.16 billion

2 Likes
13

If your only point is military budget than I see you only more wrong then them lol. Abrams is long out of development stage and the only budget that matters is how much was put into development of the new model, how much more expensive it costs from previous,( and you can see latest Abramses have been just modifications and not completely new designs unlike in Navy, Airforce) not the whole army budget which more relates to Navy and Airforce rather than just Abrams.

That huge part of army budget is just straight up taken just to keep comissioned tanks and vehicles in lines, and considering american army is big, the price makes sense.
After all other countries arent as combat ready as USA, they pay cheaper for that.

And also quite more unskilled people who only downoloaded game yesterday and already are contributing to lowering that WR.

1 Like
14

In other words: I presented evidence that shows you’re wrong, but since this evidence doesn’t align with your own opinions, you’ll just dismiss it, even if it’s all primary source material from U.S. documents.

2500 kills in different M1 Abrams variants combined, average K/D of around 5.5 - 1 and a roughly 70% winrate.

So you’re of the opinion that the BMP-2M is the worst IFV in the game?
And that the 2S38 is absolutely awful?

Because the stats for those vehicles are amongst the worst of any high tier vehicle.

How about the T-80BVM? Is that a terrible vehicle with it’s current 46% winrate? Could it be that there are other factors which determine winrate?
How about the M1A1 sitting on a 60% winrate and climbing?

15

The m1a1 is great at the BR. But it’s the Wolfpack and M1a1 working together to carry all the weight at that BR. The Wolfpack has better armor & survivability than any of the Abrams in the tech tree. But generally it’s the most well round American ground vehicle -IMO

The t80bvm- 47% win rate isn’ bad at all.

How did my opinion of the bmp or 2s38 get brought up? I know nothing about either of those vehicles other than the 2s38 can kill the crap out of the sep v2

Combined m1 win rate values isn’t really a thing, or kills…. Really combining any values in war thunder isn’t really a thing. So “2500 kills in different M1 variants” is a round about way to say- M1,M1a2, Ipm1, HC variants I’m assuming?

70% percent win rate? how long ago did this happen lol

16

Okay, I appreciate the info, you must be a higher up in the US Military? Or an online USA military expert or just a keyboard warrior? . Should I refer to you as GENERAL or……………your just a mouthbreather.

1 Like
17

You must have studied Abrams too well and know it more than actual experts then.

Especially your only points being budget, WR, and if someone played them or not lol which doesnt even relate to Abrams.

18

The hull upgrade of M1A2 SEP 1 & 2 would be filling the void at the back of the compartment if it happened at all.
That’s it; as it is confirmed that DU is not present in SEP 1 & 2 hulls.

19

Well it’s consensus based opinion.

More money = more better everything else.

Example:
Do you believe a military budget of 12.8 billion can realistically compete with a military budget of 877 billion?

Let’s assume hypothetically, the best of every “classified” vehicle of these 2 nations merged in a line directly across from eachother…. Who would you assume or believe to win in a head to head battle between the two?

“Common sense” for me initiates =
more money—more better everything

The “general consensus” would be the bigger richer country with plenty of money for studies & test to create & design better equipment would also be assumed winner.

This is my logical assumption. But I know there are plenty of other factors involved.

20

Loses trials to Leopard prototype