You’re showing a presentation slide focusing on the information abilities of the M1A2, i.e. how the M1A2 is “The First Information Age System,” it of course isn’t going to focus on armor or firepower (as in how strong ammo is). The “fightability” stuff listed is all about the increased efficiency the M1A2 has due to it being “The First Information Age System.”
1 Like
In other words: You’ll just make stuff up and invent things that the document doesn’t say at all.
Nowhere in that document does it claim that the frontal modules are the lower hull.
What it says is that frontal armor includes at the very least hull armor and there is nothing in the document stating “frontal armor but only the UFP, not the LFP.” You trying to say that the lower hull is not included is you making stuff up, not me.
I am responding to this:
I have proved that, by their definition of “frontal” and no mention of “frontal” not including the hull, there was DU in the hulls of various Abrams types.
In order for you to say that there wasn’t DU in the lower hull, despite knowing from this document that the hull did have DU, you need to provide sources showing that the lower hull didn’t have DU. Simplified:
-
BRL starts working on armor improvements through high-density material at 1/4th scale
-
They describe doing early development work on “frontal armors” for the M1 using “the newly discovered technology” (i.e. high-density materials)
-
As an example, they list an improved UFP (upper front plate of the hull) design from 1980, an armor panel on the front of the hull
-
Therefore, their definition of “frontal” armor includes hull armor
-
There is no mention of “frontal” excluding the lower hull
-
Therefore, there is no reason that “frontal” armor excludes the lower hull
-
Development work begins on heavy armor in full-scale during 1982
-
“‘Front module designs [were] completed, and production-implementation plans [were] affirmed [in 1984].’ ‘In armor technology, the BRL achieved two important technology advances. The first was the development and demonstration of an improved integrated armor for the 1990s; …’ This eventually became known as the M1A1 Heavy.”
a. Frontal armor designs and plans for production and implementation were made in 1984
b. BRL made technological advances in improved integrated armor for the 1990s
c. Both of the two (above listed) BRL works became the M1A1 HA -
“In 1986, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA) made the ‘production decision for [the] high-density-material armor package for [the] M1A1.’ The M1A1 HA was fielded in October 1988 with its DU armor.”
a. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army approved the heavy armor for the M1A1 HA.
b. “Heavy armor” means DU armor. -
Therefore, the M1A1 HA has DU frontal armor, by their definition of “frontal” and “heavy armor”
-
Therefore, by their definition of “frontal,” the M1A1 HA has DU armor in the hull
-
Therefore, by their definition of “frontal,” there is no reason to believe that the M1A1 HA’s DU hull armor excludes the lower hull
Do you get it now?
2 Likes
Rather, you have selectively interpreted the document as saying things it doesn’t say at all.
How? They directly say that they are working on frontal armor, then list an example design within the hull while not saying that it is only that panel, so there is frontal armor in the hull (including the lower hull).
What is so hard to understand here?
I’m to lazy add my resources for him. All the info I have on the Abrams I’ve posted multiple times. It’s doesn’t go anywhere with some people so I don’t even try with non-reasonable commenters
He’s a waste of your valued time.
Have you listed the info in a bug report? We also need to find and provide the DU density vs conventional rolled homogeneous armor/ or the first chobham armor employed in the Swedish trials.
Then we could calculate the increase in armor protection with DU in the chobham
1 Like
Do you know where there are other people who are working on getting the Abrams fixed? Honestly I have a lot of free time for next week or two so I could help make a draft report going over everything that is wrong currently.
Thanks, I just did. Honestly the Abrams armor (and/or doing basic research for War Thunder) is probably my ASD special interest right now so I’ve got the motivation to get things fixed lol
1 Like
Well done, Make it happen!
Slightly off topic but does anyone have the actual weight of the SepV2? I have 3 army sources all stating different weights but all above 70 tons
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/abrams-main-battle-tank/ 71.2 tons
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/army/2017m88a2hercules.pdf?ver=2019-08-19-113850-007#:~:text=The%20Abrams%20System%20Enhancement%20Package,even%20further%20by%205%20tons. “Approximately 74 tons”
Idk, maybe? I haven’t looked at anything newer than like 2013 lol
Didnt happen, yet.
hi guys found this document but i cant source it, but it has armour values for the hull
I’m busy at the moment, but for anyone who wants to look at the sources listed here they are:
“RESOURCES Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK) Web site Army Technology - Current Projects Web site Defense Update Web site DRS Technologies, Inc. General Dynamics
Web site Global Security.org FAS Land Warfare Systems Downloads FM 100-5 Operations, in Adobe Reader Format (PDF) FM 17-15 Tank Platoon, in Adobe Reader Format (PDF) Future Tank Gun Systems, as they were by 1997, in Adobe Reader Format (PDF) Lessons Learned - Operation Iraq Freedom 2003, in Adobe Reader Format (PDF) General
Dynamics’ Brochure on the M1A2 Abrams, in Adobe Reader Format (PDF) M1A2 General Dynamics’ movie - in MPEG format (10,379 Kb) The ARMOR Site! is © Copyright 1997-2008 Fabio Prado . All Rights Reserved.”
The document is rather poorly formatted and organized, but who knows maybe some of these sources will help.
yea i dont play US, just stumbled upon it and thought it might be of use. gl guys
- 71.2 short tons sounds about right for non-TUSK equipped SEPv2s
- 74 short tons is probably TUSK equipped if I had to guess, which lines up with the in-game weight
- 76.4 short tons is most likely either TUSK + Trophy or just Trophy itself as the SEPv2 did serve as a test bed for Trophy.
Just my personal guesses though.
It seems that the only values going over armor estimates are from a “Tank Protection Levels” website that I can’t find online.
One of the sources it links to mentions “M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-92, Stevens Zaloga, Peter Sarson, New Vanguard, Osprey Publishing, 1993,” but it’s behind a paywall everywhere. Does anyone have a copy of the book/pamphlet?