Abrams sep 1

The DU isn’t a concern for me although it would be awesome. The concern for me would be the correct everything else- which will never happen, I know.

The hull armor upgrades(with or without mentions of DU) has been stated from multiple different sources. Which validates the hull armor should have increased along with the improvements and creations of new armor technologies. It’s also stated in some sources it was upgraded along with the turret upgrades. Which general consensus would probably agree. If they are gonna take it apart to add armor to the turret they probably took care of the hull while they were at it.

We are on 4th- gen DU armor at this point? So I would assume the hull was also upgraded at a minimum of 4 times along with the turret. This is only assumptions though. That helps no one. So oh well I guess.

believing it didn’t is kinda naive or may not be a truthful opinion, IMO.

You’re referencing the export M1?

1 Like

I’ll have to read the Swedish trials document which may have changes done to M1A1 AIM, M1A1 HC, and M1A2+.
SEP 1 & 2 should have DU turret armor, but we don’t have data on protection at this time to my knowledge.

The back of the compartment behind the existing chobham armor? I believe I know the void you are describing. I believe that would still be helpful. What do you think?

The turret ring should merge into the grooves in the top of the hull armor correct? and ring mantlet as they are sandwiched together creating a (tongue & groove design I believe) bond. I believe I have read that the bond of these 2 armor values will add armor values which would result in the turret ring/neck tongue & groove design being equivalent to the steep sloping UFP plate over driver(including angle).( looking for my sources, helping I remembered this correctly)

Idk tho, I’m not an expert, nor am I claiming to be. I would be ecstatic about a dev blog update on this subject tho


I haven’t seen any solid evidence disproving DU in the hull. Nor vice versa though

I’m sorry to say this, but you give me the strong impression that you A) Only play U.S. tanks or B) Are extremely poor at the game and lack any understanding of the fundamentals.

To claim that the M1128’s have superior armour to the M1’s is ludicrous.

Your argument is that the low winrate of the M1A2’s proves it’s not a good vehicle.
The 2S38, T-80BVM and BMP-2M are generally seen are overpowered vehicles, their winrates on average are somewhere around 45%.

I just linked you primary source documents explaining that budget limitations and weight limitations led to the armour upgrades being excluded.

This shouldn’t be about ‘‘belief’’ or ‘‘having faith’’.

Currently available documents point towards the hull armour not being upgraded, if you have any documentation that says otherwise: feel free to share them, otherwise your belief is based purely on personal biases.

The piece written in 2006 only mentions 5 test hulls.
Which means SEP 1 doesn’t have it.
And since SEP 2 doesn’t increase its mass enough above SEP 1 it’s clear they only add conventional armor if they do.

I’m not reading all that. The Wolfpack does have better survival ability. I’ve taken more shots in the Wolfpack than I ever have in the sep’s lol it was kinda a joke but it’s also kinda true.

No armor sometimes can be the best armor lol

This has been discussed already in a different thread. The amendment from 2006 doesn’t mean anything. The armor was increased in the hull regardless of DU. Following the loss of the Swedish trials, they added armor.

We just don’t know how without cutting open a front or getting documents.

I read the last portion of your reply. It’s bogus. The armor in the hull was increased. Regardless if DU was used.

Yep, that’s the problem. It’s kinda just up too GAIJIN at this point.

The fact that you’ve now twice been asked to present evidence for this claim, and twice refused means you don’t actually have any evidence backing this up.

1 Like

Bro look at my reply 4 comments up

The only way to get credible sources with the requirements we need (such as protection values) would involve breaking the law. So, not gonna happen

‘‘An improved armour package was developed’’


  • What vehicle was it implemented on? If at all even?
  • In what quantities?
  • What variant was it implemented on?
  • Was it purchased for domestic use? Or was it merely available on export models if the customer wanted them?
  • Did it meet the requirements?
  • Was it deemed to heavy to be implemented?

You’ve still not shown any source that claims the M1A2, M1A2 SEP or SEP v2 used upgraded hull armour.

We’re also going round in circles and I’ve given you three opportunities to provide evidence, since you aren’t doing so I’m now confident you don’t have any, and I’ll leave the conversation here.

Are you in the 6th grade? Have you ever taken a reading comprehension class? “ What vehicle is it for”….
maybe you should try reading it again

dawg is a pure drone, imagine thinking that USA can’t even upgrade their armour in their worldwide known tank and the most famous tank in the world

+there’s been a disscussion with 17.7k views full of people providing evidence of abrams getting armour upgrade in the past +40years, and if any classified documents gets leaked they will reach the kremlin asap since abrams is now in possession of the ukrainian army

And gaijin proved several times that they’re anti-american biased since top tier rn is controlled by sweden+germany+russia (russia always been), american tanks get one shot while other tank get shot from the side nothing been damaged just spall liners, i mean if u really believe in “balanced game” u would add spall liners for every top tier tank

+there’s been some documents and irl tankers said there’s kevlar all arround abrams tank (turrent+sides…)

1 Like

the sep program was made for more survivability in the abrams tanks otherwise why would they name it “SEP” ?

1 Like

He’s off his rocker.