The russian Ministry of Defense isnt a source now? LMFAO You people are comical.
Yes it can be a source, but not on a tank it doesn’t operate (hell they hadn’t even captured one by this stage). Russian estimates on armour might give a range (not exact) that is in the ballpark but this isn’t needed given that we have far better sources.
Secondly the info from it doesn’t seem that useful and just points out the same weakspots that war thunder has. And seems to provide no hard values not even a range unlike other Russian sources.
1 Like
it isn’t, like CIA won’t be a source for T80BVM. It is also a slightly earlier source rather than recent one where the Russians actually obtained an ABRAMS. There is absolutely no point in saying just because it is an official source it has to be true makes no sense.
Also it isn’t confirmed.
Also it might have been generalised, for using earlier 3BM42 and HEAT ammunition which unlike in WT is much more common place IRL.
1 Like
I assume you’re referring to the turret being raised too high?
That does not appear to be the case:
This isn’t 2022 anymore, Russian MBT’s get clapped by the Leo 2A7’s and Strv 122’s like everybody else does.
That’s not a valid argument, by that logic the Maus would possess over twice the frontal armour of a M1A2 SEP v3.
Some designs are simply more efficient in terms of armour/weight.
I don’t recall this being proven though.
I’m honestly at a loss as to what you’re trying to say here.
Yeah, M1A1 with heavy armor packages deployed to the Gulf War, we’re well aware of that.
- IPM1 featured increased volume and improved composites for the turret cheeks/gun shield relative to the base M1 Abrams, the hull armor was not changed.
- M1A1 carried over the same armor package as the IPM1.
- M1A1 HA featured improved turret cheek composites which incorpotated the use of DU, the volume of the armour was not increased.
- M1A2 featured the same armor package as the M1A1 HC.
- M1A2 SEP only featured improved turret side protection.
M1A2 SEP v3 is the first confirmed case of the hull armour being improved, it is not stated whether this was done via the use of DU.
NERA =/= solid steel.
The armour performance matches that of available source material.
It’d be interesting, but also weird.
It’d have to be one of the old models, presumably the M1A1 HA.
I’m not sure if it’d be that popular given the reduction in thermal clarity, the likelyhood of being 11.7 at minimum and the fact that the LFP would very likely still be vulnerable to any top-tier APFSDS.
I’m personally more interested in a SEP v3, that features improvements to both hull and turret alongside options for Force Protection kits, Trophy and further ammunition upgrades.
The turret ring should be in the range of 322mm.
Unfortunately, though I have a very solid source for this, I’m not certain if it can be used publicly so I can’t bug report it as of yet.
And why should it?
3BM-46 is a longrod DU penetrator introduced in 1991, the standard M1A1 uses composites developed in the late '70s/early '80s to withstand contemporary Soviet APFSDS, with ammunition such as 105mm XM774 and likely XM833 being used as threat simulants.
2 Likes
Well until you get certain the best we have is probably;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K
Well you could include XM943 STAFF as well, so it has ok options for ammo at least.
1 Like
in the hull, no, the turret yes and even swedish documents describe the upgrade package for the turret cuz the US didnt send it with DU, so in order to kind of fix that they did their own upgrade package it to put it to similar levels, wich its as far as they could get, if you have another doc regarding turret armor feel free to share it
Welp as far as i’m concern. We still don’t actually know how much protection DU offer over export package one in sweden tank trials (Export V1).
But we do know that only after sweden tank trials that US army was able to make export package (Export V2) that is better than previous one that was offer to Sweden without having to use DU.
Also British source on M1A2 turret cheek. (unknow effective angle, not knowing if it is export package or DU)
I wonder what the forum will be like when the SEPv3 comes with DU in the LFP and M829A3, and America mains find out that the DU in the LFP doesn’t save them from modern APFSDS like 3BM60 or DM53, and M829A3’s special tip still doesn’t let them frontally pen the UFP of a T-90M.
1 Like
U better not bring me to jail cuz of this
Nah it have been post by post by (Flame2512) for a while now.
Actually LFP with DU armor and with fuel tank effectiveness (each side of driver) Against KE and CE.
LFP have potential to tank more shot. But then again we don’t know how much protection they offer.
As for M829A3 or APFSDS with Anti-ERA tip.(DM53 has Anti-ERA capability but such things are absent atm) If Gaijin model them. it would certainly reduce ERA effectiveness. Especially against side shot at extreme angle.
It would heavily depend on how good DU armor on LFP are. For example if it was 600mm vs KE same as M1A2 turret Cheek couple that with long fuel tank LOS. It might be able to stop M829A2 on certain place (mostly where fuel tank are locate)
¯_(ツ)_/¯
I don’t think this is an “artificial nerf”, but rather a simple model error that should be corrected, even looking at a picture of a real Abram’s turret ring vs the one in game and you can see it’s very slight taller than what it is IRL.
This is a quite minor difference though and is more like how the old Challenger 2’s model had the first plates of the mantlet extended a little bit to far towards the hull.
It won’t change much, but it’s wrong nonetheless.
even worse yall are dangerous to my wellbeing
It probably can tank 3bm46 at a certain range but not 3bm60 or something above
i read a few articles/forums that have alot of people saying/citing sources that looks like its in between the line of legit and completely made up
they all say new hull(sep v?-most likely sep v3) would have 600mm ke and 800mm ce and the turret is 800mm ke and 1200mm ce something
Nah if it really sensitive or classified . OP who post this image would delete it by now. And i’ll too.
Regarding SEPv3s armor we actually don’t even know if they still use DU within the new NGAP (next-generation armor package) armor composition. Considering sepv3 was a response to the t14 armata you can probably make a guestimation that it probably offers 600 plus armor on the hull. And that’s also based on the fact that the army in the early 90s in testing managed to get a 35% increase in KE on the m1a2s hull(550mm of armor) which was 30 years ago.
1 Like
also one thing
shouldnt the middle side turret armor be able to withstand atleast 2s38 apfsds ingame?
so… now official sources from the Russian Ministry of Defense aren’t acceptable… bro wtf lol
An increase in HP doesn’t mean more armor protection, the engine was probably enhanced but is still the same engine. This was a pointless remark. Now if you had said they changed engines for a slightly bigger one sure but an increase in power means nothing in that sense