KEWA2 to be exact
I guess, depends on what they have written on the turret like Kenny110 said for MP
This could very be possible but I find it weird that they removed the DU on the m1a1s and not sepv3s but who knows. Also the polish m1a1s have E as the suffix assuming it means export
I think at this point it could have been at the behest of the U.S. govt since we havent exported it. Just like m829 darts.
However it seems with SPEV3 we are, but Australia has not and does not want it, while Poland does. Since they’re taking the offer of better darts, and I’d assume the tank as is, because it would (I’m assuming) be cheaper that way needing less modification and better logistic availability. As I’d assume we a lot more DU laying around for tank repair in our logistics chain than we do a tungsten(probably) armor array we’ve made for 1 nation so far.
Again, all conjecture on my part, wtf do I know 🤷
Just a few words on the matter. M1 DU turrets are mostly alright, at least until M1A2 SEP because we lack sufficient information on 3rd gen DU armor.
About HAP-1 (DU gen 1), we have surprinsigly good sources at least since 1989.
From the article “Antiarmor - what you don’t know could kill you” by US Army Reserve Major Michael R. Jacobson:
Here its stated that M1A1HA achieved 600mm vs APFSDS.
This is from a secondary source though but pretty authoritative nonetheless. It was written by this guy:
So, he had to know a thing or two about tank protection levels. He states to have gotten the figures from Training Circular 90-16, which featured classified information. The full article was published in an official US Army publication: “Infantry”
(full article here https://www.moore.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/1990/MAR-APR/pdfs/MAR-APR1990.pdf )
There are some mistakes in the table above. Related to Abrams, CE protection is overated in light of other, later sources rating it to lower levels.
Unsurprinsigly, the level stated here is very comparable to what the Swedes got offered. But by that time, 2nd gen DU was already fielded. British primary sources (already posted somewhere above) rate it at 650mm KE. Not a big jump but still more than enough for the threats of the time (1990 US sources stated that potential soviet APFSDS were projected to penetrate 700mm but this was assuming a theoretical 135mm gun). In other words, its a perfectly logical figure for M1A2.
The real problem starts with HAP-3 (SEP and SEPv2, among other post 2000 models) because we lack any kind of figures or indications regarding theoretical protection requirements. Could be that the armor was uprated to about 700mm or it could have the same 650mm as previous HAP-2 but with improved construction, multi hit capability or weight efficiency, its impossible to know for the moment.
Where did they pull that from? Didn’t the Soviets/Russians only ever do 152mm guns for the big gun prototypes?
considering the CATTB achieve ~1 metre of ke protection(rha equivalent at the time) im pretty sure it would atleast be ±760mm(spectaculative number)
I hope the e3 upgrades the cannon to future proof.
Thing I’m most interested is from that is 650mm M829E1 which I’m guessing is some other designation for 829A1
I saw that too… as well as m833 doing 420mm of pen lol
1 Like
Would really be something to see ingame
probably the test version of it
more like ~410mm but close enough
it was slightly better than the 105 dm23
I mean I’m just going off what the paper says.
Even better, a less refined version of M829A1 to boot
M829A4 might as well be sci fi rail gun ammo if the prototype M829A1 hit 650mm pen of RHA
fair enough
what i found out is
m735 pen ~350mm rha while having ~153mm(6 inch) 60 degree angle pen
m774 has 7% better pen than m735 while having 21% better 60 degree angle pen
m833 pen slightly better than dm23 105 in various test, averaging 413mm of penetration
rumours said m829a4 pen 800mm but oh well rumours
I think A4 is less about pen, and more about getting more efficacy out of the already perfectly adequate penetration while interacting with ERA. If you can nullify a good portion of ERA effectiveness then you’ll pop through a t series.
The effectiveness of their armor isn’t in their physical armor, but in weakening projectiles enough so the already thousands of hulls available can’t be penned by what’s left.
As far as I’m aware which frankly isn’t enough to be any real authority. The hulls are still largely the same as they were. It’s the ERA getting better. Not like unlike Leo’s and Abrams and challys making better armor arrays in the hulls and turrets themselves and not rely on era.
They can always add era on top of it to degrade projectiles further and strengthen the efficacy of what armor is part of the identity of the tank.
1 Like
in cold War US believes those 152 mm guns as ‘135 mm guns’ because former Soviet guns were 115 mm and 125 mm. It was after Soviet collpase that they discover what Soviet was researching was 152 mm guns.
1 Like
Makes sense
Could also be affected by how US medium tank main gun calibers have been consistently increasing by 15mm since ww2
75mm to 90 to 105 to 120