Then what is?
I guess the main question now is whether Poland sepv3s have DU in it or the suffix code on the turret “MP” means some kind of modified export NGAP.
interesting
DU is beneficial for the abrams even tho its heavy so i dont see a point in not using it
this better not make the sep v3 have less armor protection than the sep v2 or the one that has DU
M probably mean modified like u said
1 Like
I hate you for making me reread this so many times to find it since I’m just quick skimming. I’m mad dashing Google right now trying to find the article that talks about Australia not wanting DU lol
The quote form this article is “ Australia has commissioned the development and production of bespoke Turret Front armor to be used in their M1A2SEPv3. This armor is being developed by the USG in consultation and coordination with the CoA to ensure that it is optimized to their perceived threat matrix.”
1 Like
sorry lol
Should we call them M1A2MP then to distinguish?
Modified Protection or something M Poland maybe?
then australia should be MA but maybe the aus ask for it so its just have designated A
I don’t think it would be, only because the round remain consistent now. They’re accepted and using m829, whereas Australia uses KEW. Which would be consistent with not wanting DU, while also not being able to buy them. But Poland was given these rounds, and would assume that they’d also be given access to the same armor array as well, but it’s conjecture on my part.
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