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
Back in the 80s they didn´t have clarity on the next main gun for what they called “Future Soviet Tank 2” (FST-2). They assumed it was to be a 135mm with penetration capability of 700mm.
1 Like
Over the years, I have come to realize that physical thickness is a poor indicator of armor effectiveness. For example, from the M1IP to the SEPv2 variants, the armor retains identical outer dimensions, yet the turret’s weight has steadily increased. This demonstrates that improvements in armor performance correlate far more closely with increases in weight than with changes in physical size or dimensions. From what I know, the CATTB turret design predates the DU armor solution and the protection requirements are very likely in the same ballpark than HAP-1/2.
In any case, if you use statistical tools such as Pearson´s correlation coeficient with Abrams turret weight growth you can estimate with high degree of certainty Abrams turret armor since we know the turret weights and armor rating of various models. I´ve estimated HAP-3 (SEP/v2) and NGAP (SEPv3/4) and it yields the following results:
(EDIT: slightly updated the estimations by adding an inferred turret weight for M1A1HA, HAP-1)
Though one can argue that through the decades there must be an improvement in weight efficiency (armor effectiveness-armor weight ratio), this is already modelled with this statistical method as we see the armor-weight ratio almost doubling from BRL-1 through NGAP/NEA/whatever Army names SEPv3 armor these days. However this method has limitations since what we have is the overall weight of the turret which doesn´t indicate directly the weight of the front armor blocks (for example, SEP turret made some modifications to lighten some parts, which perhaps leads to a front armor that is relatively heavier). If we had those, this would be much, much more reliable than it already is. Nevertheless, we work with what we have.
2 Likes
It looks like you’re using inconsistent values as far as frontal arcs go.
M1 appears to be 60° frontal arc.
M1A1 appears to be either 0° or a maximum of 40° frontal arc.
M1A2 and M1A2 SEP appear to be unspecified arcs, and very likely not even close to 60°.
The most common values for 60° frontal arc are roughly:
350mm.
400mm.
600mm.
Welp look like he pull M1A2 turret values from UK source and mix them up with “Antiarmor - what you don’t know could kill you” above. Both source didn’t state specified arcs / effective angle however .
Also to keep inmind that Early M1A1HA use HAP-1 but M1A2 use HAP-2. So a jump from 600mm vs KE to 650mm vs KE could be possible.
while EAP (export armor package) are a different line altogether
HAP-1 and EAP-1 (Sweden trials) might have similar protection against KE munition. But against CE munition they could be different for all we know. As there are a case that show US did modify and increase Abrams turret Side armor protection against CE munition by 250%
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ULvSC60SVBFw
Heres the thing, primary and secondary British sources state that Cr2 while inferior to M1A2 in terms of KE protection, achieved higher CE protection on the turret. Same primary source clarifies that Cr2 was required to have 800mm of CE protection on the turret with the unconfirmed (and unlikely IMO) capability to stretch that level to 900mm. So, M1A2 must have had less than 900mm of CE protection on the turret.
My god, judging by all this discussions and documents posted here it seems like you guys are taking this game very seriously aren’t you? Jesus.
If you want maximum realism just buy steel beasts and that’s it.
Steel beasts armor is…not realistic to say the least.
lol whatever, then the only option left is to join the army and drive a real tank for maximum realism
Boy, I wonder why people might be interested in realism when they download a game that makes the following claims:
‘‘War Thunder — Realistic Military Vehicles Online Combat Game.’’
‘‘In War Thunder, aircraft, attack helicopters, ground forces and naval vessels collaborate in realistic competitive battles.’’
‘‘Over 2,500 highly detailed aircraft, helicopters, ground vehicles, warships and other combat vehicles crafted carefully from historical documents and surviving sources.’’
‘‘The appearance and characteristics of the vehicles in War Thunder are historically accurate’’
That won´t work either. Guys wanna find out how the tank they´ve been fanboys forever would perform against other tanks.