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.
So the British source foreshadowing that M1A2 turret cheek has less than 900mm vs CE. but EAP-1 (Sweden trial) diagram show 900m vs CE. That… seem weird.
Also back on IPM1 and M1A1 while British source show them at 700mm vs CE (similar to “Antiarmor - what you don’t know could kill you")
The declassified CIA source rate them at 750mm vs CE for some reason.
Overall we would still have to wait for more declassified sources to clarify M1A2 DU armor package protection values.
I think we can get a good range of that
But the reason why the range are different is probably because of cherry picking condition, the British source pick the lowest one because they dont want to leak its potential or they pick the average result of the test. Where as CIA may also pick the lowest one as the same reason that they dont want to leak it true potential or they can cherry pick the highest CE value or just pick the average of the test
Test are conduct differently hence the differ in results
It can be explained by the so far undisclosed methods each country has for expressing armor effectiveness in raw numbers. I suspect Sweden may not have conducted armor tests with the same criteria NATO countries did. So, if an old Swedish source and a NATO one contradict each other I think its safer to go with the latter. Nevertheless neither of the source supports the figure of more than 1000mm CE stated in American secondary sources (the articles I shared) but they all point to the same 600mm KE being the level of armor pre HAP-2.
1 Like
Accurate as possible is a weird way of saying incorrectly modeled in a multitude of ways. Most of the NATO tanks have a significant amount of accepted bug reports about their physical models being wrong or the armor values being way to low.
1 Like
If we use that logic than the T-80’s should get their thermals removed since it was only tested.
They accept literal 3d propaganda videos for armor layouts on Russian tanks
Or a versión of the M1A1 at a higher br based off the ones tested with DU hull could be added just like that T80 altough removing the thermals works too
I mean they accepted a goddamn pixel measuring based off someone’s bald spot to measure the god damn Shell ofc that’s bs
And how are you so sure?