This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
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
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
And how are you so sure?
because the hull HAS D.U IN IT
this is the m1a1, not the M1A1HA, and this pictures has been debunked already since gaijin can’t accurately read the document 1536 was from 1992 when the m1a1 H.A was already getting the D.U hulls
The Hulls are all D.U and every Abrams tank made after 1998 was made with D.U.
You are not reading your own source. It says in unambiguous terms that the authorization is for installation of DU armor elements on as many M1 turrets “As needed” and “5 tank hulls total”. Hence, its related to the same sources I shared above that yet again insist that only 5 Abrams got DU elements in their front hull armors.
Besides, this kind of authorization has to be renewed, in other words, if DU was ever mounted on tanks serially (and not just the limited 5 mentioned above), there must be a Materials Licence released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commision authorizing that explicitly. I couldn´t find one.
Here from 2014: only authorization for use in turrets
(full doc: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1433/ML14337A199.pdf)
And again, as late as June 2024: only turrets
(full doc https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2434/ML24348A001.pdf)
So, these sources are pretty definitive in regards where in Abrams DU armor elements were installed and its not the hulls.
6 Likes
You don’t understand how the u.s military words their documents the 5 tanks hulls were only talking about the 5 tanks hulls at the school the as needed is for all the tanks frontal armor. This is why the M1A1 HA was made .
Another thing that you all keep doing withoutnoticing is posting that same picture, saying its from 2006, when the document i posted is from 1992. and it literally says B. TO BE USED AS A COMPONENT IN M1A1 TANK HULLS
lol
You can´t crop a source just when it suits you. It is explicit and unambiguous regarding the amount of hulls to be equipped with DU armor elements: only 5. If you find another Material Licence source saying explicitly that the authorization is for mounting DU armor on an undisclosed of hulls or reading “as needed” then that would indicate that hulls starting X year were equipped with DU armor of the current generation. However I insist, these hulls are not receiving the latest generation of armor since the later Material Licence source only mention turrets.
7 Likes
do you know what " as needed " means? why do you think theres a A. and a B.
“A” refers to tank turrets. “B” refers to the 5 hulls in question. In other words: the Nuclear Commision authorized the use of DU for as many Abrams turrets “as needed” and also 5 Abrams hulls in “total”.
7 Likes
You’re meaningless to teach US Main. They want to believe what they think and think all other as russian propaganda. Already developers know such sources and conclude no reinforced hull until SEP v3. Don’t need to argue brainless boys.
10 Likes