i agree.
Lets not go into trying to interpret the meaning of the colors. The full graph showing all M1 variants is even more inconsistent/confusing. Anyways, at some point during SEPv2 production, tanks stopped being marked with “U” and begun showing other markings. So theres a theory that later SEPv2 have a different armor package than HAP-3.
My hope is when they add sepv3 it also comes with all the bug reports that were passed but that probably won’t happen.
exactly my point, they have so many things overdue i doubt they would fix anything before sep v3 even come
i think its pointless to look into that stuff too much imo. abrams needs the known problems fixed.
nera is terrribly modelled. its well known, t64 terrible early composites have significantly better ke effectiveness
look closely
19 300 13(it should always be 19 300 101)
and also they just copy the turret model from the M1, the material thickness for outer armor is 38.1mm, ingame its 19mm
this goes for the hull/turretside
Well, trying to rate its front turret armor will be…complex. I´ve done some statistic calculation based on past models turret weight related to protection effectiveness and the result for SEPv3 can be as high as 900-950mm KE.
i base the armor of the sep/v2/v3+ on the CATTB(Component Advanced Technology Test Bed), which it have over 1m of ke protection, 1.5x the CE protection and it was made public in 2000.
So base on that id say the sep v2 atleast have 700mm of ke protection/1000mm of ce on the turret and sep v3 would be over 800mm ke/1200mm ce
The CATTB is not really adequate for estimating later Abrams armor. It predates the DU armor solution and I believe its armor was based on the same requirements as HAP-1/2
yes but it still contribute to the current estimation of the sep/v2/v3
If we go by that number and included protection on the area where fuel tank are locate. With (fuel against KE coefficient at 0.07) Abrams fuel tanks should add around 100-180mm vs KE (depending on their length) at their longest length of fuel tank that APFSDS has to go through.
So LFP composite armor + Fuel tank. That would mean around 500-600mm vs. KE.
Though the area where driver sit would still be around 490mm vs KE
That is just a statcard bug, the model has been fixed and performs as if it has the correct thicknesses.
The only strong part of t series is the ufp, the lfp is so shit that even early apds from likes of M735 goes through it at most angles, but the same M735 cannot pen the Abrams lfp at all, there is a reason why kpz-70 cannot see Abrams now as it cannot pen it anywhere except for the tiny turret ring gap which is almost the same size as T-series lfp lol
1 Like
X-Ray armor values are irrelevant, they could put 1mm - 1mm - 1mm there and the effective thickness would not change, it’s just meaningless text.
The M1A2 SEP’s turret side has the same armor protection as any other M1, even if X-Ray says otherwise.
Does it?
Genuinely curious.
M1 CATTB planned trials somewhere around 1991.
DU armor development began somewhere around 1982.
It’s been over a year of 2A7/122 domination (although the 122s have been really strong for years already) and we still blaming Russian MBTs?
I mean I wasn’t suprised by the skill issue I guess?
4 Likes
I think this shows that for some people tanks themselves were never a problem, and it’s all about the flag they’re under.
Some can’t control their RL biases.
2 Likes
I am. As a Challenger 2 sufferer Russian tanks are the most annoying to play against. And then you have Russian helicopters and the Su-34 and the Pantsir.
No offense, but if you struggle more versus the T-90M, T-72B3, T-80U and T-80BVM than a Strv 122, that’s a bit of a issue with your knowledge regarding those vehicles.
I can’t think of a single convincing argument that supports a T-80BVM being a more difficult opponent to face than a Strv 122.
5 Likes