Great it’s the same source that says only 5 tanks have DU hull, this is the one that has been used as an excuse to add DU to M1A2 but also the same one that goes more into details about how only 5 vehicles uses Du hull wt the time
I mean it’s lacking the DU armor but like the main thing is the top plate deflecting shells into the turret ring and the armor around turret ring not being able to catch some larger shells.
The deflection issue is mostly fixed now since darts kinda ragdoll lol
Also, I find it insane that Gaijin refuses to trust the US government as a source but then sees a single Israeli government site called the Merkava Mk.4 65 tons and now they won’t budge despite the absolute list of sources proving them wrong as well as common fucking sense.
4 Likes
Also the third party website it’s a pretty unreliable source that’s why docs and claims from official manufacturer or military it’s taken into consideration
Dude they are from different sources read the link.
It literally is from the department of defense and it says there was 594 DU Abram’s sent to the gulf
5 Likes
Not this one the actual doc, third party websites are unreliable that’s why interviews from newsites are not taken as official info cuz it could be manipulated
1 Like
Is a government website used for information through docs about the gulf war conflict.
Also mins You the DU they are referring to it’s the turret lol, they don’t Even specify what they meant and we all know the M1A1 has DU in the turret but not in the hull, and like i said this is a government site wich could’ve easily been manipulated, still not official info by gaijin standards, that’s why they don’t use German government page as official info nor the UK’s
2 Likes
Im pretty sure they had increase frontal armor thickness on later m1a1 and m1a2 version as well as DU hull in the sep v3 only
Issue with the Abrams hull armor bug report is that they used part of the context of the document as proof, when they send the whole document there was more speicifications that the M1A1 equipped with DU hull armor was 5 vehicles but not a whole production line and i don’t think it’s wrong to maybe add s variant with DU as a TT vehicle but making all M1’s from the M1A1 and above get DU because 5 tanks had it it’s kinda weird.
This was the pic uses to prove this that later was disproven with more context of the document.
And this is a more later document of the M1A2 armor package
1 Like
Afaik only V2 got slightly thicker hull armor but no DU yet
Also the protection value of the a1/imp1/120s are questionable for me
38mm + 800mm NERA and 101mm rha(to catch the exiting round) but they cant resist against 500mm apfsds round? im pretty sure it something atleast 600mm and DU one significantly increase it to ~800mm but the DU turret face get pen by the 292 apfsds
1 Like
I’m sure turret it’s closer to 700 mm regarding swedish trials and stuff
Wait till you see how bad Israeli composites have it lmao
I once got front penetrated in my turret cheek by a Somua SM.
And all of the current M1A1 or A2 that is existing rn were all given FEP package(Firepower Enhancement Program) which include upgraded armor(the use of tusk/era) and second generation Flir
Feature, not a bug gg, but report closed
I know
The Namer has the same armor as the Merks
yk how bad it is
Yeah and ingame get penned by m829/m900 equivalent
80mm in game btw and no internal armor is present on the Namer’s sides.
It’d be nice if one of the Abrams variants had DU in the hull.
I get it, I get it. “But their were only five! and they were test beds at army schools.”. That said, I think with the standard given by the T-80B and its Thermals (One prototype received Thermals- it was not a standard equipped modification) or the T-80U (which with thermals should be the T-80UE, NOT U), it would still logically be ok to add one variant with a DU hull.
I’m not saying this has to be a universal change or practice. I certainly do not need every Abrams to have DU, as that is just unrealistic. But if just 1 variant had it. That would be nice.
7 Likes