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
But what about side armor eating 1 in a 1000 shots though ?
6 Likes
It was a test bed, DU wasnt used, the composite array was vastly different from what was on abrams at the time. Compare to normal abrams which was ~1m thick armor composition the CATTB was somewhere around 1.2-1.4m thick, but probably due to the new composite array it has alot of ke protection
More like 1/2 shots
1 Like
Not really.
1 Like
Almost like you don’t have to aim at ERA and even if you do you’ll still pen majority of the time.
You mean 1/2 shots as in 1-2 shots out of a 1000 shots total or 1/2 as in 50% of your shots?
Because 1-2 shots out of a 1000 is still reasonable, I mean Gaijins happen, but 50% of your shots at the BVM side being eaten sounds more like a player issue.
1 Like
More like not being sincere issue.
2 Likes
@_Renzo @FlyingOstridge @Necrons31467 https://youtu.be/74um3LYrM1k
So just so we are all on the same page. I hit the fuel tank and ammo, and you can see the MASSIVE EXPLOSION COMING FROM THE TANK.
It survived oh btw how does the driver survive a fuel tank explosion again?
1 Like
crazy, when i linked you the old forum post proving it, because someone else also noticed it.