For anyone who wants to see said bug report for the improved turret side armour.
That said it being acknowledged doesn’t mean much, Gaijin never implemented Flame2512s AIM-9L bug report from a year ago which stated the AIM-9L should pull 32gs, and likewise hasn’t done anything with my bug report on the AIM-9M as it currently only pull 30gs and in fact should pull 35gs (said sources also state the AIM-9L should pull 32gs).
Meanwhile, in the game, the M1A1AIM has a hull from the M1 1979 and turret from the M1A1HC/A2.
there is no KEW-A2 either.
Yes, that and the heavy side skirts are the reports that should be made.
Of course, they didn’t just offer a single protection level in the case of the leopard, several different options were offered, same with M1, they were offered M1A1s and even M1s.
There have been no sources that say anything of the sort.
If you look at all the official documents (mostly internal) about SEP, hull armour improvement is not one of them.
Many of the “sources” thus far have been using wargaming websites or based on random news articles that simply do not match available primary documents.
Spall liners were a mistake.
Lindström disagrees.
You do realise that CR2 in-game is overperforming quite a bit right?
According to recently released UK docs it’s actually 500-540mm in a frontal arc.
Which actually does line up with what he writes, so 600-650mm in a frontal arc is indeed correct as the Swedish trials show.
Note that basically all the other protection, RoF and penetration values are using different criteria and are not directly comparable.
For instance, the 700mm on CHARM 3 was achieved by angling a 150mm plate at around 77°.
It’s a common problem in UK documents that context for values is lost…
Which is wrong as stated above.
You’ve yet to provide a link to this article, it could be written by anybody.
Also, you really think he’s not going to try and say exactly these things to promote the M1A2?
You misunderstand.
The “Swedish” armour package refers to the add-ons which were developed by IBD and made in cooperation with Akers.
Not the main armour technology, which was provided by each country.
Again, the page you post makes errors.
And yet you said earlier that they didn’t have this “improved FMS armor”.
This “improved FMS armor” which the swedes received and tested was the same as that offered to the Greeks and Turks.
We are in agreement that it is better than what Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had, I said as much earlier.
They named it the same, because it is the same…
Provide the link to this article please.
Your own source contradicts this…
And as Lindström states, they witnessed the ballistic tests in the US against the “BEST AVAILABLE” protection, then received the information necessary to build the armour package they would receive and tested it themselves.
Both DU and non-DU protection level information were received by Sweden.
Yes, because the SEP integrates titanium weight reduction measures…
(not all were actually done)
Again, where is the link to this article?
He could also mean any number of things, multi hit performance, slight differences in arc protection (which does seem to be the case as in Swedish testing 600mm was only really achieved in a 40° arc…)
It’s weight clearly indicates the protection level will be very close to or equivalent to DU versions.
The Greek/Turkish trial document, it only talks about TWO armour types; Improved non-DU FMS (originally offered to Sweden as shown earlier) and the “advanced non-DU FMS” or “non-DU FMS”.
No other packages are mentioned.
1 is the same as 3
2 is the same as 4
5, yeah sure, but we’re not talking about SEPv3 derivatives here.
Not one of these pictures says HAP-3.
It’s quoting someone speaking, not reliable information to base exact versions off and it doesn’t mention what it is equivalent to.
ITSA is the term used by the army… this is literally an army budget sheet…
They are upgrading M1A1s WITHOUT DU to ones WITH DU, or upgrading HAs to HC/A2 standard!
The picture you posted is the ABRAMS MODIFICATION program that brings old M1A1s up to the new digital spec!
While they did this, they upgraded the old outdated 1st and 2nd gen armour packages to the third gen package and included ITSA.
IDK if you’re intentionally being obtuse at this point…
This is a lot of information, visible and comprehensible documented facts.
Now it is up to you to (finally) use the work that the players have done and to put the vehicles in a realistic condition for the benefit of your customers. Please don’t squander this opportunity
“ Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBs and Aircraft” has 1,106 replies.
“Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams” has 1,017 replies.
Most of these are valid criticism and sources proving Gaijin’s points wrong.
Yet… nothing. It really feels like no one is listening up there.
Shameless plug to what I believe to be the only solution.
We can’t beat them at their own game, so let’s change the rules:
Ahem: (all provided by Count_Trackula)
Swedish tests not having DU and therefore being a nerfed version they are testing:
Lindström disagrees.
Source
You do realise that CR2 in-game is overperforming quite a bit right?
According to recently released UK docs it’s actually 500-540mm in a frontal arc.
Which actually does line up with what he writes, so 600-650mm in a frontal arc is indeed correct as the Swedish trials show.
No, you just quickly look things over without understanding what is being talked about, as I assumed that wasn’t likely to be the frontal protection as you have even stated, i.e. I take it you don’t know what the frontal arc protection values mean? I.e. is that a +/-20° or a +/-30° frontal arc figure? Either way it doesn’t matter as it means the M1A1s with DU armour are underperforming:
I.e. that 650mm figure would be an improvement if that were the case:
This further means that the Swedish did not have an armour package that was comparable to the US M1s as their frontal arc figures were +/-30° 600mm…
So thank you for proving that the Swedish did not use M1s with DU armour.
You’ve yet to provide a link to this article, it could be written by anybody.
Because you likely won’t be able to read it, that article was written in 2000, which is why you can’t find it anymore, regardless it is a legit article that was not written by just anyone i.e. Vago Muradian (who wrote it) and Peter McVey (quoted in it).
Also, you really think he’s not going to try and say exactly these things to promote the M1A2?
No, because he didn’t need to, last I checked the US already used the M1s, the Greek and Turkey trials would speak for themselves in regards to how the armour would perform.
You misunderstand.
The “Swedish” armour package refers to the add-ons which were developed by IBD and made in cooperation with Akers.
You ever think that is where the 62.5 ton figure comes from?
Regardless there are no errors, you are mixing up two different things, what McVey was talking about was the armour package that they were giving the Swedish M1s i.e. what the Swedish M1 would have, what you are talking about was the Swedish add-on armour that was developed for the M1s, both of these things can be considered armour packages… how do you not understand that?
And yet you said earlier that they didn’t have this “improved FMS armor”.
This “improved FMS armor” which the swedes received and tested was the same as that offered to the Greeks and Turks.
No it was not, how many times do I have to spell it out for you, the actual Improved FMS armour did not exist until after the Swedish trials, which is why Greece and Turkey were the first countries to test them. What Sweden was given was an improvement over the original FMS armour, it however was never used or proposed to anyone again.
Your own source contradicts this…
Except it doesn’t:
This is stating they gave Sweden an FMS armour that was improved from what was given previously to other countries, it however was not the Improved FMS armour package that was created after the Swedish trials:
And as Lindström states, they witnessed the ballistic tests in the US against the “BEST AVAILABLE” protection
Yes the best export armour package that they had at the time i.e. that Sweden had available to them, which was not the DU armour used by the US as the US government did not allow that for export.
then received the information necessary to build the armour package they would receive and tested it themselves.
Source.
Both DU and non-DU protection level information were received by Sweden.
Source for both the DU and non-DU Swedish protection values.
Yes, because the SEP integrates titanium weight reduction measures…
Yes, we have known this for a while. You still need to explain why it weighs more then the M1A2 though.
He could also mean any number of things, multi hit performance, slight differences in arc protection (which does seem to be the case as in Swedish testing 600mm was only really achieved in a 40° arc…)
See, this is why I know you are full of it i.e. you make up figures based on nothing, it was not in a 40° arc, it was +/-30°. Which as noted by the UK document you shared, means it is worse then the M1s with DU armour.
It’s weight clearly indicates the protection level will be very close to or equivalent to DU versions.
It doesn’t, its weight clearly indicates the US didn’t know how to make non-DU armour at that time, which is why even with all that weight it was still worse then the M1s they already had.
The Greek/Turkish trial document, it only talks about TWO armour types; Improved non-DU FMS (originally offered to Sweden as shown earlier) and the “advanced non-DU FMS” or “non-DU FMS”.
Source.
1 is the same as 3
2 is the same as 4
5, yeah sure, but we’re not talking about SEPv3 derivatives here.
huh? You actually make no sense with anything you write.
Source for how 1 is the same as 3 and 2 is the same as 4.
Not one of these pictures says HAP-3.
none of them ever will, you do know BRL and HAP are all non-US military naming conventions right? The US doesn’t have an actual naming convention for those armour packages… Regardless, the M1A1 SA received HAP-3, that was one of the major differences between it and the AIM.
It’s quoting someone speaking, not reliable information to base exact versions off and it doesn’t mention what it is equivalent to.
Correct, two are sources directly from the Australian military i.e. Lieutenant Colonel Duncan. Regardless I know it is an SA, the Australians just never say it for whatever reason:
FYI Palmerston, NT = Palmerston, Northern Territory which is where the Robertson Barracks is located i.e. one of Australia’s major bases.
The Australian M1A1 is an M1A1 AIMv2/SA.
ITSA is the term used by the army…
Source.
They are upgrading M1A1s WITHOUT DU to ones WITH DU, or upgrading HAs to HC/A2 standard!
Incorrect again, that armour upgrade was put into all M1, what you don’t seem to comprehend or don’t understand is the M1A2 AIM and SEP were produced from old M1s, these M1s got the latest DU armour upgrade which was not the same as what the M1A2s had:
This is why I gave you this, which you apparently didn’t bother looking at:
The above is stating that this armour package was new as it’s design review was in 1998 and it didn’t even get ballistic testing done until Q4 2000, it then entered service in 2001, which is why it and the Improved Turret Side Armour were only being incorporated into M1s in 2002…
Meaning it was not HAP-2.
While they did this, they upgraded the old outdated 1st and 2nd gen armour packages to the third gen package and included ITSA.
Your being disingenuous, because I know exactly where you are getting “1st and 2nd gen armour packages to the third gen package” from, and it states the SEPs were getting a 4th gen armour package:
BTW, they were able to obtain approval for the sale of DU ammo AND resolved the armour issues.
Strongly doubt that DU armour would’ve been “too much”.
The reason why Swedes probably wanted approval for it is to show they were serious about getting the best possible.
It was, which is why the US government didn’t allow it, afaik the only other country that has ever even tested the DU armour is Britain, and that was only because of the MOU that the UK and US had. I remember reading somewhere that the US wouldn’t even let Britain see how the DU armour worked i.e. the structure / layout of the armour.
no i mean. the ones in the test did not have the same protection as the ones they were offered to buy.
so the protection tests do not represent the actual MBT’s that would then be given if choosen.
where does it say the got to test DU?
you mean this? Robert Hayman-Joyce wrote about this, ( He was made Director of the UK Tank Program in 1988 also he was promoted to Director Royal Armored Corps in 1992 ).
Yea, cheers for that, I was almost certain I had read it somewhere but couldn’t find that source again, was this in fact in regards to the 1988 M1A1 with DU? I would assume so given the timeline?
the author wrote about the M1A2
one thing that makes me wonder is whether the authors of this book did not confuse the M1A2 with the M1A1.
Simon Dunstan wrote about the M1A1 in the context of Thatcher’s rejection.
Britain evaluated both the M1A1 and M1A2, they concluded that the M1A1 was unacceptable for a bunch of reasons.
Yea, if there is anything I have learnt from all this, militaries have terrible naming conventions which is why some things are so confusing, point of fact that declassified UK document states the M1A1 has 650 KE protection, that obviously wasn’t a regular M1A1.
There is a lot of contradicting stuff on it:
The 650 mm figure is for an M1A1HA+ (M1A1HC). The M1A2 also had 650 mm turret armour (both the M1A1HA+ and M1A2 have the same turret armour according to American sources).
Now it all makes sense.
That document you gave can’t be right for the Chally 2 though right? I mean at the very least if we use Dick Taylor’s figure of 15% that would put the Chally 2s Turret at around 565mm for KE at +/-20° or +/-30°, no?
