Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

[scavenjer]

Yes, that and the heavy side skirts are the reports that should be made.

@Necronomica

The ones tested were different from the ones offered in terms of protection.

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.

@SpeclistMain

So for the SEPv2 we know it has DU as the SEP had DU, which shared the same hull as the M1A1 SA, which we know has DU as per one of the sources Count_Trackula provided earlier. I’m not sure how this does anything other than suggest the SEPv2 has DU.

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.

@ayeflyingcowboy

Those weren’t the DU values, those were the M1 protection values for the armour package that GDLS and the Army were giving Sweden.

Lindström disagrees.

@ayeflyingcowboy

This can be confirmed by the British assessment of the M1s DU armour according to Dick Taylor, Dick Taylor being a former British army tank commander, who wrote this book , and within that book he wrote:

This likewise lines up perfectly with what Flame2512 gave i.e. initially the US’s DU armour was lacking in regards to its CE protection, the British helped the US then improve their DU armour in regards to its CE protection:

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…

@ayeflyingcowboy

I don’t know if you noticed but in game the M1A2 and Chally 2 have practically the same KE turret protection, regardless this means that HAP-2 (what all M1s produced from 1990 used) was a CE protection improvement upgrade that also improved its multi-hit performance.

Which is wrong as stated above.

@ayeflyingcowboy

I could care less what the errors are in regards to spelling mistakes, because the original didn’t have those spelling mistakes, what I am giving you is slightly edited to emphasise certain words, all I care about are the direct quotes from the vice president of international business of GDLS i.e. Peter McVey.

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?

@ayeflyingcowboy

Completely incorrect, I have no clue where you got this from, but as of now (in regards to all the sources I have given you) both the US, GDLS, and a Swedish Major state the armour was to come from the US:

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.

@ayeflyingcowboy

GDLS and the Army had to design a new armour package for Sweden because the US would not give them the DU armour package, this is why it was initially called it an improved FMS armour i.e. improved over the FMS armour that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had:

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.

@ayeflyingcowboy

However as noted it wasn’t what Sweden was looking for, GDLS then went and worked on that improved FMS armour and made it comparable to the US M1’s DU HAP-2 armour and called it the Improved Non-DU FMS armour, this was then trialled for the first time in the Greek and Turkey tank trials as stated by McVey:

They named it the same, because it is the same…
Provide the link to this article please.

@ayeflyingcowboy

No, there was no US Non-DU armour that existed in 1993 that was comparable to the US’s DU armour, that didn’t exist until after the Swedish trials was tested in Greece and Turkey, Sweden was never given an M1 with DU armour, what was tested in Sweden was a non-DU armour.

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.

@ayeflyingcowboy

The SEP has all of that and still weighs less then 62.5 tons, regardless, the Aussie AIM would make that weight up in any number of the upgrades it had that the Swedish M1 didn’t have including the latest armour package but it doesn’t:

Yes, because the SEP integrates titanium weight reduction measures…

(not all were actually done)

@ayeflyingcowboy

I have no clue what the Swedish M1 was, but its weight is irrelevant to me, Mcvey has already stated it’s armour was not up to par with what the US was using.

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.

@ayeflyingcowboy

Firstly, the FMS non-DU was not know as the Advanced non-DU, no clue where you got that from.

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.

@ayeflyingcowboy

Secondly there are four, well technically 5:

1. Original FMS armour , which was used by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
2. The Swedish non-Du armour that was an improvement over the original FMS Non-DU
3. Improved FMS
4. Advanced Non-DU armour
5. NGAP equivalent that Australia with receive with their M1A2 SEPv3.

1 is the same as 3
2 is the same as 4
5, yeah sure, but we’re not talking about SEPv3 derivatives here.

@ayeflyingcowboy

Australia states in a few places their M1A1 AIM uses the Advanced non-DU armour, which would be HAP-3 equivalent as that was one of the upgrades the SA received, and the Australian AIM was in the SA configuration meaning the Aussie AIM is an AIMv2/SA:

Not one of these pictures says HAP-3.

@ayeflyingcowboy

Except as I have already shown there is, both the Aussies and Moroccans received M1A1 AIMv2/SA’s, one of their main upgrades over the original AIM was HAP-3 equiv. protection, which is why their armour package was called the Advanced non-DU armour and not the Improved FMS armour…

It’s quoting someone speaking, not reliable information to base exact versions off and it doesn’t mention what it is equivalent to.

@ayeflyingcowboy

No, the Improved Side Armour (I have never seen the Army abbreviate it to ITSA, so I take it you are just making this up?) accompanied a frontal armour improvement, which started being incorporated into M1s in 2002:

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…

[scavenjer]

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.

[Lachlann295]

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

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

“ 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:

Suggestion: Integral rework of modern MBT armor implementation (Poll)

Hello there! I am here specially for you today to suggest what would be the biggest change in regards to the implementation of modern MBTs into War Thunder. poll [armormodelling]

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@scavenjer

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.

Ahem: (all provided by Count_Trackula)

M1A2SEPv2 doesnt have better LFP armour

[image] [DU Frontal and Turret Side Protection with Suspension Upgrade] [DOE Armor] I mean, you’re wrong. lol But nice cope and deflection and rambling regarding the Greek tank trials lol. Did you ignore the part where the 5 hull limit was removed? The 5 hulls you want to keep harping about was a non-factor since 2006. [2002 Budget Item] Frontal armor upgrades happening from between the FONSI to the removal of the hull limit. The later budget form indicates that the frontal armor impro…

Swedish tests not having DU and therefore being a nerfed version they are testing:

M1A2SEPv2 doesnt have better LFP armour

That was an export M1A2 with a nerfed non-DU package. Nice try. Also, the SEPs received the hull DU. According to the decision made after the FONSI results of testing the hulls with DU, from the same document Gaijin cited. XD Since 2001 forward, they implemented the improved protection armor package described and tested in this document. Later in 2006, the license was amended to allow unlimited hulls. The decision to go forward was made in 2001. This covers the first SEP.: https://www.n…

[ayeflyingcowboy]

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:

https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/5/a/5a874ee9568f7751603b180dcdc89e7bf609651c.jpeg

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:

[ayeflyingcowboy]

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.

[Necronomica]

@scavenjer

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.

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.

[Necronomica]

@scavenjer

Lindström disagrees.

where does it say the got to test DU?

[Victor_eu]

@ayeflyingcowboy

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.

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 ).

[ayeflyingcowboy]

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?

[Victor_eu]

the author wrote about the M1A2

[Victor_eu]

one thing that makes me wonder is whether the authors of this book did not confuse the M1A2 with the M1A1.

[Victor_eu]

Simon Dunstan wrote about the M1A1 in the context of Thatcher’s rejection.

[Flame2512]

Britain evaluated both the M1A1 and M1A2, they concluded that the M1A1 was unacceptable for a bunch of reasons.

[ayeflyingcowboy]

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:

This could either be an M1A1 HA or M1A1 Block II (M1A2), I have no clue.

[Flame2512]

@ayeflyingcowboy

point of fact that declassified UK document states the M1A1 has 650 KE protection, that obviously wasn’t a regular M1A1.

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).

[ayeflyingcowboy]

@Flame2512

The 650 mm figure is for an M1A1HA+ (M1A1HC). They also state the M1A2 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?

[Flame2512]

The page you are referring to was an annex to a document giving an overview of the history of the Chieftain replacement programme, the requirements of which were specified in SR(L) 4026. The purpose of the annex was to demonstrate the need for a new tank (i.e. why the Challenger 1 wasn’t good enough). The numbers given in the SR(L) 4026 row of the table are the requirements set out in SR(L) 4026; so in that context I think “CR2 Standard” is to remind the reader that the CR2 was the eventual winner of the SR(L) 4026 competition, while listing the minimum requirements of said competition, rather than to say those are the exact performance figures of the CR2.

For example the penetration in the SR(L) 4026 row is given as 700 mm (which is what was specified in SR(L) 4026), but CHARM 3 is known to have exceeded 700 mm in testing, with other documents stating 730 mm was deemed possible by the end of full development.

[ayeflyingcowboy]

Yea I figured that was the case, even TRADOC has it 650+ against KE, that said I have no clue if this is frontal arc or not or if most of the info in this is correct: