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?
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.
1 Like
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:
Also, do you think you will bug report the AIM-9L again? I.e. it should be 32gs.
First pic says nothing, second pic is from the VA and not any agency that knows anything about armor (the diagram even disagrees with what they say).
Third pic again is about a MOD to existing tanks to bring them up to SEP spec, which involves upgrading M1s without DU to having DU.
Fourth source is flat out wrong about several things.
Fifth still no source provided.
Sixth, yes I have it (who do you think scanned the article and put it online?) and it literally says the same as Swedish trials, so what is your point?
He says “he M1A2 had a ballistic protection in the export version. Shooting attempt against its best ballistic protection was made in the United States.”
They did shooting tests against DU in the US, unless you mean to tell me that DU is worse than the export package?
Quite the opposite, I am very well aware of how the Brits like to play with numbers and how they lose context.
We know for a fact that CR2 in this case had a 60° frontal arc requirement and that M1A2 was tested in a more narrow arc (as the book on CR2 says)
M1A1 was tested in a 40° arc
If you’re going to bullshit us with protection analysis, at least bother to actually use it properly and don’t aim down on the turret negating the angling:
Again, no.
The 600mm in a 60° arc was on the slide showing the US DU armour scheme, the 700mm KE threat simulation was at a 20° offset angle.
Ah yes, the most reliable news article written by someone new in the industry and while they were campaigning for a tank sale… as suspected, not much of a source.
Yes and it performed the same as in the Swedish trials, strange isn’t it?
The 62.5t figure comes from the M1A2 they used in the road marching and did all the tests with, it does not come from some M1A2 they fitted with add-on armour (which they didn’t, only some armour mockups).
Thanks for realising that’s what I said.
Seems you didn’t understand yourself?
I said there wasn’t a “Swedish” armour package the Swedes developed, which is correct.
The Swedes were given the specifications for the export package so they could recreate it for their test firings and they additionally asked IBD and Akers to make an add-on to improve upon this armour package.
Incredible…
Improved FMS armor =/= Improved FMS armor according to you?
That’s what you want to believe, not what he meant or said.
Parallel to them parapractical trials with the tanks, FMV carried out technical tests and analyses. survivability in particular The tanks ’ came to be the subject of in-depth consideration examination. Shooting tests were carried out in each country against partial hulls of the different ones the tanks’ chassis and turret protection modules. Corresponding shooting test was also done with relevant threat ammunition (slightly lower threat levels for the chassis) at FFK in Karlsborg against all tanks alternatively equipped with a Swedish-developed protection from Åkers Krutbruk and the German partner IBD (Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth). As we did not receive sufficient documentation from the supplier had us build partial hulls to our own specifications in order to be able to carry out firing tests against the various tanks with the Swedish-developed protection - something like especially surprised the French…
Lindström clearly says this.
Again, BEST available, there was no limit.
They did not have confirmation on what they could receive at the time of the tests, so they tested and got info on both.
First you ask how it weighs less than M1A2, now you ask why it weighs more?
Actual tests in Sweden against the export package (and the export package + add-on), it clearly shows 50% of the surface protects against 600mm at 20° offset angle (40° arc could perhaps be generous seeing how the other side is slightly weaker)
But it includes a bit of turret ring and roof that could attribute to it.
The 60° arc values are from the DU tests in the US:
You can see that it’s an American document…
Literally that document I mentioned…?
Again, the Strawman proposal document.
I do know that, funnily enough, that’s literally what I was pointing at.
And guess what, this is exactly why you can’t say Australian AIM didn’t receive HAP-3, because it is never mentioned by official sources.
You should really stop using random news articles as proof of anything.
So if you agree they don’t say what it is equivalent to, nor that they are reliable, why do you think it’s valid to claim it has “HAP-3”?
https://www.asafm.army.mil/Budget-Materials/#fy-2001
LMAO, the doc that I posted, which you try to use here literally says the opposite!
The doc clearly states there are THREE different armour configurations, M1A1 (same as IPM1), M1A1HA and M1A1HA+ (HC/A2!!!).
Which literally says what I said…?
You’re reading things that are just not there.
Again, upgrading older tanks to HC/A2 level… ontop they add ITSA.
Nowhere does it say that this “frontal armor” is different than what is on A2.
I have already provided MULTIPLE sources clearly showing a lack of turret front armor upgrade over A2.
Again, no.
The fourth gen armor refers to ITSA.
There is the basic M1 armor which is the same as on IPM1 and M1A1 (latter two just have increased turret front thickness).
There is the first gen DU (HA)
Second gen DU (HA+/HC/A2)
And then there is ITSA.
The document is called “tank modernization plan”.
It’s all about bringing the existing fleet up to SEP standard, which includes fitting HC/A2 DU inserts and ITSA.
There was no need for improved turret front armour over A2, instead there was a need for improving resistance against RPGs and improving IFF capabilities.
Literally every SEP document talks about upgrading existing M1s of various variants, but many without DU to a certain standard that includes DU, it never says that the DU being fitted has been improved over that of A2, nor does it state what the protection increase could even be for as they didn’t expect a Russian improvement in armour/weapon technology to the same level as the M1A2 until 2015.
Then when GWOT happened there was even less space and need for a frontal armour improvement as the protection against IEDs and RPGs took priority.
It wasn’t until 2014 that Russia actually produced rounds that were on M829A1/A2 level, which still might not suffice.
The only real frontal armour threat the M1 faced in all that time was the hull (already shown to not be upgraded), which the US army didn’t consider an issue and the possibility of ATGMs like Kornet.
Likewise, there are no major weight increases to go along with potential armour increases.
Between the M1A1 and M1A1HA the weight increase was approximately 2.9 tonnes, going from ~400mm KE to ~600mm.
Any additional protection would similarly increase weight significantly unless the whole armour scheme is changed (back plate change from 4" to maybe 2" to gain space for example).
Only a few titanium components were introduced and yet weight did not increase significantly between A2 and SEP.
BTW, DU plates are a max of 5/8ths of an inch.
Go through the hundreds if not thousands of pages of documents on the modernisation, maybe then you’ll get some perspective on the whole thing.
3 Likes
Also, forgot to point out, Greek trials M1A2 was again behind Leo 2A5S (whose armour did not change) and actually received marks closer to Leclerc this time around (which was still suffering from teething issues), so if the armour had really improved significantly, you’d think it would get closer to leo 2 in points.
You wouldn’t expect Leclerc to slowly catch up…
Earlier doc thanking the Abrams team for Swedish trial efforts states armour issues were resolved, so either DU was allowed for export, or protection levels were close enough to satisfy the Swedes.
Then Greek trials doc says there are still armour issues, making comparisons to foreign tanks.
1 Like
TRADOC is a training aid, they don’t give accurate numbers as there is no reason to and it would be bad for relations (if they are even aware of the protection numbers themselves).
The highest (proposed) value was 600mm, which is unlikely to have been reached, instead the 500-540 numbers are probably where it ended up.
And FFS, they give Leo 2 700mm against KE, an M256 smoothbore and say that GALIX on the Strv 122 is an APS…
1 Like
I’m back to clown on this even more.
We’ve (me in this case, but I wasn’t the only one) provided evidence of armour enhacements being carried out (and to what level; “The most striking change, the hull front protection on the chassis, raises the protection level to that of the turret, which was an important requirement.”) , you just ignored them, and then went out of your way to model the 2A7V after the Leopard 2 SVT (which was built on a 5th batch 2A4 i.e B-tech base armour), so honestly, what the hell are you even talking about?
You could’ve modelled it after the Leopard 2 TVM max (after which you modelled the Strv 122) and few people would’ve complained… but NO, you purposefully modelled it after the WORST possible configuration available, and at the same time you purposefully made the upper plate add-on worse than Strv 122s… (for some goddamn reason it can’t shatter/ricochet APFSDS, but everything else can??).
Either model it after the 122s (so ~750mm KE and ~1500mm CE beak protection + upper plate shattering KE projectiles), or admit you have no idea what you’re doing (but the latter won’t stop people from talking shit about the way you’re handling things).
Thanks for absolutely nothing I guess.
25 Likes
They feature the same turret add-ons, not sure how they can even mistake them for different…
6 Likes
The same way they use the worst possible armour configuration to model it?
We’ve already estabilished that 2A7Vs armour was modelled after either the SVT or KVT (in both cases B-technology base armour as far as we’re concerned), but they also managed to under-armour even that;
Highlight in all of this is definitely Gaijin gaslighting everyone into believing 2A7V somehow provides protection against ~600mm KE across 65% of its surface… (good luck with that upper plate).
14 Likes
But will Gaijin FEEL that this is the case?
(Nice work, though!)
4 Likes
Add a new Abrams and leopard thread to that, their “explanations” were total bullshit
The wider issue for Abrams isn’t the armor. SEP V2 only had 5 models with the DU armor. Tank commanders who operated Abrams also have come forward to confirm there’s no spall liner.
The issue for Abrams is “why is it okay for some vehicles, like T-80, YAK-141, JAS39C, etc to have theoretical loadouts that are proven to have been possible or prototyped in some capacity, yet for Abrams it’s completely out of the question? If T-80B in game can recieve it’s thermal imager which was never put in serial production, why can’t SEPV2 have it’s DU hull like the 5 models?”
Leopard, I think is one of the game’s smaller problems. It’s without a doubt, the most protected MBT in the game (Leopard 2A7), and while yes, it could have D-Tech armor, and should have similar protection to the Swedish Leopards, the Swedes simply upgraded and created the better version of the Leopard platform.
Challenger 2 on the other hand is a complete disgrace and needs massive reworks as there’s glaring evidence it’s wrong.
ZTZ99A should have spall liners, but it’s missing in game as well. There needs to be uniformity to Gaijins stances, so they stop contradicting themselves and stiring up drama.
3 Likes
German main rant incoming…
With regards to the chally, I’m not expecting anything from them tbh. That’s how low they’ve set the bar at this point.
6 Likes
not up to date if other abrams got the DU in the hull as well
the problem is that the Strv122 is the “best” and most protected mbt, even if that simply is not true anymore. The 2A7V would have a lot more armor then the Strv122, thats the whole point of the upgrade. We wouldnt mind if the 2A7V would just have the same armor values then the Strv122 for balance reasons and openly stated this, but gajin is doing it completly wrong and giving it worse armor then even the TVM that actualy was used during those trials
that i agree, but seems like they are working on that one massively at least
not to mention gajin not individualy modeling their era but making them giant ass slaps combined with multiple individual pieces
to be fair, we got a point, we just are sick of sweden being called the better germany, when this simply shouldnt be the truth anymore
5 Likes
Wrong. Those 5 DU hull Abrams were before SEP V2.
Well before AIM XXI and SEP Abrams programs upgrades were actually implemented.
2 Likes
Hahahaha, oh wait you’re serious, let me laugh even harder. HAHAHAHAHHAHAH
1 Like
Uh the armor package was Made by a German company for sweden and used by germany aswell and the armor of the 2A7V is much more effective than the one on the Strv122, it dosent make sense the “sweden did it better” when it’s just a leopard 2A5 with a German armor package sold to sweden
6 Likes