Where did you get that number?
I think we can all see that Gaijin has it work cut out in the face of that American attitude.Kind of proves the suspicion many of us have to the basis of Russian bias and the US being hard done by,its not an attitude Gaijin will ever change by any of its actions.The company is working as hard on the M1 as any but that Reds under the bed attitude prevails.
There’s tankers who operated the Abrams who have said it does have a spall liner integrated within the inside layer of armor. It’s a material similar to Kevlar but the term Kevlar is used interchangeably.
I’m not sure if he’s said something and I missed it but we need @Conte_Baracca in this debate.
5 Likes
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.”
Tells me absolutely nothing, you are inferring that this means DU when he never states that, I however take this to mean one of two things, either he is talking about them testing the turret protection with the export armour i.e. the turret has the best ballistic protection on the M1A2, or he is talking about how they tested the M1A2s best export armour in the US, which is why he states “the M1A2 had a ballistic protection in the export version” prior to it.
It could also mean like you say the Swedes were allowed to see how the DU armour performed, it however doesn’t mean they were allowed to see how it works or were given any other info on it it.
What you have failed to understand was that in 1992 Sweden sent people to learn how to operate the M1s, the US at said time seems to have showcased an export armour package, the Swedes did not go over there specifically to see said armour, they were already being sent over:
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
Still doesn’t tell me which arc the M1A2 was tested with, but seeing as the US specifically also had a 60° frontal arc requirement, so it would be weird for the 30° not to have been 650mm:
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:
The only one BSing here is you mate, imagine telling someone to use it properly then refuse to remove the bushes and then proceeds to go below the correct angle and aim up into the turret cheek:
As flat as you can get it to, which also aligns with what the Swedish got:
FYI, I don’t give the right side (from the front) M1 cheek, because due to the way the M1 is designed there will always be more armour then the left side which even the Swedish acknowledge, the only way to get a flat 650mm for both turret cheeks figure is for +/-30°.
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.
Nope, the 60° figure was the US figures for the Swedish export armour package, there is literally nothing stating that image was of an M1 with DU armour…
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.
hahaha, your so beyond disingenuous it isn’t even funny, Peter McVey’s quotes are just as reliable as anything you have given, he didn’t need to campaign for a tank sale because the tank would have to do that, you just don’t like what he stated because it disproves your point.
Yes and it performed the same as in the Swedish trials, strange isn’t it?
Except it didn’t i.e. that would be impossible, the two test environments and how they were carried out were quite different, what hurt the M1 the most as it has in every trial is its fuel efficiency, the Greeks put it up there with the Leo in regards to everything bar protection, which makes sense, the British M1A2 DU armour still wouldn’t put it on par to the Improved Leo 2A5, however it had very poor fuel efficiency i.e. its operational range was too low for the Greeks.
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.
Still waiting on this source.
Incredible…
Improved FMS armor =/= Improved FMS armor according to you?
Because it wasn’t, all that document states is they created an improved FMS armour configuration for Sweden to test, once again however, it was not the Improved FMS armour package that came out after the Swedish trials as stated by Peter McVey.
Lindström clearly says this.
This tells me absolutely nothing, thanks for that. I have no clue how you think this means Sweden received info on the M1s with DU armour, especially when the US wouldn’t even give that info to the Brits (as was noted above):
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/a/f/afbe047dd0a316845f6b6d1e8fb663fecccda67d.png
Again, BEST available, there was no limit.
Except there was, the DU armour was not available to Sweden, so yes the best available was the non-DU armour.
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)
Interesting isn’t it, performs worse then the British trials, no? By the way this is why I gave you a 600mm figure for the turret cheeks at +/-20° because that’s what Sweden’s M1 had for both +/-20° and +/-30° as Gaijin has then modelled it based on said info:
Areas with 700 - 900mm:
The 60° arc values are from the DU tests in the US:
Nope, all info that the US gave Sweden was in regards to non-DU armour that Sweden received, both the 60° degree and 40° frontal arc figures are from the Swedish tanks, which is why in game the 60° and 40° frontal arc give 600mm against KE (bar right side):
What were the promised protection levels for the Non-DU armour package you ask?
As noted those values were met in the Swedish testing:
Left KE = 600mm / Right CE = 900mm
The M1A1 HA+ and M1A2 that were apparently given to Britain had 650mm vs KE at either +/-20° and +/-30°.
Hence those values are not for the DU amour, they are the values for the non-DU armour. Its crazy that you think GDLS gave Sweden the DU figures before the US government had even given them the go ahead, which they needed seeing as both the DU armour and APFSDS are export restricted.
The reason the British were allowed to test it was due to the Memorandum of Understanding that the US and UK have had since 1950, this is also why the UK even shared Chobham info with the US:
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!!!).
Yes it states there are three M1A1 armour configurations (when this was written), which is correct because the M1A1s never received the M1A2 SEP armour until they became M1A2 SEPs… Also as noted the M1A1 AIM SA didn’t exist when this document was written. You do realise by this document the M1s didn’t even have a 4th gen armour package, i.e. you have contradicted yourself as what you have just said means the Improved Turret Side Armour wasn’t HAP-3…
Nowhere does it say that this “frontal armor” is different than what is on A2.
And at the same time no where does it say this this is the same “frontal armour” as what the M1A2 used.
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).
Oh? where is the weight from the improved turret side armour?
The document is called “tank modernization plan”.
And was written before the new armour had even been tested…
Which is why the documents prior to 2002 don’t even state the SEPs will have the improved turret side armour as noted by the following which was written in 1997:
Between the M1A1 and M1A1HA the weight increase was approximately 2.9 tonnes, going from ~400mm KE to ~600mm.
460mm KE - 650 KE… Remember according to the British document even the M1A1 is underperforming by 60mm at said angles against KE.
Also tonnes is metric tons, the US doesn’t use metric tons they use short tons, and it wasn’t even 2.9 short tons it was 2.6 short tons i.e. 2.358 metric tons.
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).
Not necessarily no, it didn’t for the M1A2.
The document is called “tank modernization plan.
Yea, I’ve read them, notice how it doesn’t talk about the improved turret side armour though…
It’s all about bringing the existing fleet up to SEP standard, which includes fitting HC/A2 DU inserts and ITSA.
Weird how it doesn’t say that with what you linked, if I were to go by this the SEPs wouldn’t even have the improved turret side armour…
it never says that the DU being fitted has been improved over that of A2
Not even the SEPv3 says it is improved over the M1A2, all it says is that it is improved or upgraded…
So by this logic the SEPv3 used the same armour as the M1A2, so all NGAP is, is just has an improved hull:
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/c/2/c2112cee81893e9c82894a1a27fa8ccd28363423.png
Also, I still have no Army source showing they abbreviate it to ITSA.
The fact you never took a screenshot of the Army calling it ITSA was proof enough.
10 Likes
Drama, Baby, Drama.
2 wannabe experts are fighting over possibilites und uncertainties of classified vehiecles in the forums of a videogame made by a gamedev who doesnt give a damn and uses half the time ‘‘sources’’ they dont wanna share and the other half are ASSUMING sh*t cuz they dont wanna admit that have no idea how half tech they wanna model works.
but sure you two go at eachother… 2024 starts entertaining at least :D
edit: and before you reply to this saying: i made these posts so gaijin can fix…
a gamedev who doesnt give a damn
Best example is the Puma Ammo where we got gaijin manufaturer sources, yet they somehow claim to have a source thats ‘‘better/more worth’’ than the manufacturers yet refuse to show it to us… you see the’ brainrot here?
the sooner the community accepts that gaijin doesnt care about the historical accuracy the like to hind behind whenever its convinient, the sooner we can have F U N with this G A M E… or move on ;D
5 Likes
ah no that one is acknowledged, but they use the weight of ammo as balancers, since they influence spalling and perforation. Everything at high /top tier gets only treated as suggestion because they wanna “balance” them, just that the balancing part is shit
2 Likes
Re the impending Challenger article.
I’ll have a crack at it - I’m brushing up on Gaijineese - that arcane and dead language known only to the Snail.
Dear players. We noticed that lots of you were concerned about the Challenger 2 in our game. Namely, that it is missing large chunks of armour, the armour it does have doesn’t appear to work and the mobility profile appears to match that of a knackered-old T-34 driven by an inebriated muppet.
Well you’re wrong and we’re not. We BELIEVE that our rendition of this vehicle is fine. Our incredibly talented video game developers disagree with designers, engineers, R&D departments, entire military establishments - we at Gaijin BELIEVE the Challenger 2 just isn’t that good. We have to say this or some very large and unpleasant men will visit us next week in St Petersb…ahem…Hungary.
Our reasoning is that Russia can’t produce a Challenger 2. We don’t know how it works so obviously it must be inferior. We don’t even know what regenerative steering is - quite frankly stuff like this scares us - one of our number suffered a nervous breakdown when they discovered what a hydrogas unit was.
Lastly, we’ve used our patented ‘Gaijin Logik’ to draw some conclusions about the protection values. We of course have far more resources to call upon than the British MoD, Vickers Defence or basically the rest of the Western World. We’ve thus used THIS - since it kind of looks like a Challenger 2 and we’re pretty good at divining real-world characteristics from making mental gymnastic leaps by looking at something.
It took Boris a few months but he’s pretty sure those side panels are less than 20mm and there isn’t any way that’ll stop anything. The gaps in the armour are also plainly evident. Despite making various attempts at vroom-vroom-noises none of our hardworking research staff could make it go faster than walking pace - so if anything the CR2 in the game is overperforming in terms of mobility.
We would give you more details but someone from the Russi…ahem…Hungarian government confiscated this vital research tool.
We hope this informative article doesn’t explode in our faces like the previous 2 or 3 did. PS - please buy our stuff.
26 Likes
That COBI model has less armour gaps than the in-game Chally 2.
11 Likes
BTW the image is the most armoured Challenger 2 by Gaijin’s standart, obviously to never be found in game.
1 Like
leopards/strv are steamrolling everyone due to spall liner, remove it from hull sides please
Remove them from all tanks then , or you maybe wanna try making another thread lol ? would love to see where that one goes
2 Likes
its luck thats yours doesnt even get used, there is already existing ones where it is being discussed while yours is meh. in the mean time i can just advise you to get good, because they arent that bad of a problem as u think, just mainly a skill issue
Lol…bet this is either an American main or a Russian main.(the later would be incredibly funny considering the 90M)
Every downtier with the Gripen is easy mode, always top of the leaderboard. And I’m not that good of a player. I’m shooting myself in the leg here but do increase its BR and please revert the changes unless they were unrealistic.
The nerfs kept coming in waves and it felt like the Gripen is just getting hate instead of being made into a realistic aircraft. I’m just going off of feels, not actual performance statistics.
From someone who mainly plays SB (and therefore never really see downtier in it) it’s fine. But the lack of BVR is deeply felt and the radar is a buggy mess and isn’t even the correct radar. Before they can even think about it’s performance, they need to finish it.
3 Likes
I doesn’t need a nerf. Unless it’s FM is still unrealistic. They need to buff everything else in top tier FM wise. Tornado never got its fm revision. Su27 is artificially nerfed. All mig29s are a sad joke. The f15 gets some weird wing snaps like the f14, so sure how accurate that is
Add it to every top tier tank or delete it.
fuk this unbalance shit
1 Like
I think the FM on the Gripen is 95% there, if not even 99% there. What’s left is actually buffs for the aircraft:
- BOL + Skyflash DFs should be entirely possible (small buff but Skyflash can be handy to run, I do, so having the full 4xBOL will be nice
- Wrong radar (has F-16 placeholder radar currently) actual radar will be better I think, and if nothing else, should be far less buggy
- Missing centre line weapons (where the fuel tank is) for additional bombs (both guided and unguided)
- Aim-9Ms have a few outstanding bug reports which would be reasonable buffs, especially in head-ons
(Also missing decent BVR in form of AMRAAM)
Then after that its mostly SB related buffs
- Cockpit on the C is wrong, currently has the A cockpit
- HMD reticle is massive and really annoying to use
- Missing some cockpit HUD symbology (I think)
2 Likes
I doubt they will give the SAAF one that but definitely the Swedish one will
1 Like
It depends on Typhoon. If we are say twiddling our thumbs waiting for that for the next decade. Then AMRAAM on the Gripen C would be an easy stop-gap. If we get the expected FA2 and F3 AMRAAM carriers, followed by Typhoon reasonably quickly. Then we shouldnt need it in theory.
2 Likes