325 at normal vs 350mm in +/- 25 degree arc is not a 25mm improvement, it’s a 50mm+ improvement.
However that apparently doesn’t matter:
The improved array was just for the turret til the M1A2 seems like.
Is this related to Domestic or Export arrays?
There have never been any “export arrays” unless the original array had DU, so the M1A2 would’ve kept the original US Army array for the hull.
But it would be rated to protect against said projectile, so it must do so to reach said goal.
I don’t think that’s true.
This makes no mention of armour improvements for the M1A2.
This mentions the M1A2 utilized the same armour solutions as the M1A1 HC:
(Tank Modernization Plan - Sept 1996)
And the M1A1HA and M1A1HC are only mentioned to have received improvements to the turret with the addition of steel encased DU backplates as far as I’ve read.
Depends on if the revised Hull intended for SE Block II, was rolled out or not. We know that the requisite weight reduction programs did occur for the M1A2, but if they reduced things far enough to permit their installation, or if the weight reductions were redirected into other capabilities I don’t know.
It’s also possible that Units stationed in Europe vs ME deployments were equipt differently.
And yet as of 1991 the M1A1 still only had 350 mm of hull armour:
This would appear to suggest otherwise:
Regarding use of titanium the only items actually used in production vehicles was the GPS doghouse and Blowout panels. The weight reductions were then immediately offset by other weight additions like ITSA
With regards to titanium in turret structure. Only Egyptian Abrams supposedly do so (as of 2005)
As per the GAO document(Table 2.1), possible areas identified in the document for weight recovery efforts constituted the following:
Which totaled 6,664 pounds. And doesn’t mention titanium anywhere, The Titanium replacement weight reduction program was used as something I could point to that was actually completed as I haven’t yet found anything that concretely points to the fact that SE Block II was canceled, or that it was fully implemented.
I cant be asked to read through hundreds of replies, whats the actual verdict on Abrams hull armor? Is it accurate?
no it isnt
Unbiased, what are the real estimates for each variant?
it isnt a biased statement, there is a ton of evidence for improved hull armor, to the point that anyone trying to deny it is just a troll
No like, I was asking for an unbiased estimate of the hull armor.
the best, well supported figure ive seen was an ~35% increase in KE protection at some point before SEP or SEPv2, and also mentions of further improvement for v2 at least iirc
If I had to estimate certainty, I’d say the following:
80% certain M1 Abrams hull armour is accurate.
85% certain IPM1 and M1A1 hull armour are accurate.
85% certain M1A1 HC and M1A2 hull armour are accurate.
75% certain M1A1 SEP hull armour is accurate.
50% certain M1A2 SEP v2 hull armour is accurate.
Just because the BRL developed an improved solution does not mean it was adopted. You’ve not shown any evidence that supports your case that these improvements were applied to production model M1’s.
Germany had developed the external composite screens for the glacis by the late '80s, yet they did not place it into production of their Leopard 2A5.
Claiming anyone who disagrees with that statement is a ‘‘troll’’ only highlights your tendency for personal attacks rather than supporting your position with evidence.
I see.
We can prove intent remained to mount the outstanding SE II hull upgrades to the M1A2 as of the GAO report. Nothing has been presented that states that the refit of SE Block II was actually canceled, just that it wasn’t implemented alongside SE Block I for the M1A2 initial production at the time.
Germany had developed more than that… the “D-tech” internals, and only used them in the turret.
Indeed, I was merely using it as an example that armour improvements being developed don’t guarantee they’re utilized in production models.
It’s more so an if it was ever introduced to the M1A2, we know it wasn’t there initially but there is obviously still an intent to have it mounted once weight savings materialize sufficiently, and it’s not as if there haven’t been major overhauls of the M1A2 since it entered service with the SEP variants.
And as Threats have advanced the need would have similarly become more critical. Especially once threats like the RPG-7VR (Tandem HEAT) warhead would propagate, which are more than capable of penetrating even the optimistic values provided for CE protection.
The bradley and BMP armor values likely count the frontally mounted engines as “armor.”
