In 1984 the IPM1 entered service, this featured extended gun shield and turret cheeks. The composite armor for these areas was also improved relative to the base M1 Abrams.
In late 1988 the M1A1 HA entered service, this featured steel-encased DU back plates in the turret cheeks, substantially improving the armor effectiveness.
In 1999 the M1A2 SEP entered service, this featured improved composite armor for the turret side areas against CE threats.
In 2020 the M1A2 SEP v3 entered service, this featured a new generation of composite armor for both the hull and turret front.
Different models saw the introduction of different DU armor generations, these primarily seemed to have been aimed at improving multi-hit durability.
There have also been numerous improvements for protection low-intensity combat environments, including under belly armor plates, TUSK, ARAT, etc.
The armor changed numerous times over 40 years, you just have false expectations of what those armor improvements would entail.
Where did I directly or indirectly say what you said had to be a repeat layout of what he was doing? All I exclaimed was that better analogies were available for you to use. It’s not a big deal, no one is perfect all the time. Idk why that’s such a problem. I mess up plenty times (that’s normal). It’s called being human. These days no one wants to admit to that.
So abrams hasnt change armor in 40 years, and gaijin will not fix m1 series, like tow, hellfire trajectory, leclerc armor, and more, fine, but eeeyyy soviet era are overperforming… again, no big surprise on this, devs doesnt care about, just see the reports, fix tor m1 take 12 days and hellfire performance 2years and still waiting
There’s likely changes to the lower hull array after the M1A1, however no one knows definitively what was changed and by how much. I don’t think it’s DU but it could be something like composite material upgrades to the NERA.
The M1A2 could have a revised Hull Array (“SE Block II”). At a minimum we know a prototype configuration was tested, and we know subsequent weight reduction efforts did occur, with the intent to mount better amour as weight was freed up, with an estimated savings of ~6 tons.
According to one of your screenshots, the m1a1 aim has heavy armor in the hull and turret. The following m1a2/sep have second and third gen du armor. Wouldn’t that imply that the AIM has gen 1 DU armor in the hull/turret, being upgraded to the second and third generation in later models? Genuine question
The page from the CBO report shows a summary of various M1 models and their changes through their production runs, it cites two separate sources:
One is a 1990 source and thus pre-dates the M1A1 AIM, making it irrelevant to the DU hull portion.
The second is just someone’s personal blog (obviously not a valid source of information) and visiting said person’ blog shows us it doesn’t even make any claim of M1’s utilizing DU hull armour. But even if it did, the blog doesn’t cite sources for it’s claims either.
Isn’t that blog a secondary source to the primary source? Wouldn’t the primary source address this? Any information not provided by the secondary doesn’t discredit the primary, no?
Anyway, I’ve read everything now. As per other concerned patrons, there are accepted bug reports that haven’t been implemented. There’s also considerable evidence that not every Abrams has a copy paste hull.
I can not say that I disagree with Senzawa_ on many of the points. At this point there’s no plausible deniability that the suspension hasn’t been upgraded. There’s no denial that there are a few variants of M1 Abrams with enhanced armor, that are not currently in the game.
None-the-less, I don’t think the armored variants are important right now. The bugs need to be fixed for a lot of vehicles, and not only for the Abrams.
Someone’s blog isn’t even a tertiary source as long as it doesn’t cite any sources for their claims.
It’s no better than some random person’s Reddit comment or a Youtube comment.
What do you mean?
The CBO report cites the blog as the source for it’s DU hull armour claim, but this is nonsense because the blog isn’t a valid source and it doesn’t even claim any DU hull armour to begin with.
Suspension upgrade =/= Hull armour improvements.
The only concretely proven armour enhancements are:
IPM1 received extended turret cheeks with improvements to the armour composition of both the gun shield (Not correctly represented in War Thunder) and turret cheeks (correctly represented).
M1A1 uses identical armour to the IPM1.
M1A1HA is not present in War Thunder.
M1A1HC received Heavy Armor (steel encased DU backplates) for the turret cheeks (correctly represented).
M1A2 uses identical armour to the M1A1HC.
M1A2 SEP received improved turret side composites against shaped charge thread (not correctly represented).
The first concrete mention of hull armour improvements are with the SEP v3.
True, it’s no better than a Reddit/Youtube comment. Except, as you say, the blog doesn’t mention DU hull armor. Which means if you removed the blog from the equation, the claim of Heavy Armor for the hull and turret for the AIM variant still persists. Even if it isn’t DU, it’s still more than the M1A1.
Yes, the suspension being upgraded doesn’t mean the hull would be improved. Yet, one of the claims from developers relates the possibility of increased armor to the torsion bars (suspension). It’s more of a ''gotcha" moment to me, rather than asking for armor without sources.
Last but not least, we’re missing the M1A1HA, M1A1 AIM domestic (not to be mistaken with the Aussie export), and the special DU hull training Abram. There’s a few empty spaces after the tech tree M1A1HC waiting to be filled.
So the Qualified Designs for the M1A2’s SE II improvements did what exactly? I doubt that they will claim improved protection, and then only look to Multi-Hit capability. Especially for a projected ~6 ton increase to the hull’s share of weight to meet program goals.
The DU hull armour claim is based on the blog. Presumably it once claimed that DU hull armour was implemented but has since been edited to remove that claim.
Both the blog and the DU hull armour claims can be removed from the source as it’s simply nonsense. I could easily post a comment on Youtube stating the Leopard 2A5 used DU armour in it’s hull, which is then cited as a source in another publication.
That doesn’t mean the publication’s claims are valid, it should be extremely obvious how erroneous this line of reasoning is.
Gaijin’s (typically) awful dev posts are filled with nonsense, but that doesn’t prove the opposite is true.
Gaijin can claim the sky is blue because it’s Pete’s favourite colour, obviously that doesn’t make any sense as an argument, but it not making sense doesn’t disprove that the sky is blue.
We’ve got more than enough M1’s at around those BR’s already, that’s just pointless clutter, the SEP v3 should have priority.
We’ve been over this a dozen times already, I’m not going to pointlessly repeat myself over and over again.
