Ok so quote the response then.
If you cherry-pick and selectively read only what you want to read: Sure.
1 Like
yes if you somehow cherry pick sources you can avoid showing any proof for it
but at the same time there are plenty of sources for such an improvement, and the only possible argument against it (suspension being overloaded) was proven wrong within a day of it being posted
Where is the cherry picking? Seems pretty plain to me that it directly mentions the enhanced protection and Hull (array) for the baseline M1A2, not the SEP v3.
4 Likes
Planned but cancelled.
Again, we’ve been over this a dozen times, yet you keep pushing this (debunked) source like a broken record, over and over again.
I’m not going to get into it again, feel free to go back to the previous dozen discussions on this exact same topic.
Those ‘‘sources’’ fall into one or more of the following categories:
- They’re not valid sources (like the CBO report).
- They’re misread/misinterpreted.
- They’re of a secondary or tertiary nature, and people will conveniently ignore far more authoritative primary sources that contradict them.
- People choose to ignore context, and only quote a portion of the source whilst disregarding crucial context.
- People will confuse planned/proposed/prototype changes with actual production run changes (great example above).
1 Like
Do you have anything stating that it was canceled? The GAO report only states that it was not planned to be deployed initially in whole. And outlines where projected weight savings could / would be found to permit its full roll out, and that the intent of the Army remained to deploy outstanding changes as the weight reductions permitted.
And as we know, weight savings were made, without the overall weight decreasing so the mass was most likely reallocated instead of being banked.
3 Likes
ah yes, so including mentions of improved hull armor in budget documents clearly isnt a valid source
im done arguing with someone who is clearly here to spread misinformation and derail the thread
2 Likes
I’m taking this is your first time interacting with him?
He always summon’s on Abram’s thread wether if its about firepower or armor enhancements and every single time he claims Abram’s hull didn’t improved until V3.
In some cases he might be right due to mixed sources on the internet but other times he just denies the upgrade possibility due to god knows why.
1 Like
There probably were array upgrades from the M1A2 onwards, but no one knows what got improved/changed. Gaijin would need a concrete source and of course no one can provide that. The upgrades most likely didn’t involve DU, but there were likely upgrades nonetheless.
3 Likes
uh, because the shaky evidence of such a thing resulting in meaningful RHA-equivalent increases in protection? It’s not hard.
The information I have seen so far agrees with this statement. Unfortunately I’m still working on making sure the relevant documents can be updated to distribution code A.
However, the developments that are mentioned in that ballisticians document about Hull armor upgrade packages that would increase the RHA equivalent protection by 35%, that didn’t get integrated into the block II (M1A2) upgrade packages, were all confined ceramic tile based. And as mentioned in that document, those were developed and tested between 88-91.
3 Likes
Been through all this before…basically the response is gonna be, “This doesn’t prove anything and the Abrams we have in game is accurate according to their info.” You must understand that even though the Abrams has undergone upgrades to it’s armor and survivability with each variant they will not believe/model it. In other words…they know better.
I think the difference is that currently publicly available documentation points towards the in-game implementation being correct.
That doesn’t mean it is correct, it just means it’s correct per what’s publicly available. There’s a ton of unknowns when it comes to this stuff.
If Conraire is able to share documents which haven’t been shared previously, I’m quite certain the reports will be forwarded without issue.
Of course, Gaijin’s symbol is a snail and that’s for good reason, I wouldn’t be surprised if it took them over a year to implement an adjustment.
Which would make the Hull’s NERA array on the order of 600mm RHAe?
But we know that the M1A2’s don’t use the specific Export grade package that was tested in the Swedish trials so it’s not correct as said source states nothing about Domestic NERA arrays.
The current implementation of the Hull array is not actually known to be true. Just that on the balance of probabilities; It is the most likely option to be the closest of what can be reasonably asserted based on assorted sources.
For all we know the M1A2’s Hull is overperforming significantly and in actuality is for some reason less protected to than the baseline M1.
350*1.35
Would make it roughly on par with accurate C-tech armor.
It is?
The XM-1/ baseline M1 is ~325
M1A1 / M1IP is ~445-460mm RHAe
as per the below Material Need excerpt.
Seen that it is from the 78 the 445mm and 460 mm mentioned thats againts soviet short rod apfsds, so around 400mm against long rod which is what it has in game
Based on what evidence? The image you posted doesn’t mention M1A1 / M1IP.
1 Like
It specifies that the values proved are assessed as “from Normal, at 1000 meters” so it should already account for construction angle.
The M1E1 (M1A1) Pre-Planned Improvement Program, was spun off in 1976 to address discovered Survivability & firepower issues with the baseline M1, and introduces a superior armor layout to actually meet the Material Need, while the baseline M1 proceeded as a stopgap to cover off the growing performance gap of the M60(A1 / A3) TTS in Europe. While the Array was developed and backported to produce the M1IP configuration.
At a minimum the M1A1 doesn’t share the array with the baseline M1
(X)M1 & M1E1 History document (ADA135524)
Where is that stated? All it states is the XM-1 would be defeated by such threats, and we have both the Swedish and British documents pretty clearly stating that the non-DU part of M1s armor (hull) would be at most 350mm RHAe KE within a 50 degree arc (370 - 380mm at normal).
445 - 460mm at normal is also already achieved by M1IP and M1A1 turrets, but they are also both much thicker than the hull (700mm LoS vs ~950mm+ LoS). This armor is likely what achieves the 350mm RHAe value at +/- 25 in the M1A2 hull.
1 Like