Youre right, still that source only claims that the xm1 can be penetrated by the current soviet apfsds
That doc is dated 1978, the current “Soviet APFSDS” would’ve been 3BM-22 at most, 3BM-32 and 3BM-42 were both still only in the concept phase at the time.
Against the 3BM-22, M1s currently achieve what, over 400mm on the hull iirc? And over 500mm on the turret.
I dont even think that 3bm32/42 was a concept at that point, as the soviet developed another apfsds series in between with the 3bm26 and 3bm29 which are also short rod
So M1IP just kept the previous armor… so if it was 325mm at normal, that means M1 and M1IP hull armors actually overperform by a good amount and the improved protection against existing Soviet KEP only applies to the turret pre-M1A1 at least.
edit: actually it mentions M1A1 not getting improved hull armor either, lol.
So all of them should realistically drop from the current ~380mm to - > 325mm.
But it would be rated to protect against said projectile, so it must do so to reach said goal.
Yes, and the M1E1 had arrays designed to correct the shortfall to proof it against Current (Mid-Late 1970’s - Early '80s) 125mm threats.
Is this related to Domestic or Export arrays? Because they fairly obviously have different compositions.
So they spent almost a decade on the project, and even rolled it out to almost 1000 Baseline M1s just to add 25mm of armor? I Don’t think that that would be an effective expenditure of money when they could get the same with an additional inch thick HHA plate welded to the front of the hull, with no need to revise the array.
The armour isnt necessarily rated at normal against said projectile, if it rated at the construction angle of the hull, there it does matter that it is against short or long rod
Possibly, but all we know is that is was designed with the requirement to withstand XM579E4 from a 60° frontal arc at 800-1200 metres, we don’t know if the eventual product did not exceed this requirement.
The Swedish Trials documents also point towards 350mm, and ‘‘PROPOSAL FOR INTERAGENCY INTELLIGENCE MEMORANDUM ON SOVIET ARMOR PROGRAM’’ (1982) states the M1’s frontal turret armour achieved 400mm at an unspecified frontal arc, another source (which I can’t share unfortunately) states that both the turret and hull had identical protection requirements.
The Brits also thought the M1A1 sat around 390mm:
Why?
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
And yet as of 1991 the M1A1 still only had 350 mm of hull armour:
This would appear to suggest otherwise:
3 Likes
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)
1 Like
As per the GAO document(Table 2.1), possible areas identified in the document for weight recovery efforts constituted the following:
- Ammunition Racks | 200lb
- Aluminum wire race ring | 630lb
- External Suspension | 1000lb
- Lightweight tracks | 1000lb
- Composite items | 2690lb
- Ceramic skirts | 879lb
- Other Contractor Proposals | 265lb
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.
1 Like
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.