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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.”
1 Like
Yes, in game the HC, AIM and all the A2 variants have DU in the turret cheeks.
That’s the issue, US export control laws would never allow DU armor to be sold to foreign nations. Meaning the M1A2T and AIM need a nerf on turret armor. Since they never had DU turrets
They have the M1A1 SA armor, which is slightly weaker than HC, and it is reflected in game. HC turret cheek is 10-20mm more effective than AIM or M1A2T.
I’m not by my computer, I thought I saw all the m1a2s had the same armor cheeks including the T version.
According to the Australian government the tungsten alloy that replaces the DU in the Australian Abrams has the same single hit survivability as the DU American versions, it’s the multi hit degradation that suffers.
I’m fairly certain the heavy metal poisoning part is more of a danger than radiation when dealing with DU, and heavy metals are something that have been worked with for a very long time
And anyways it’s only a serious risk if you inhale DU dust iirc
It should affect the game, but I don’t think it’s worth nic picking. If this is true, the armor should degrade with each shot.
This rule should apply to all armor types, not just Abrams.
Do you honestly think that Leopard, Challenger, Merkava and other tanks armor can withstand multiple rounds without their armor getting degraded?
Gaijin doesnt model this because of gameplay reasons.
1 Like
Gajin does model this even with modules and crew taking damage as the game goes on. Engines and barrels etc they can easily add degradation to armor like other tanks.
They dont.
Modules and crews take damage but can eventually get back to their optimal condition.
Armor on the other hand never looses its integrity in this game no matter how many times you shoot.
Not the same case.
4 Likes