Gaijin does not model this for internal armor for a few reasons and honestly i think thats a good thing
There are some forms of armor in the game that you could technically call losing integrity though Mainly external plating and ERA obviously and in these cases it is not possible to repair them in a match
Leopards and STRVs are a really good example of the plating getting destroyed i think
STRV 122B+ has the huge external composite blocks layering the front and sides of the hull/turret and most if not all can get destroyed by hits
Leopard is similar just less so and on both the turret wedges can get destroyed
Any tanks using ERA will fall under this category as well as that is typically external single use only
But on some tanks era gets split into multiple layers so for example abrams ERA has separate layers plus sideskirts underneath though the sideskirts add practically nothing they do count as their own thing
Depends, some addon armor does degrade and eventually fall of if shot enough times or hard enough once. The general hull armor does not degrade though.
Do you have a source for this? Because as far as i know they are ceramic/rubber/steel layers so the ceramic layers will degrade relatively quickly if shot multiple times. They are designed to take multiple hits yes, but probably not as many as you think.
It’s still armor regardless if it’s add on or changed. The conversation about main armor still includes all armor. So leos can lose their cheeks after multiple hits, barrels and turret rings can stay yellow permanently after multiple hits not going back to “optimal levels”
You can’t say tungsten = DU armor and call it a day. One armor makes a tank unique the other was used to compensate for the lack there of.
Realistically their turret armor values should be changed from the US abrams to be less to compensate for the lack of DU (even if it doesn’t degrade)
Various other forms of tanks given to other countries have less armor then their country of origin but the truth is because the turrets in the M1A2T and AIM are not DU there values or protection should be different.
@Necronomica its the same logic someone can use to say Abrams armor is DU for its protection values and even though the Hull is Tungsten for the AIM it provides the same protection? So Hull protection values should then equal Turret values even if the materials are different? Lets slap on 800mm on the hull and say bedrock works the same as DU.
The way DU is modeled in game is purely guesswork. No one knows how much of the array is composed of DU relative to weight. Gaijin just slapped a KE value on the NERA compared to the M1A1 and didn’t include the DU in the X-ray model. If we knew how much that DU weighed you could determine the effectiveness as the density to RHA is already public information. As for later variants like the SEP v3 and the soon to be M1A3, the LFP armor was definitely changed, but again, we don’t know by how much and what was changed.
Purely guesswork on armor for DU they can purely guesswork weaker values for Abrams without DU turrets. They don’t need to know what the actual protection values are but they can easily say AIM and M1A2T don’t have DU armor therefore, the values can reflect the M1 Abrams at 10.7 with a total protection value of 499 vs the 939 given to DU turrets.
Summary of what I’m saying is:
US uses DU armor for turrets given them the guess work for their current protection values and AIM plus M1A2T do NOT have DU armor and still have the same protection values as the American versions. So what’s the point of DU armor?
M1A1 SA armor packages are basically the M1A1 with better materials iirc. Yes they should not have the same or similar values to domestic tanks but that’s an oversight on Gaijin’s part. Someone did to the math in one of the SEP threads and calculated every weight based change made to the M1A2. They couldn’t account for an amount of weight (I think it was something like 100-200kg) which meant it had to be armor. It got buried that it’s clear it never went anywhere other than that thread.
A lot of the Abrams is still classified and honestly, I pray it never gets leaked on fourms and I know Gajin can run the math on weight, power, etc. the truth is they will never know unless something gets leaked. In real life it is a literal monster on the battlefield. But in the game where people can argue for DU armor and get made up values for the US abrams then completely ignore the fact other nations didn’t get DU turrets but benefit from the work is the problem I’m seeing.
I don’t mind a weaker AIM or M1A2T with a BR drop for not having DU turret armor.
I disagree, it is a lot easier for it to break from their state not being fully optimal.
Magical or not the abrams turret cheeks have protection values given on DU. If DU = Tungesten magic I don’t see why the Hull can’t match the turret in “magic” too then.
Again you’re very wrong and should go look up the difference between what makes DU a special grade material vs just using regular tungsten base armor.
DU is used because there’s a lot of it in storage before it was used for armor and ammunition. I’m also pretty sure it’s a little less prone to shattering as armor compared to tungsten, plus it’s easier and cheaper to manufacture than tungsten.
USA Abrams turret contain DU as their primary reason for their turret cheeks value guess work being 939.
This entire forum was about US Abrams Hull also having DU armor to get the same values from the made up numbers put on the Hull from the turret.
Therefore, turret value made up for the US abrams is due to DU armor.
M1A2T and AIM do not have DU turret armor yet benefit form the same made up numbers.
If DU = Tungesten and some “works just as effective” what was the point of arguing for DU armor in the hull? or even in the turret to get the values in the first place?
Solution
AIM and M1A2T did not have DU turrets therefore, the made up values should reflect something else particular M1 Abrams at BR 10.7. Drop the BR or whatnot, truth is they didn’t have the armor therefore, they don’t have the values.
@Cloudzy26160 can you hand me the source? I can’t find where the Australian government says it worked just as effective. I believe you I just need to verify.
Its not exactly known how much protection it has, but considering its been exported to so many countries, for M1A1 SA to have armor similar to M1 would be a joke. Unless I’m misinterpreting. Current implementation is probably accurate.
It uses the same array with improved materials to my knowledge, therefore increasing protection. However it’s definitely less effective than domestic but by how much is the issue. Unless Russia tests the captured ones they have with ballistics we’ll probably not find out for a long time.
