Like Alpharius said given the Swedish trials the current protection is likely the minimum. No concrete evidence ofc, but its what would make sense.
I guess my issue is Gaijin using the trial data on domestic packages and calling them practically the same as export.
I mean, US is moving to SEP V3 which hypothetically has about 200mm? more protection than HC turret. HC turret armor is quite old now, so it makes sense for SA armor to be similar.
idk if id say accurate
iirc based on the limited info we have from the greek trials ~5 years later, the armor had been improved but without values known
so its probably inaccurate and an underestimate, especially for the DU armor as it was known domestic armor packages were better than export one tested
1 Like
Oops I worded it wrong
Speaking of which did the M1A2T get tungsten inserts or just the standard composite array?
I dont know
Id assume its armor includes some amount of tungsten, and know it is not DU
I would assume it would have similar or somewhat less protection than US SEPv2s, and not really comparable to v3 because it doesnt have the thickened armor
I also can’t check right now but doesn’t the SEP have the same protection values as the HC despite being over a decade apart?
It does. But atleast its not like it matters, it stops virtually everything.
I guess could help against some ATGMs
but the bigger changes would be increasing the breech armor, turret side armor, and hull armor
Ik the HC (which incorporated the HA’s improved armor) would have been equivalent to the M1A2, but both SEPs are said to have improved armor over the base M1A2.
It’s already bug reported that breech armor is wrong on the M1A1 onwards, but that’s in “Suggestion Purgatory”. Hull armor was definitely improved at some point but no one knows the value or weight/material changes.
Just to lyk, breach armor is withheld from tanks for gameplay purposes.
As if the turret ring and roof weren’t already viable lmao.
Even the wiki states better side turret armor yet it’s identical. Oh the irony.
What am I missing?
I’m confused now, the m1a2 is based on swedish trials? Why are people arguing for DU in the Hull and saying it’s DU in the turret if they can just say Abrams armor is based on a third party trial?
EDIT: I’m actually just trying to understand if the M1A2 armor values are based on a swedish trial without DU armor why are people saying DU armor turret and hull? Every nation with an abrams has the same values based on swedish trial from a third party? If the turret is not DU then it all makes sense US tanks are based on an export for swedish trials
1 Like
Actually its the opposite and it only applies to kinetic rounds.
After 1700 M/S DU shell becomes fragile which is why M829 family has lower muzzle velocity than DM series. Tungsten on the other hand has proven to be more resistance in such cases which is why Rheinmetall doesnt make DU base shells.
Where are you getting your data from?
EDIT: DU rounds (if not for extreme hazards) are superior in every way to tungsten rounds. Knowing Germany they more than likely didn’t think the radioactive hazards were worth it if the tungsten rounds were good enough.
1 Like
Regard less of how its based in game some people say those trials were bias due to the leopard failing some of the tests and Sweden still went with the leopards.
The biggest issue with Abrams in game isnt really the Abrams fault, in game sabot shells ricochet a lot less than they should. Tungsten ( < - most sabots) for example is very brittle and shatters at high angles, which is why the Abrams has such a high angle UFP and turret face. The turret ring thickness is the only “armor” based issue in game as far as i know. Until they add shell shatter in a realistic way, the UFP of the Abrams will stay the same.
2 Likes