The fact remains that the Swedish version of the Abrams received an export armor package. One missing DU as well. There is a difference in the armor, no matter how you try to spin it. Therefore the Swedish trials can’t be considered accurate for the Abrams at the most basic level.
4 Likes
Testing of the armour occurred in the U.S. however, and there hasn’t been any evidence to suggest that the DU materials couldn’t have been substituted by tungsten inserts, or another form of effective composite protection.
Similarly, the Swedish M1A2’s were marginally heavier than the domestic production models. I am not one to claim that Weight = Armour, however, one would think that all-else being equal, the vehicle with substantially inferior armour packages and not featuring DU would be less heavy.
Furthermore, U.S. studies at the time showed that around 65% of all hits are impacted on the turret of a MBT, with around 30% impacting the turret ring area and glacis plate, and only 5% impacting the lower glacis.
That would explain the heavy emphasis on improved turret protection going from BRL-1 to BRL-2 on the IPM1, then HAP-1 on the M1A1 HA and HAP-2 on subsequent models for improved multi-hit durability.
Orr Kelly stated the DU alloy didn’t actually add that much weight. The extra weight must have been trying to get non-US armor up to US levels of protection. Which apparently didn’t happen until the Greek trials, if it did. They stated they got the export armor close to US armor levels by the Greek competition. Then keep in mind the US armor package received an upgrade in 96, after the Swedish trials as well. So either way, Gaijin’s representation doesn’t cut it.
Regardless, Swedish Abrams armor=/=US Abrams armor.
3 Likes
“M3A3 has spall liner”
I wish. Let’s see… a tiny patch in front of the driver and two small strips on either side of the TOW hull storage. That hardly qualifies…
2 Likes
DU alloy has a higher density than tungsten alloy.
I also suspect that the overall weight did not increase drastically because it was only applied to the turret cheeks, nowhere else.
There currently is no concrete evidence that the Swedish trails M1A2 data is significantly inferior to domestic M1A2 armour performance.
This is further reinforced by the fact that the various composite armour packages were built upon protection requirements.
- BRL-1 was to resist XM774, which places RHAe somewhere in the range of 350mm.
- BRL-2 was to resist XM833, which places RHAe somewhere in the range of 400mm.
- HAP-1 likely would’ve required to resist M829E1, which places the RHAe in the range of 600mm.
Coincidentally, that’s exactly the armour that the M1A2 in the Swedish test trails documents shows.
That’s a whole lot of typing for trying to avoid saying Swedish Abrams armor=/=US Abrams armor.
“HAP-1 likely would have…”
Yeah, try again.
That’s all one can see on it. You’re welcome to provide further information.
Are you implying that it would’ve been required to resist a significantly inferior round? M829E1 would’ve been the most powerful APFSDS in development at that time period, anywhere.
If XM829 were the threat simulant, then all DU-equipped M1’s would drop down to somewhere around 500mm RHAe @ 60° frontal arc.
That would also imply that the Swedish data shows the export model to be substantially superior.
The spall liners you are trying to talk about aren’t the loose blankets like Russian vehicles. They are solid panels. Like the M113 storage compartment door panels.:
They were already working on improving protection for tandem warheads and other perceived future threats at the time. M829A1 was already a thing by the time the Swedish trials rolled around.
My point is you want to harp on about assumptions, lack of concrete evidence, etc., etc., but all you have are baseless assumptions that still can’t refute the fact that Swedish Abrams armor=/=US Abrams armor.
Ah, yes - the “hanging drapes” slash “loose blankets” cope.
Would you care to enlighten me as to how this is relevant to this conversation? Did I even mention the Russian boogeyman?
Also, that “spall liner” in your picture is pathetic.
How is this a cope? That’s a spall liner. But please, tell me how loose granny panties that will snag, abrade, stretch, and absorb fluids readily is cutting edge and smart tech. XD
You went on about the loose blankets earlier, so, y’know. You still haven’t discovered fire, relatively speaking.
1 Like
I am referring to the design requirements for HAP-1.
I have not claimed that they are identical.
What I’ve said is that there is no evidence to suggest they are substantially different in protection offered.
From what I understand, your position is that the Swedish documents describe armour that is notably inferior to U.S. domestic M1A2’s. For that claim I’d like to see evidence.
As as a reminder, the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
…and it is known that the Abrams have different armor packages than the export versions in the Swedish trials. The Swedes even tried to get the DU, but the red tape was too much.
Then consider the armor upgrade the Abrams received in 96, after the Swedish trial. So either way, the Swedish Abrams armor isn’t an accurate representation of US Abrams protection.
8 Likes
You keep saying this over and over again, without presenting any evidence that supports this conclusion.
As we’re just going round in circles, I’ll leave things here.
1 Like
Because factually speaking at the most basic level…the US Abrams armor package was and is different than the export package trialed at that time? Then received an update the year after that trial?
The evidence has been talked about plenty here. If you doubt that the Swedish Abrams used a different armor package than the US, then you aren’t even ready to discuss this topic.
If you can’t see how an upgraded armor package after the trial would make any results of the already different version of armor irrelevant…I’m not sure anything would make a difference for you.
Cut down to the simplest, irrefutable fact…Swedish Abrams armor=/=US Abrams armor.
2 Likes
Count_Trackula has already provided some evidence that the Swedish armor package is downgraded compared to the US version - hell, the US STILL DOESN’T SELL their M1s with a DU package, not even to their greatest and most strategic allies like Australia and Poland. Why would Sweden, a country that isn’t really an ally to the US, that isn’t in any major organization, receive an armor package that is equivalent to their newly built DU M1 from the early 1990s?
Besides that, you people, that claim the Swedish package is equivalent, have NEVER provided ANY proof that it is anywhere close to being the same as the US M1, protection-wise. Sweden never tested the armor packages on the Abrams they were provided with, so they are literally GUESSING the armor protection - which they guessed wrong, because they wrote the hull as 350 mm KE, when it is currently correct in-game (for early Abrams at least) at 400 mm KE, which is based on some CIA report and other documents that were provided when the M1IP or M1A1 was being added.
15 Likes
This is exactly what the spall liner is. Sorry man but anyone with some basic engineering thinking would understand that.
No it does not have to.
Actually it makes sense to put some thin metal plate behind it.
Like here, where the layer 12 can be some kevlar like fabric:
Most AFVs does not have layered armor, so if you want to add anti spalling layer you have to bolt on extra one.
I did not read read whole 400 posts, so sorry if someone already pointed out, that above mentioned claims are false.
4 Likes
Oxygen concentrations that are too high are toxic, we can go on for a long while about what in pure or high concentrations can kill a human or harm them, it does not change the fact that tungsten ingestion, especially tungsten carbide, is inherently detrimental to humans even in small amounts, it may not be lethal but it will always cause some form of complication, even if its something simple like inducing a cough.
In the case of DU, in small amounts and not directly ingested, its well known that it is quite safe, even moreso if you are wearing any sort of clothes. But like tungsten, the complications crop up when you ingest it, but even then, from a sabot in normal use, as others have already highlighted, neither would normally produce enough inhalants to produce tangible issues, especially in the case of radiation exposure.
Anywho though this is rather off topic to the spall liner talk though.
Is that actually a spall liner? I mean what’s the point of not covering the whole area near the seats?