Kinda a offshoot of my digging regarding DU things, not making a statement one way or another as I am not good enough at reading for that, just dropping them because people might find them interesting or useful and I am not the person to dissect large studies.
This is more focused on DU particulates but a 4-5 year long 600 page study, Capstone DU Aerosol Study, had researchers replicate the frinedly fire hits that happened to Abrams and Bradleys with DU shells at a special test range alongside firing both DU and tungsten rounds through the DU cheeks.
Particulate and fragmentation kinda come hand in hand so might be worth someone not dyslexic to rummage through.
Additionally and probably more improtantly BRL’s computer simulation of spalling from a shot to the side of the M1A1 repeated a thousand times to see the effect of behind armor debris is unclassified and available in full
First source contradicts itself, it illustrates that the turret cheeks are the only location of DU armour.
Second source makes no claims of the M1A2, SEP or SEP v2 utilizing DU hull armour.
Third source makes no claims that the hull armour of the M1A2, SEP or SEP v2 utilize DU armour.
Fourth source refers to the M1A1 SA, we do not have this model in-game and thus is not relevant to the M1A2 SEP v2.
Fifth source makes no claims of DU hull armour, also pre-dates the SEP v2 and M1A1 SA.
Sixth source references the M1A1 SA again, not relevant to War Thunder and not relevant to the M1A2 SEP.
Seventh source is not a primary source, and it doesn’t seem to list it’s own source for the claims it makes, nor does it outright claim that the M1A2 SEP v2 utilizes DU armour in it’s hull composition.
The first source doesn’t contradict itself. Some people can get by just fine without pictures.
2nd Source was literally pulled from the license that Gaijin cited to claim there could be only 5 hulls. It was talking about the FONSI finding and decision to go ahead with the SEP upgrades…which included the armor upgrades described in the MUH 5 HULLS document…which was obsolete by amendment in Aug 2006.
3rd sources is…again the same license that Gaijin tried to cite…but here it is again. It is explicitly about using DU armor in hulls and turrets. XD Notice to how it goes from mentioning 5 hulls separately in the line item on the 1999 document, then in the 2006 amendment it removes all limits on hulls for DU use.:
Remember, license SUB-1536 was what Gaijin said was irrefutable proof that DU was in turrets because it never limited the quantity of turrets for DU inserts, but that could only have meant 5 hulls ever…despite being amended to allow unlimited DU use in hulls as well. If Gaijin wants to say that “as needed” means it’s in turrets, when hulls are granted “as needed” DU use, it must mean it is hulls as well. By Gaijin’s own logic and admission.
…and yes, the other sources are still about DU. DOE=Department of Energy. Frontal armor includes the hull, the only time they make an exception to a specific part of the tank is when mentioning that only the turret received a side armor upgrade.
If you bothered reading the 7th source, it said it includes all of the upgrades of the SA and SEP platform in V2. The entire point of the SA Abrams was to bring M1A1s up to the SEP protection levels. IE 3rd generation DU. Which includes the hull, per the FONSI statement findings and decisions of the obsolete MUH 5 HULLS version of SUB-1536.
You can deny all you want, but colored images with arrows have no bearing on the VA’s statement that DU has been in the hulls as well. Nor the FONSI tied to amended SUB-1536 license document that authorizes unlimited use of DU in turrets AND hulls. Your denial does nothing to refute the budget forms indicating that Department of Energy armor packages were installed for frontal coverage. No exclusions, unlike the side armor upgrade specifically limited to the turret.
So which is it, SUB-1536 means DU is in turrets because they were authorized “as needed,” or DU can’t be in hulls because hulls are also authorized “as needed?”
Okay, I’m starting to get a good idea of how people come to the conclusion that the M1A2 SEP v2 has DU hull armour.
They’ll just dismiss anything in the sources that’s contrary to their pre-established beliefs on the subject.
At the end of the day, Gaijin isn’t going to implement DU hull inserts for the M1A2/SEP/SEPv2 because the sources provided thus far do not prove it’s was ever done historically.
So why is it that SUB-1536 was obviously good enough to say it’s in turrets when it explicitly listed a 5 hull limit, but when that limit is removed, and turrets and hulls have the same “as needed” status, it means it isn’t in hulls?
Remember, SUB-1536 is the reason Gaijin says that DU is in turrets. When the same license is amended to give the same status to hulls as it did turrets, that must mean its in hulls as well. Along with statements from the VA saying as much, budget forms, congressional reports, and other sources…
…but yes, we are the ones refusing to believe the evidence…I’m sorry more of these documents don’t have more pictures and colors to help you understand them.
Given how what and how he speaks I want to say yes.
Also made me realized that he has been running around the reddit spreading falsehoods as well under the Bosch title, just put two and two together now.
Your most played vehicle is the KV-1E and you primarily play arcade battles. Let’s not dive into the interests of others as if it were a sin to enjoy a vehicle from under a different flag in a video game.
There is no point trying to convince other’s on the forum, the devs are very intelligent and have discerned the same conclusion as you. Likewise this is the spall liner discussion thread… there are dedicated topics for this conversation.
Is that why every reason they’ve given for the Abrams not receiving upgraded hull armor was already flawed and debunked? Like the license that actually doesn’t limit Abrams to only 5 hulls with DU? The fact that the Abrams has received multiple suspension upgrades over the course of its life? The fact that a DU armor package would actually be less dense than non-DU armor, and not need the volume increase they claimed would be needed?
Or the Stinger nerf…despite the official documents, tracking capabilities, and multiple experts actually proving why Gaijin yet again didn’t know what they were talking about and that their assertions were baseless?
Or what about the M735 nerf, which has been confirmed to have been improperly applied and based on a bad report with inaccurate data and conclusions?
The devs are not intelligent, based on these many instances of them coming to wrong conclusion given any opportunity.
Again, if Gaijin says DU must be in turrets because SUB-1536 has them authorized for DU use “as needed,” why doesn’t their same logic using the same official and legally binding document that also authorizes DU for use in hulls “as needed” mean that it is hulls as well? The license authorizes unlimited DU use in hulls and turrets. They just cherry picked a version of the license from Feb 2006. By Aug 2006, their 5 hull claims were incorrect, but they still choose the same license number to validate their decision. It only proves them wrong.
The reality is, between the m1-m1a1, there was no hull armor upgrade. The suspension was reinforced and adjusted to compensate for the extra forward weight of the turret.
The M1a1HA only had new turrets with the first gen DU armor. The first gen DU armor had increased ke protection, but was not as effective mass efficiency wise as the base brl-1 armor against CE.
This shortcoming vs CE led to the development of the second gen DU armor in the m1a2 and m1a1ha+(heavy common). There were several upgrades that were initially planned for production with the main, that were dropped due to not being funded. And the fall of the Soviet Union. Second gen FLIR, metal/ceramic backpack armor for the hull, etc.
I’m working on an Abrams development and evolution thread which will have many clear manufacturers and development documents that are approved for public circulation.
Can you explain why Gaijin wants to cite an older version of SUB-1536 as proof there are only 5 hulls when SUB-1536 doesn’t actually limit DU to 5 hulls since Aug 2006?
Or where the 1996 armor upgrade to be cut-in to production at Lima fits in following the FONSI of associated risks with DU use, tied to the same SUB-1536 document of Feb 2006 that also mentions the results of the FONSI leading to the late 2001 decision to continue with the AIM and SEP upgrades…in the same document that shows Abrams with DU hulls and the location of the DU?
Because since 2002, there are budget report forms showing armor upgrades. Some explicitly mentioning DOE armor, and the amount of upgrades implemented really seems to jump after 2006…when the 5 hull limit no longer existed.
There is proof that tanks prior to 2006 had no DU hulls in active service. This doesn’t prove that tanks thereafter DID. All it shows is that they could have.
Sure, but none of these explicitly prove the tanks had DU in the hull armor… nor do they show us what sort of improvements that would make in protection.
You should instead be asking why Gaijin insists on not making something up to improve the armor in lieu of real data, since clearly there were improvements made. Your crusade is in vein… and in the wrong thread.
Except that was their basis for MUH 5 HULLS. It explicitly stated that at least 5 hulls had DU in them. Here’s the older license versions in the same format.:
“This doesn’t prove that tanks thereafter DID. All it shows is that they could have.”
Why would the Army have bothered to amend the license to remove the limits then? The “as needed” status of turrets was conclusive evidence for Gaijin to include DU inserts in turrets. The Army requested specifically to remove the hull limits, and every amendment and renewal of the documents shows that turrets AND hulls have the same unlimited DU authorization. Tied to the obsolete version of the SUB-1536 license that includes the FONSI decision of 2001 and shows where the armor would go. That same document never mentioned how much the improvement in protection would be. That’s a red herring and you moving the goalpost.
It does show where the DU would be in the tank, and the same license removes all hull limits…at the same time you start to see more DOE armor upgrades after the Aug 2006 amendment of SUB-1536.
So which is it, SUB-1536 authorizing DU in turrets “as needed” means its obviously in turrets, or authorizing DU in hulls “as needed” means that there were only ever 5 hulls with DU in them?
The license and the attached documentation never specified the amount of armor improvement. But it was enough for Gaijin to add DU to the turret and buff armor. If DU is in the hull, shouldn’t it get the same buff they decided was reasonable for DU turret inserts?
This has already been stated in the other thread. Other people here wanted to take this thread in that direction. A little funny that a dev finally decided to talk about Abrams hull protection in this thread instead of the other, no?
“the devs are very intelligent” Nah not even close and Abrams are not the only tank they’ve ruined to the ground so i guess poor US with 40 percent of win rate continue meanwhile Russia still can have over performing armor and ERA balance isn’t it?
Not just tanks…multiple missiles and projectiles have been artificially nerfed on flawed assumptions, wrong information, and terrible interpretations of the data provided.
Tell me then, why M1E1 (M1A1 Prototype) had weight simulator on hull? Don’t temm me it’s because of turret, because turret had own mass simulators.
Between the M1 and M1A1 there had to be changes in the hull armor. This simulator reflected the added mass. Not necessarily because of the addition of depleted uranium. The armor structure could have changed, the NERA packages could have been thickened. They could have added an extra layer of steel. However, it is not true that the M1A1 hull was not modified.
Additionally, what does “KE backpacks” mean? There is no public information:
Correct me if I’m wrong but I dont think gaijin ever added DU to the turret since their using the armor values from the Swedish test trials which is a non-Du armor package.
