Does the Abrams have a spall liner? No from what I could find

[ayeflyingcowboy]

First of all, thank you for a detailed answer. Would you mind linking the sources for the pictures as well?

Growth Chart - Pg 37 if using left hand side menu

Aussie SEPv3

Poland SEPv3

I have seen no indication that Poland’s SEPV3s will go without DU armor, and that does indeed support the evidence that they are getting unaltered SEPV3s.

Yea I am not entirely sure as I haven’t seen much on the SEPv3s that Poland is getting, you might have to ask Mongaroth33 as their replies to both you and me indicate they may be from / or live in Poland.

The existing armor on the FEP models may have been inferior to the SEPV3, it is possible the foreign sales armor is improved over the original and was part of the deal with Poland.

True, but the FMS armour indicates it not being DU armour as that has always been the case for FMS armour packages.

We will not know any of this for quite a long time of course… but I think it is unreasonable to assume the modern foreign sales armor is inferior to the older US armor packages.

Misunderstanding, I do not believe the non-DU armour is actually inferior, this seems to only have been true prior to 1999/ 2000 i.e. in both the Turkey and Greek tank trials GDLS trialled a new non-DU armour package which according to the vice president for international business for GDLS (Peter McVey) was comparable to the US’s DU armour:

The Australians likewise stated the same for their M1A1 AIMv2/SA i.e. that it was comparable to the US’s DU armour.

It is likely that the US continues to use DU due to cost reasons.

In any case, none of the aforementioned information suggests that DU was added to the hull. It is a plausibility… but since weight is a serious concern they likely wouldn’t have done it unless they were able to maintain the current weight of the tanks hull or reduce it.

I used to believe they did add DU to the hull, and I likewise believed the SEPv3s completely removed DU altogether, however after going through enough documents my assumptions are that the US never upgraded the M1s hull with DU and instead upgraded it with a non-DU alternative probably due to weight reasons, after further reading the document I shared earlier this seems to be the case:

However before anyone thinks this means the hull wasn’t improved, we know it was:

[MiG_23M]

@ayeflyingcowboy

Yea I am not entirely sure as I haven’t seen much on the SEPv3s that Poland is getting, you might have to ask Mongaroth33 as their replies to both you and me indicate they may be from / or live in Poland.

Well, from my perspective… my particular unit / brigade in the US Army was at one point supposed to receive SEPV3s to replace our SEPV2s. This was cancelled when Poland ordered their SEPV3s, and as such all of those tanks are being re-routed for the Poland sale. What we didn’t see anywhere was mention of a change in the agreement wherein they would be using export armor packages. I suppose we will see when they arrive in Poland, as they will likely be marked “E” for export on the turret serial if they have some foreign armor package.

@ayeflyingcowboy

The Australians likewise stated the same for their M1A1 AIMv2/SA i.e. that it was comparable to the US’s DU armour.

It is likely that the US continues to use DU due to cost reasons.

I think the 1999 / 2000 armor being comparable to previous DU armor is a greater indication that the SEPV3 simply moved away from the use of uranium in the armor altogether.

@ayeflyingcowboy

I used to believe they did add DU to the hull, and I likewise believed the SEPv3s completely removed DU altogether, however after going through enough documents my assumptions are that the US never upgraded the M1s hull with DU and instead upgraded it with a non-DU alternative probably due to weight reasons, after further reading the document I shared earlier this seems to be the case:

This is pretty concrete evidence in my opinion against DU hull armor for any Abrams variant… of course… could be wrong.

[Kenny110]

When it comes to the whole weight issue with DU, they found ways to mesh it without raising the weight that much so I dont think the whole DU weight thing is really valid. But either way I do believe is some form either DU or improved ceramics the armor was improved. I honestly dont even know how they are going to model sepv3 since there are no armor values out there for it. We know its pretty big upgrade since we can physically see the armor increase and I also do believe that they might not use DU anymore in NGAP. But I rather them not add it if they’re going to give it 1979 hull armor and the Swedish export turret armor.

[EL337GH0ST]

Shouldn’t you also remove the weight of the underbody mine kit (“Hull Add-on Underbody”), making its weight drop even further to 66.03 tons or 59.9 tonnes?

That seems like a massive weight decrease and honestly makes me a lot more excited for the SEPv3 (and v4) knowing they won’t be fat AF

[MekboyVN_068]

@EL337GH0ST

That seems like a massive weight decrease and honestly makes me a lot more excited for the SEPv3 (and v4) knowing they won’t be fat AF

Factory standard gonna be fat: 83.5 metric tons with full equipment (mine roller, trophy system and counter weight).

[ayeflyingcowboy]

This was cancelled when Poland ordered their SEPV3s, and as such all of those tanks are being re-routed for the Poland sale. What we didn’t see anywhere was mention of a change in the agreement wherein they would be using export armor packages.

Yea, it could be that Poland ends up being the first and potentially only country to have an M1 that has DU armour besides the US, I really don’t know I can’t find much documentation about it due to it being relatively new.

@MiG_23M

I suppose we will see when they arrive in Poland, as they will likely be marked “E” for export on the turret serial if they have some foreign armor package.

Apparently the M1A2-Kss and Polish FEP were marked as such, however it wasn’t the regular suffix “E” i.e. it was marked with a suffx “Ē”:

M1A2K:

Polish M1A1 FEP:

I assume this implies an improved export armour package / turret, but you would probably know more about this then I would.

I think the 1999 / 2000 armor being comparable to previous DU armor is a greater indication that the SEPV3 simply moved away from the use of uranium in the armor altogether.

I came to the same conclusion when I read that Northrop Grumman was apparently planning on ceasing production of depleted uranium rounds, this made me think that the US may have indicated to Northrop that they were moving away from DU but honestly who knows, it does say the production may have moved onto someone else.

Also the Australian’s then seeking to develop a different armour package for their SEPv3 turrets makes me think the turret may still have DU in it?

I do know at some point it seems they stopped using the “U” suffix (indicating DU in the turret) and started marking tanks with the suffix “M”, however this marking doesn’t seem to have been given to just SEPv3s:

SEPv1/v2 (top) vs SEPv3s turret:

I can’t really figure out what the M is meant to stand for.

[MiG_23M]

M is older than U, referred to improved turret armor models in the serial.

[ayeflyingcowboy]

But either way I do believe is some form either DU or improved ceramics the armor was improved.

I am inferring here, but from going through the RDTE reports this is most likely the case hence the actual name for the new armour i.e. Next Generation Armour / Next Evolution Armour:

I infer this to be what the SEPv3 may have used mainly because they just so happened to then continue to test the SEPv3s armour in 2015 as well:

Overall I would assume this may be akin to what the SEPv3s used as they refer to a sandwich structure variant for said armour, which implies Chobham style armour, then there is also the fact it reduced weight over what was currently used by 10-12%, then they refer to the next generation armour ceramics.

But like I said I am inferring here.

[ayeflyingcowboy]

Really? The bottom is a SEPv3 though no? so how does that work?

[MiG_23M]

As I said, I don’t think that the SEPV3 uses DU. Likewise, the turrets are re-built from older models. There are SEPV2s in service with the “M” designation… they have DU now, but were not produced “new” with it.

There are a combination of tanks in my old unit alone that had either M, U, or both on the turret and hull serials. They were all the same standard of SEPV2. All it indicates is that the turret in question is an older one prior to the use of uranium in the armor array and has been upgraded to the current standard.

[MiG_23M]

@ayeflyingcowboy

I am inferring here, but from going through the RDTE reports this is most likely the case hence the actual name for the new armour i.e. Next Generation Armour / Next Evolution Armour:

It’s discussing ceramics, not the heavy metal portion of the armor array used to protect against KE threats.

[Mongaroth33]

Well from what I know by living In Poland we are getting improved export armor comfortable to the du armor of US abrams would have to look for it some more where it was as it was on the Polish tv

[Dinfire]

@MiG_23M

Considering they sent unmodified SEPV3s to Poland on order, not DU. I don’t think the SEPV3’s next generation armor package uses any DU at all.

On this MiG, you’re wrong. And I’ve spoken with several active-duty fellows who can confirm that SEPv3 in the US includes additional DU packages not only in the turret but also in the hull itself.

And yes, Poland is getting SEPSv3 with an armor package that includes tungsten or an upgraded composite screen that will rival it. But we’re already researching either M1E3, AbramsX, or another joint venture to possibly replace the Abrams line as a whole within the next 2 decades, so ultimately the choice to sell off our stock at their best refit to Poland is a decision for the politicians. First up though are the M1A1 FEPs, which are the final upgrade from the AIMS I used to run in.

[MiG_23M]

@Dinfire

On this MiG, you’re wrong. And I’ve spoken with several active-duty fellows who can confirm that SEPv3 in the US includes additional DU packages not only in the turret but also in the hull itself.

You and I both having served understand that they have no clue what is under the armor of the SEPV3. There is simply no data to support what type of armor it uses, whether DU or else. Let’s stop this nonsensical line of accusation. I’m of the opinion the SEPV3 doesn’t use DU. Until we have data that suggests otherwise, I will stick to that opinion.

@Dinfire

And yes, Poland is getting SEPSv3 with an armor package that includes tungsten or an upgraded composite screen that will rival it.

We sent the SEPV3’s coming to my old brigade straight to Poland instead of swapping our SEPV2s out. There were no changes to the armor package. Like they said earlier, Poland also bought DU munitions. If it happens to have DU armor… I don’t think Poland minds.

[Dinfire]

@MiG_23M

You and I both having served understand that they have no clue what is under the armor of the SEPV3. There is simply no data to support what type of armor it uses, whether DU or else. Let’s stop this nonsensical line of accusation. I’m of the opinion the SEPV3 doesn’t use DU. Until we have data that suggests otherwise, I will stick to that opinion.

The additional weight that was shown on the front of the original prototype wasn’t enough, but how about procurement funds that confirm it has sourced DU for the hull?

@MiG_23M

We sent the SEPV3’s coming to my old brigade straight to Poland instead of swapping our SEPV2s out. There were no changes to the armor package. Like they said earlier, Poland also bought DU munitions. If it happens to have DU armor… I don’t think Poland minds.

Whether they were swapped or not, the armor package is significant in the SEPSv3.

[MiG_23M]

@Dinfire

The additional weight that was shown on the front of the original prototype wasn’t enough, but how about procurement funds that confirm it has sourced DU for the hull?

If you had started with this and shared it just now this conversation wouldn’t have been necessary at all. You said you knew it had DU cuz some servicemember said so originally. I’d be glad to take a look at the real data.

@Dinfire

Whether they were swapped or not, the armor package is significant in the SEPSv3.

Well yes, it’s quite obviously THICC.

[arsenal119]

There are plenty of 3rd party sources that say the SEPv2 has a DU hull. The problem is primary sources are still classified because the tank is still in service till at least 2028. If your sources are all pre 2006 just stop. Because then you are being disingenuous.

[ayeflyingcowboy]

@MiG_23M

As I said, I don’t think that the SEPV3 uses DU. Likewise, the turrets are re-built from older models. There are SEPV2s in service with the “M” designation… they have DU now, but were not produced “new” with it.

Interesting, I had just assumed they would have changed the marking during the SEP upgrade moreover when they received the improved turret side armour.

It’s discussing ceramics, not the heavy metal portion of the armor array used to protect against KE threats.

Yea the KE portion is harder for me to try and infer what it is as they aren’t as explicit with what it could be in regards to materials used as they are with the CE side of things.

TRADOC however does name some other advanced armour materials that may be have been incorporated:

But I don’t know, I would assume the advanced ceramics may be in the SEPv3 potentially even some type of UHMWPE sandwich structure, incorporating UHMWPE would be very useful as it may help negate spalling, other then that I can’t find much in regards to the KE protection.

[Count_Trackula]

I’m still confused as to why Gaijin is claiming SUB-1536 still limits DU to 5 hulls. It doesn’t. You understand this, correct? Why is Gaijin using something clearly incorrect as the basis for their argument?

Also, if SUB-1536’s “as needed” authorization status is justification for it being in turrets, why doesn’t the “as needed” authorization status that the hulls also mean it is in hulls. This is by Gaijin’s own logic here. Spare me the “might, could, it didn’t specify which variants…” because the same mights, coulds, and vague indication as to which turrets would have the DU applies to the turrets as well as far as SUB-1536 goes.

You’ve been absolutely silent every time those issues come up. Are you not allowed to speak on these topics?

[MiG_23M]

More so they aren’t supposed to engage with people who clearly have been ignoring the answers the whole time. The same reason Bowie or InterFleet hardly interact with users who are complaining about stuff like AIM-54 and radar fixes. You’ve been told exactly why that’s not sufficient information to add DU to hull armor not just by myself here… but by Gaijin in a dedicated post already. You’re using the SAME argument you did just a few comments ago. It’s just absurd that you’re still going on about those documents when they don’t prove anything about DU in the hull. They were not the sole document used to prove there would be DU in the turret either.