3 Likes
I don’t see any Russian mains here, not do I see how that makes your statement any less false.
That is a hypocritical statement. For there is no documentation that says it was not add.
I’m assuming we are talking about the SEPv2.
1 Like
The VA said all post-98 hulls in US service have DU. So we do have an official government agency stating as much. Post-98 includes all SEPs.
7 Likes
Would you mind re-linking the source for us?
I’m quite tired of people using Russian main/American main as some sort of excuse to belittle each other.
Let’s make this very clear… the Soviet designs that are balanced to our BRs are in fact 15-20 years after the ones we have here.
All the models in question using ‘uranium armor’ as claimed by Gaijin, do not in fact use depleted uranium, they use a guesstimate based on the Swedish trials with an additional 100mm of RHA just to alleviate concerns of ‘they don’t have DU’, when everything we have been shown proves that 100mm of RHA alone would not constitute the proper amount of density to said armor as advertised.
Further, they have not increased the hull armor in ALL the chassis, in spite of said chassis and turrets going through not one, not two, but three different upgrades, all the way up to HAP-3 in SEPSv2/SA/FEM turrets.
Of those turrets and hulls, there is questionable material that indicates that hulls do include radiological matter (depleted uranium), especially since whenever a hull is penetrated from the front, radiological teams are notified and dispatched to investigate.
Further, the hulls retain the same armor throughout HAP-1, HAP-2, and HAP-3, despite the fact that these were said to be total armor refits (which would include the hull armor package!!!), and the only reason that Gaijin and its development team can give an excuse is “There’s no verifiable independent proof that the suspension could handle something heavier, and thus we do not improve the armor”.
When even we have brought forward documentation from tankers and DECLASSIFIED sources, showing that the suspension kits themselves were also upgraded along with the armor modules!
At what point, MiG et al, does Gaijin admit that they are in the wrong here and adjust said levels?
Further, I’m not going to make excuses for one-death leavers in top tier. They are in every top tier team, and they are quite often Chinese names or Russian names, I’ve noticed. On the NA server especially. Which is a really damn hard thing to corroborate since clearly that should be a server populated more by Americans, and yet, it is not. Instead, Americans will drive in Leopards or USSR vehicles, either because it’s easier, or because there’s enough of a complete line-up that won’t be one-shotted to death through the turret ring or LFP that they will go ahead and use those nations instead, because that’s what is fun to them.
If the goal is to make the game ‘fun’, you cannot simply go by win rate. You must also go by the input of your customer base, particuarly when your customer base is providing you WITH THE MATERIALS to improve the game.
16 Likes
I didn’t use it, but here you reply only to me? Don’t come in here and ignore all of the people crying over un-spilled milk while replying solely to me.
That was never a point of discussion at all, nor does it matter now.
The testing done earlier seems to suggest it is only 20-30mm more protection than the Swedish estimates, but of course no one was arguing this point. They are arguing there is uranium in the hull based on that source. That source does not explicitly state what models may or may not have DU in the hull, nor does it show us what that does as far as protection goes.
When we have data showing what those specific armor upgrades did or add to the tank, perhaps we have something to work with. If you have information, please share.
Are they not notified and dispatched for any penetration? What are you basing this off of?
Gaijin stated the weight did not change much, they do not think there is room for improvement without an increase in weight. This isn’t the most sensible answer… but in lieu of actual data it is what they are giving us. You may disagree with the method - but complaining about it gets us nowhere.
Never? Why would they need to? You said yourself, it hardly fixes anything. I’ve NEVER been shot in my hull while driving an Abrams in War Thunder. It is almost always exclusively some side shot or turret ring / upper front plate. There are far larger issues that would not be solved with this change. There isn’t even sufficient useful data to warrant a change in the first place IMO… and apparently Gaijin feels the same way.
I have a “Russian name” yet I am American, I play America. It is very hard to determine who is from where based solely on names. I know people with Asian language characters who don’t speak those languages at all. Once again, no one was discussing this? Why is it relevant to the thread?
I’ve seen no discernible difference in the playstyle of any of the different top tier tanks. The Leopards are larger targets than the Russian tanks but significantly better armored as well. The RU or CN stuff doesn’t survive multiple hits quite like a Leopard 2A6+ in WT. You want to complain about this in here? Why?
You’re bordering a line that they won’t tolerate much on the forum. Anti-Gaijin and accusations aren’t permissible per the guidelines. You have a platform from which you can preach this stuff… but it is not here. Here is simply discussion for or against the use of a spall liner… and we have already strayed far from that on very little logical basis.
The answer is no, it doesn’t have a spall liner. The answer is no, it doesn’t have DU in the hull. Provided either can be proven otherwise (the burden of proof is on y’all)… you still need to show exactly how it improves upon the tanks’ protection.
They should add kevlar vest mechanic to compensate for that as i think thats the reason why their is lack of spall liners in some tanks
3 Likes
Perhaps do that not only for USA but for all countries based on time period used tanker’s kits, for example these vests or just uniforms that are fireproof, tank helmets, etc.
Those were both Swedish estimates (from actual KE and CE testing), as well as what seem to be US documents given to Sweden, those document indicated what Sweden could expect from the armour they were giving them (non-DU), from said trials the Swedes then showed the armour that they had matched the protection values they were promised.
However, according to the Brits, the M1A2 and M1A1 HA+ had 650mm vs KE at either +/-20° and/or +/-30°, although it should be +/-30° as that is what the US’s requirements for protection seem to be which is likewise corroborated in the US documents given to Sweden.
That is to say the Swedish M1 had 600mm vs KE at +/-20° and +/-30°, the M1s with DU should be 650mm +/-20° and +/-30°, likewise this should mean the CE protection isn’t correct either but we have no values for that.
1 Like
They should i guy sitting in a tiger vs a guy in a Challenger 2 should take different amount of damage to spall
(US Abrams received an armor upgrade one year after the Swedish trials.)
Afaik they didn’t, British documents for the M1A2 / M1A1 HA+ were between 1990 - 1992, there was no upgrade after the Swedish trials i.e. the Swedes tested the US non-DU armour at the end of 1993 (October), I don’t know of another M1 upgrade until the SEPs.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-07-14/html/98-18674.htm
“In 1996, a design change to the armor package was made by the Army and cut-in to
production by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) via Change Request
XMPP-2083 in Oct 96 and effective with Job #1 M1A2 Phase II AUT.”
“Under the proposed action, the use of the current depleted
uranium (DU) armor package on the Abrams tank would be evaluated to
determine whether the environmental impacts of its continued use remain
insignificant, taking into consideration the current use of the tank,
the armor package design change instituted in 1996 and changes in the
NRC’s radiation dose limits for individual members of the public.”
4 Likes
Yea I read this a while back, best guess is they are talking about the M1A2 SEP as there were 4 SEP prototypes/testbeds from around that time.
But overall I have no clue, I can’t find a mention of them implementing a new armour for the M1A2 from 1996 onwards.
1 Like
Yeah, I was off as well. I keep thinking the Swedish trials were 95, not 94 like they were. Likely tied to the SEP programs, but that they cut-in to production in 96 and also say “Abrams tank” makes me think maybe it wasn’t SEP exclusive? Because we see later documents outlining a SEP armor upgrade, after 96.
I’ve tried plugging in XMPP-2083, M1A2 Phase II AUT, etc., and never got any good hits back on armor info.
Unfortunately without knowing what XMPP-2083 was it’s had to draw any conclusions. The fact it was cut-into production makes me wonder if it is just a modification to make the armour easier to produce, or fix some minor problem, etc. while retaining he same fit / form / function. I would have expected any significant protection upgrade to be a sub-version, not just something applied halfway through M1A2 production. Unless the M1A2 Phase II AUT is that sub-version, but as you say there’s no real information on google about what that is.
That’s fair. Though I hardly think they would spend money and interrupt the production line, test the new armor packages for health concerns, to make the armor worse. My bet, all speculation mind you, is that the Army learned a thing or two about armor design from the Swedish trials after seeing what the Swedes did for applique armor packages they improvised for the Abrams. But I think the Army had its eyes opened a little after that experience.
Lets all just accept that only the t-series tanks and leopards get spall liners and any useful armor. Ive already accepted it. The abrams sep1-2 wont be getting anything even though both had different inserts in both the hull and chasis. Im just gonna finish my swedish lineup and complete my german lineup i give up.
All current service men who are Abrams crew should tape their keval vest to the hull and say look spall liner
3 Likes