Please, with how classified the latest models of Abrams were its all up to Gaijin because they’ve been making up numbers so far. Dont accept the interior spall armor? Fine, give the crew kelvar vests as an alternative
DU hull armor? Well some documents say 30% increased protection, so lets give it 520mm front armor. Not nearly thick enough to stand up to top tier darts but allows the Abrams to not be vulnerable to older APFSDS.
just add something that makes the SEPv2 something more than a copy and paste.
At this point, why? Most of the suggestions had plenty of documents and Gaijin rejected each and every one of them. They chose to release the SEPv2 as heavier, more exposed copy paste tank. Even had the gall to say that the suspension cant handle the upgrades which this forum had been quick to debunk.
The only suggestion i can make for is kelvar armor for crew, but that is a genie that i want kept in the bottle as long as possible.
3bm9 and 3bm12 are period counterparts. Bm12 being the carbide slug version of bm9. 3bm15 is the carbide slug version of 3bm17.
On topic, from what documents and pictures I’ve seen. The m1s don’t have spall liners in the crew compartment. Interestingly, the Bradleys with a2 ods upgrade or later, and m113a2 or later do have spall liners in the hull.
I’ve been quiet lately because I’ve been busy outside of the forums… As well as underestimating the number of downloaded documents I need to sort through… I originally thought it was 20 or 30, its actually over 200… I’ve also got a couple I need to make sure are distribution code A, one of which has the simulants that were used for the original xm1 material needs testing.
Iraqi 3VBM7 was a 3BM17 penetrator. It was a fully steel penetrator on an already vastly outdated design.
You’re right, it isn’t something to sneeze at. It’s something you laugh at. Even being the BEST round Iraq had, it’s horrible.
Seeing as the Iraqi war featured Improved Abrams platforms with BRL-2, I’m not surprised that a penetrator akin to WW2 projectiles was barely able to pass the first few layers of composite.
Though I do have a strong suspicion that it was overexaggerated. Most shots would sheer from any impact.
HAP-1 is not Chobham. Chobham is the BRL series, while HAP is simply HAP.
M1A1 AIMs used EAP, while the M1A1SA uses either HAP-2/3 or EAP.
SEPv3 uses NGAP.
And the series of Chobham America uses is also named the Burlington, giving the armor package a double meaning. Even to this point, Chobham only refers to the reflecting plate design in composite arrays.
And those generations of armor are what I refer to with the base model M1, which uses the mentioned 1st gen armor inserts, and the Improved pattern Abrams, which uses 2nd gen.
That’s exactly what I use them to distinguish as well. Both the 1st and 2nd gen pattern composites used in the Abrams were the traditional Chobham composite array, as well as extras to combat KE projectiles.
Later on, however, the emergence of the HAP armor packages changed the general structure of the composite, as well as introduced a different layering of reflective plates. The differences in composition can be seen in the documentation of damaged M1A1HAs in Iraq, with the reflective plates being of different thicknesses, materials, and quantity.
By all observation that I can find, HAP armor packages do not use the Burlington design that the legacy Abrams did.
Thanks for the descriptions though, I’m just trying to type this stuff as quickly as I can and can’t think of many ways to insert descriptions into what I’m saying.
I did not stutter. I’ve been trying to argue to improve the armor of the Abrams in the game using as many real-life publicly available documents as possible, same as many others here.
You coming in from behind to argue the specifics and misidentify those specifics pretty much sells me off being friendly with you.
Conte said it pretty well, though. At this point the Abrams in the game is a fake.
Turret ring armor penetration, shatter angles, plus the cheeks being pennable by DM53, plus no improvements to the turret front and hull front over 5 different chassis.
Which leads me to ask…
Why the fuck would we leave our turret front without any ERA on the TUSK models unless we fucking knew our armor was up to taking the strongest hits there?
Or the fact that TUSK alone provides almost the same amount of protection as the M60A1’s RISE-P’s ERA tiles both in CE and KE while said M60 tiles are vastly older and vastly thinner.
Thats the case with all Western ERA
They have no exact data on their protection values so they just keep it the same as the older ones
Doesn’t matter what logic you bring to the table they won’t fix it
Only the original “XM-1” armor can be said to be “Chobham”. Even so, they differ wildly depending on application and it’s my personal opinion that the term shouldn’t be used. Instead it should be referred to as BRL-1 or simply NERA, ceramic composites, etc. That is truly what it is…
Chobham was the place the armor type was first invented according to wiki, to call the Abrams armor “Chobham armor” is almost to imply that it was armor produced or manufactured in Chobham and then installed in the Abrams which obviously isn’t true. Even so, the Russians had their own form of composites that is separate and I think it would be equally as silly to call their armor “Chobham” (yes, I know people do not refer to the T-64’s armor as Chobham).
Yeah the whole naming of it doesn’t make that much sense the American version had different name and Chobham has being improved over time but their is no distinction between early and late chobham as the whole thing classified so it hard to get any info on it
And? I’m clearing up terminology. What’s your point?
Misidentify what? The SEPv3 does not use any pattern of HAP, nor does the AIM or SA.
Because in the decade before NGAP, there were major leaps in projectile development? It went from 1980s subpenetrators barely scraping past 400mm to '90s darts pushing past 500-600mm. Now, from '10-'20, countries are making penetrators claiming 800mm of penetration.
You didn’t put ERA over the turret because there simply wasn’t the possibility of adding a bulky and heavy ERA package to a heavily armored area. Neither with weight, nor with practicality.
That’s why I prefer not to use it.
Hell, even the composite screens used for sideskirts and IFV applique armor can be considered chobham simply because of the layered composition.
On the T-90 the entire gunner’s side of the turret is charred and very consistent with ATGM hits.
On the picture of the T-72B '89, the same can be seen on the forward right skirts, with charring and burns, as well as the same on the top of the turret
The battle of Grozny was the primary example of ERA effectiveness on vehicles, and had the most documentation. Unlike Afghanistan, Chechnya was the first war where ERA was widely used, and has documentation of success against some weapons.
The topic of my comment was the on the successes of ERA. 2 of your images show vehicles that lack ERA entirely, with 2 others being that of side aspect engagements, not exemplifying turret effectiveness.
That’s the exact same with almost every other tank in the world. Other vehicles of the time also dabbled in autoloaders, the most profound being shown in Leopard 2 prototypes and the MBT-70 program of the same time.
Every other tank did not have compartmentalized ammo, save for the Strv-103.
