No shit?
1 Like
I thought maybe you needed a reminder. Do you need some more?
5mm of candy will offer the protection of 5mm of candy
3 shoe boxes will offer the protection of 3 shoe boxes
3 Russian tanks will offer the rocket propulsion of 3 Russian tanks
5 Russian warthunder pantsirs will offer the bias of 5 russsian Warthunder pantsirs
Again, what relevance does this have?
1 Like
Just to make sure we’re on the same page here
You mean 0 degree base on turret cheek (red line) or 0 degree base on whole turret front (green line) ?
(not counting vertical . Only horizontal)
I edit the picture. So it easy to understanding what i’m talking about.
It can’t, if the performance is cited for heading angle of 0, the performance within the ±20/30 degree arc would be only slightly higher than that of C-technology’s armour that the Leopard 2A4s used starting 1987 (around ~430mm RHAe KE ± 60 degree arc, about ~560mm at 0).
The numbers here are very likely to be for a ± 20 degree angle from either side of the vehicle, and as such, M1A2s turret armour in the game is currently underperforming by a small amount (last I checked, the armour at a heading angle of 20 was only giving about ~620mm RHAe vs KE rounds).
This predates the BRL improvements mentioned above
BRL ‘improvements’ were never carried out on any serial production M1s until at least SEPv1, @Necrons31467 had posted documents before that showed if all new armour solutions were to be put onto the tank back then, the weight would exceed 72.5 US tons, bringing the M1A2 to about ~65.5 metric tons of weight, and as we know, M1A2 weighed nowhere near this amount.
which seems to further indicate that the performance of the turret armor is at a lower degree… probably 0-20 degrees. Not 30.
The snipet literally gives you the angle there, “460mm ± 20°”
i see. So you meant that 650mm vs KE are likely for 0° angle on both vertical and horizontal against turret cheek.
That would give a lot of performance when being shot at when angle.
2 Likes
Yes, that is what I am trying to say.
1 Like
In the context of what we’re talking about (SA-1/2/3 armour packages), that is very much true. None of them got implemented on the original M1A2, in fact 2 & 3 were outright canned (upper plate & turret roof add-on armours) - SA 1 which was meant to deal with the insufficient protection of the hull (Tandem Ceramic Armour) was also withheld until later variants due to weight concerns.
but gives us a good idea of the effectiveness of the armor for the weight gain. iirc the testing from 1991 provided 1.6-1.8x the volumetric efficiency of the latest RHA equivalent armor.
I dunno what you’re trying to say here by calling upon “volumetric efficiency” (it’s about the volume of air drawn into an internal combustion engine), since that is not something that concerns tank armours, refer to either Mass Efficiency or Thickness efficiency instead - in which case, only the former makes sense, because if they had indeed achieved the outright impossible TE of 1.6 - 1.8x, everyone would rush to copy it.
Did it detail which armor solutions that was?
Pretty sure they did, i.e SA-1/2/3.
The weight of armor vs the performance (RHA equivalent protection) is the volumetric efficiency of these types of ceramics. The armor being tested in 1991 by BRL had efficiency approaching 1.8:1… meaning that the ceramics could provide 180mm worth of protection for the weight of 100mm of RHA. These materials, combined with the placement of the plates such as to disrupt liquid jets of metal or kinetic energy long rods further enhances the efficiency of the armor. Backed by heavy metals like depleted uranium or tungsten, provides sufficient protection.
I’m going to continue using the same terminology I have been using, if you don’t like it that’s tough. They were able to do this without using more space than the equivalent RHA as well.
These are not the only changes / upgrades provided over the years. These aren’t even the proper names for them.
No, that’s mass efficiency.
I’m going to continue using the same terminology I have been using, if you don’t like it that’s tough.
Yea, I don’t like it when people use wrong terminology.
These are not the only changes / upgrades provided over the years.
This is irrelevant, the topic was the original M1A2 as it entered service circa 1993/4. Everything else past that is unrelated.
No, volume refers to the amount of space that a substance or object occupies, or that is enclosed within a container. Directly correlating to our argument… the efficiency of the armor in an enclosed container (the armor is enclosed within the turret, container). There is the mass efficiency of the armor, then there is the volumetric efficiency of the armor. Do not confuse the two, as the Abrams utilizes materials that both reduce the weight and increase the armor RHA equivalent provided in a certain volume of space.
Okay, so stop using the wrong terminology.
It is totally relevant. We are talking about the frontal armor of the M1 Abrams Series… terminology is important after-all.
The weight of armor vs the performance (RHA equivalent protection)
You’re going in circles. Weight of armour versus equivalent RHA is mass efficiency, period.
Okay, so stop using the wrong terminology.
Right when you do.
It is totally relevant. We are talking about the frontal armor of the M1 Abrams Series … terminology is important after-all.
Must be why I made sure to cut off at SEPv1 and focused entirely on the M1A2, just stop trying to change the goalpost.
There was no changing the goalpost. You said that what I was discussing was off topic, the thread title clearly dictates that all M1 Abrams Series can be discussed.
No, there are two different points of discussion. The mass efficiency is useful for determining the effectiveness of the armor in comparison to RHA. The volumetric efficiency is different, as NERA is not just solid chunks of ceramics. The placement of these ceramics within the armor scheme is very important, and the Abrams does this QUITE well. The VOLUMETRIC efficiency is high.
The thread’s title isn’t important here, I made it clear in my opening statement that the variants would range from M1A2 to at best M1A2 SEPv1, what you’re doing is quite plainly attempting to change the goal that I established, and extending the timeline to include newer variants (they aren’t important in the sub-discussion I started, as pointed out already).
The mass efficiency is useful for determining the effectiveness of the armor in comparison to RHA.
The weight of armor vs the performance (RHA equivalent protection)
I’m discussing M1A2 to M1A2 SEPv1, is there some goalpost being moved that I am not aware about? I think if that is the case it is you who is moving it.
The ceramics used have mass / weight efficiency. The method in which they are arranged within a container provides volumetric efficiency.
Yet you wrote 2 entire pargraphs talking about armour development that happened years after those two? M’kay.
These are not the only changes / upgrades provided over the years.
^ Also this, man talks about BRL upgrades, is told they were never implemented due to X, Y, Z reasons - > “uhh, no, it isn’t true, here’s an essay on unrelated stuff”.
The ceramics used have mass / weight efficiency.
It’s still mass efficiency, period. If you wanted to talk about the ceramics’ efficiency compared to RHA in terms of thickness, just use TE then - or just use ME & TE at the same time, it’s that simple.
(Aside, you didn’t even name drop ‘ceramics’ until much later, your response was only about “the armour”, no idividual layers, parts etc - just armour, in which case ME is the only correct term to use).
Sounds like you should have asked clarification instead of ranting about terminology (which was correct btw)
Yes yes, just point out my wrongs whilst ignoring yours. You just never change lol. Anyways, I’ll just do a Necrons, cya.
Who are you?
Talking about realistic pen values, when Gaijin openly admits to nerfing ALL APFSDS due to the distances of the Maps and a lack of info about armor, is hella weird. Zaraysk the 152mm APFSDS of the Obj. 292 should have 923mm of RHA Pen at 2km distance at 0°, we dont even have 700mm at 0 meters in game
Complain all you want, War Thunder isnt realistic, it isnt a Simulator, it is a Arcade Game utilizing damage models that are oftentimes inaccurate, its better than HP but NOWHERE NEAR accurate