abrams turret can be easily penetrated with dm53 at a lot of angles.
2 Likes
2 gen du armor, sepv1 have 3 gen du armor
I just died by t90m shooting solid shot into my armored fuel tank. It was first penetration of my vehicle. It litteraly just evaporated that crew. How does that even make senss
1 Like
Its called Historical Accuracy. Look at Ukraine for an accurate representation of Modern Russian Army Tanks.
Actually, the license that was first issued for 5 hulls in Feb 2006 was amended by Sep 2006 to remove any limits on hulls. By that same year, they authorized unlimited use of DU armor packages in both hulls and turrets.
This is still during the SEP V1 program, as SEP V2 program didn’t start until FY 2008. So all SEPs should receive DU hull with 3rd generation armor packages.
Even aside from DU, the Abrams did receive improved hull armor over the years, well before the SEP programs.:
There were parallel advancements in the composite armor and ceramic tile development.
7 Likes
My bad, thanks for the information though!
English isn’t my first language and as english words like “amended” aren’t really used in my non english surroundings I wasn’t really sure what it reallt means.
Honestly I, in hindsight wrongly, assumed that the 2006 document meant that they signed that document then for the 5 hulls and that they re-signed the a similar document in 2016 for unlimited DU hull licenses.
1 Like
Ahh. Yeah, official documents jumbled with legalese are hard enough to understand growing up with the language.
Here is the first form that talks about renewing License Number SUB-1536 to include 5 M1A1 HA hulls to use DU armor.:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
Here is the form that amended the LIcense No. SUB-1536 to remove any mentions or limits of 5 hulls with DU, and the line item that pertains to DU armor packages includes both turrets and hulls with no limitations for DU armor package use. It is stamped Aug 24 2006 at the bottom.:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0624/ML062410022.pdf
This might have been the one you were thinking of, which was dated 2016.:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1619/ML16190A098.pdf
This is the most recent one I could find, dated 2019 to extend the license to 2033. All of these forms pertain to and amend License Number SUB-1536.:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1933/ML19331A319.pdf
3 Likes
Thanks for the explanations/laying it out!
YezI did see the first document stating the 5 hulls and the 2016 and 2019 ones, but I think I completely missed the second 2006 ones. That changes a lot.
I really hope they consider it enough to change the hull armor, even if it wouldn’t be quite as strong as the 2A7V it would still be an extremely welcome and honestly needed change.
2 Likes
Its not a historical game
you obviously are new, since you dont know how many times gaijin have stated " historical accuracy "
all abrams after 1998 started receiving upgraded hulls
They advertise it as a realistic historically accurate game in their description, and ask people to give them historical documents, so yeah it is supposed to be
Why does everyone insist on using sources only talking about export models for the US as proof? They are inaccurate because they are export models, the US isn’t going to sell their best tech to other countries until it is almost obsolete. There is a reason the F-22 hasn’t been exported yet, just as there is a reason DU armored Abrams haven’t been exported.
1 Like
Because the guy I’m replying to specifically claimed Australia has tanks equipped with depleted uranium armour. I refute that, specifically, Australian Abrams tanks have depleted uranium armour. Perhaps other Australian tanks have such armour.
The left cheek, right cheek and frontal hull composite arrays are not identical. Different physical dimensions and volume for each piece, they are not interchangeable parts.
In the basic M1, all 3 frontal composite arrays are designed according to the same principle.
M1IP and M1A1 basic, they are using modified composites in the turret, but not in the hull.
M1A1HA/HC we see changing of, at least, front turret composites to a new type including some depleted uranium. How much depleted uranium or the exact composition of these arrays is unknown to me.
It is possible the dimensions of the hull composite array, in some way restrict the effectiveness of depleted uranium within the array.
Arrays are effective for holistic reasons to do with the reaction of the projectile and the different materials in the composite, the order, angle and structure they’re placed in and so on.
Slapping depleted uranium in or replacing a part of it may not be so effective, or may be even more effective. Simply it’s not necessarily predictable, so needs specific proof.
The existence of these prototypes at best indicates interest in wether it is feasible to cope with the additional weight of new composite arrays, at best it indicates a desire to replace these composites with different and heavier ones.
This is not evidence that mass production M1A1 through M1A2 SEP v2 include new arrays.
Again.
Documents showing there isn’t a specific limit to the quantity that could be produced using depleted uranium hull arrays, does not mean that mass produced vehicles include such arrays.
It means it is possible, not that it is certain.
The core point of this is.
- Gaijin has many Abrams variants using a frontal hull composite which provides the same CE and KE protection.
- Community members dispute this on grounds of historical accuracy.
- Gaijin requests evidence, to the same standard whenever any claim of historical fact is made.
- In order for the evidence to be acceptable, it must state in no uncertain terms, specifically words to the effect of “X Abrams variant normally (as part of mass production or a common/standard configuration) has a hull composite with improved CE/KE protection compared to older variants.” preferably with some kind of figures about how much improvement there is.
- Such evidence (to my knowledge) has not been produced.
Until that evidence is produced, there’s no historical basis for change. Most of it is documents which are very evasive and do not directly address the point.
All I’m saying is, if you want change, that’s the standard which must be met.
The other method is to make it a suggestion, but that would depend on the rhetoric and Gaijin’s whims.
I’m supportive of the goal to make War Thunder more accurate, I prefer it grounded in realism as much as possible.
The swedes tested the non-DU composite export armor. Its should’nt even be valid for the US Abrams.
1 Like
Didn’t the manufacturer claim it’s as good as the depleted uranium composite?
No, I need to dig it up but the internal report after its failure in trials caused development of traditional composites at the level of DU, hence why the AIM has comparable armor to the M1A2 or better.
2 Likes