There is no evidence, because it is untrue.
These “tests” are wildly non-factual. They do not have the necessary information to properly model such a simulation.
4 Likes
Yes some shot might but on the area where the fuel tank was it should/would still stop “most” APFSDS tail.
Especially if Gaijin remodel fuel tank as this bug report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Y2HnjTv8kNAG
This would increase both UFP and LFP armor (not much on LFP but would help UFP which has high angle)
Do you have evidence of that?
Burden of proof doesn’t lie with me, he made the statement… it is up to him to provide the evidence.
I am simply stating that he won’t… because they didn’t increase the upper front plate thickness according to anything I’ve ever read or seen.
No, he(mig) doesn’t have evidence because it’s classified. The same reason I can’t prove they did increase armor.
burden of proof is not possible.
It’s not the same reason, and it’s something that is visible externally because of how they weld the front slope section. You can literally compare the weld lines on the two variants from photos if what you say is true.
1 Like
Can you post evidence of the weld line being measured? I’m honestly interested in seeing this on the sep v2.
Sure and while we’re at it I’ll show how it gets much thinner towards the driver hatch as well so they can fix that, too. #abramsoverperforming
Which gives Gaijin all sorts of wiggle room to make adjustments instead of taking a stand and digging in. Its not a good business model to be inflexible.
You can’t make a claim that it is untrue, when you don’t even know if the UFP thickness was increased.
According to this bug report, all Abrams variants should have a total of ~63 mm of armor on the upper frontal plate, at least above the fuel tanks.
This is arguing for them to model the bulkheads from which the fuel tanks are held within, nothing is changed with the upper front plate thickness. Especially around the drivers hole as I stated… it can be measured with a measuring tape… and has been already on the sepv2.
Additionally, we know how effective the fuel tanks themselves should be as armor as they use a honeycomb method for improving protection.
For plain UFP thickness on M1 Abrams (105mm) Gaijin got number from measurement when they visit National Guard base.
Keep in mind that they also mention paint coating and etc reasons explaining why they didn’t put exact 1.625 (41mm) value in.
To be fair, they are using pretty precise equipment. To be even more fair, this is a deactivated Abrams that appears to be sitting outside 24/7 and is rusting, so it could very much lose some material in the armor and/or cause issues with the tools they’re using.
1 Like
I highly doubt that matters.
Production blueprints of the M1A1 clearly say 1.5 inch armor for the glacis.
Would you mind sharing that source / info?
I wanted the source not a page that hasn’t got proof of declassification
You made the claim. “Literally compare weld lines”
While this is stated.
For the M1a2 this source(talking about M1a2) states the increased protection from DU doesn’t increase thickness.
Also, is this a good enough source for you for increased protection?
In regards to your 63mm of protection- in reality it has way more.
