It’s simply states the armor was “beefed up”
Should I look up the definition on google? Like clearly people can’t state the specifics of the armor, that’s why I originally said finding unclassified sources stating what you’re wanting is impossible.
Again, it’s classified- I don’t know what more you’re wanting from me.
What’s a reliable source then? It’s all written or typed on a peace of paper by a human. He’s written hundreds of books.
Again, what more are you wanting from me? I can find a million sources(somewhat qualified) backing what this guy has written.
The only source good enough for some of you people is classified. I’m not gonna press this issue anymore with you because it’s going nowhere. I could link plenty of sources stating the later variants of the Abrams had increased protection from good sources and
Y’all would still be like-
” wHaT dOeS tHaT mEaN? INCREASED PROTECTION dOeSn’T mEaN aNyThInG”
1 Like
Yeah?
And it is. You can easily tell the thickness of the UFP, though staring at dollar-store books that you bought just to supplement your claims isn’t the method to do so.
What does this have to do with the UFP thickness?
And what you’ve posted is true in-game. The turret arrays were up-armored. This still does not change the truth of the 1.5" UFP, nor the original hull composites used.
So…? What beefed it up? What materials were used? What was changed? Beefed up can mean that extra composite skirts were added, though we’d have no clue because your citation is secondhand.
The specifics of armor across almost every spectrum is known. It’s known when a variant of a vehicle changes armor compositions. A book by an evangelical saying X number does not hold up as proof.
The UFP thickness? You just need a UTG for that. Every vehicle, whether it’s a base model M1 sitting as display or a service M1A2, will show 1.5" on the UFP.
As for the armor arrays, the exact pattern of its composite is dependent on its variant, and the specifics as to what has what is known.
There’s declassified information stating that only very few hulls of the abrams were used to test better composite arrays, and why it was decided not to implement them. It has been shared countless times in similar threads.
Simply making a new thread and acting as if that information does not exist and that your secondhand books trump it is idiotic.
NRC 1536/040-08994, DTIC ADA-300522, so on. I don’t want an aspiring author, I want firsthand accounts from TACOM.
Then you can go and find those, you’ve already admitted your propensity to lie and pull illicitation from your ass.
There are dozens of declassified sources that show by-order hull receiving HAP armor, not domestic variants. You can argue for the M1A1 AIM having EAP-2, but that has nothing to do with its UFP being 1.5" or any succeeding domestic variant and its composites.
Go ahead. I’m waiting.
Which weld line are you referring to (wasn’t able to tell contextually)?
1 Like
I’ll admit I was mistaken and believed hearsay claims from former service members as truth. Apologies.
I would still like to see evidence that isnt a computer sim showing the UFP(more of hull roof extension) of the M1 is “lolpen” IRL despite the extreme angle.
1 Like
What’s your reply in regards too?
The debate over UFP thickness my mistaken comment spurred?
The upper front plate is welded into the hull from the front and sides. If it was modified to be thicker, it would need additional welding and there would be evidence of the change. The primary source information already shared shows how the bulkheads leave no room to add armor internally. The only time welding is re-done on the front of the hull is on the sepv3 due to the new towing mounts.
In any case, yes… I was not discussing the composite lower front plate but the RHA-only UFP.
1 Like
They could’ve just refinished the weld lines, though. I mean if it’s not standard practice to do so then cool but I personally don’t know about that/haven’t heard about it (/gen).
Was that the CATTB document?
The dart is going through the blast doors, or you are mid reload and they are open when you get hit.
Seeing as it’s never faced modern APFSDS rounds, that’ll be extremely hard to prove with combat records.
A UTG can easily prove the thickness of the Abrams’ UFP armor.
If the thickness from the exterior and interior remains the same, it can be concluded that it is 1 solid steel plate. If not, there are multiple.
UFP: 1.625" = 41.275mm, 8% difference
LFP: 1.346" = 34.1884mm, 7% difference
Turret Cheek: 1.551" = 39.3954mm, 3% difference
It ain’t accurate to real life, even by Gaijin’s measures. I certainly wouldn’t trust their frontal hull armor measurements.
2 Likes
They deducted the thickness of paint and other materials applied to the outside of the armor I believe. Regardless, the thickness can be measured directly from the driver’s hatch area and it matches the weld lines on the side and front. This indicates that the UFP thickness did not increase from the model tested above with the equipment until at least the SEPV2.
1 Like
Ignore arctic, mig is more educated on the subject.
1 Like
They corrected the issue like 2 days after I commented that.
1 Like
The CATTB is a prototype not worthy of being used as a source.
It faced russian tanks in the 90’s and didn’t get penned once in the UFP or at all. The “LOLPEN” UFP is not a thing and has never happened. lol
Some of the Russian tanks used 3VBM-7 rounds and yes - they are sabots. . If the Abrams “LOLPEN” were a thing, it would have been exposed during the war.
1 Like
Neither is that gauge? That’s 100% a $50 UTG with a high margin of error. You can’t tell if that’s the max or min.
Hell, he’s probably not even measuring it in CD01… If you want the most accurate reading, you need CD0X.
It faced T-54s and T-55s in the 90s. Only about 15% of the vehicles the Abrams faced could classify as T-72s, and even then that’s hoping they aren’t '172Ms…
Ammunition from the late '60s to early '70s doesn’t help the case either. It’s the exact reason why I say that the Middle East does nothing to prove capability.
1 Like