Gaijin and modern NATO armor

[Necrons31467]

@Conte_Baracca

Gaijin has no good idea on how effective the armor on the Abrams tank is. Because the actual design and performance is classified.

We do have several documents and design requirements to go off of though

The initial (X)M-1 design requirements have long been declassified(¹), they are as follows:

• ‘‘Protection of the crew compartment against XM774 (simulating Soviet APFSDS) at 800-1200m’’
• ‘‘Protection of the crew compartment against 127 mm HEAT at 50° frontal arc’’

This armor package is BRL-1 and puts the RHAe vs KE at ≈350mm, and ≈636-700 mm vs CE @ 50° arc.

The IPM1 and subsequent M1A1 use the same armor as eachother(²) which is BRL-2, the turret featured increased volume. The threat simulant was XM833 APFSDS, that puts the RHAe vs KE at ≈400 mm @ 60° frontal arc.

Heavy armor had been in development for quite a while, so by october 1988 the M1A1 HA was fielded with HAP-1, this offered substantially improved protection. It’s threat simulant was M829E1, this gives us the 600 mm RHAe vs KE @ 60° frontal arc figure which is further backed up by the ARMOR Magazine(⁶) estimates as well as the U.S. document provided to Sweden for the tank trails(⁵).

HAP-2 was produced in an effort to increase multi-hit durability, this armor was fielded on the M1A1 HC and M1A2(²).
There were developments around improving the M1A2’s overall armor(³), but these would not be fielded due to weight, budget and production schedule constraints(⁴). The fall of the Soviet Union likely also played a part in the reduced urgency for upgrading armor.

The hull armour does not seem to have been upgraded during this time period, this is reinforced by the fact that the armor diagram presented to Sweden(⁵) of a U.S. M1A2 shows the hull to still be equivalent to the original (X)M-1 design requirements, it’s further backed up by statements found in source(⁴).

Another reason for why the hull armor very likely wasn’t upgraded is because U.S. studies concluded that only around 5% of all hits a tank sustains occurr to the lower front plate, with 35% to the upper glacis and 65% for the turret(⁸). This is also why the turret armor saw considerable upgrade efforts.

The M1A2 Abrams was also not focussed around protection increases(⁹), instead the focus was around digitalization, improving target acquisition, etc.

Now we come to the SEP, for this we have extensive, and I do mean extensive Budget allocation sheets (can be found here Army Financial Management & Comptroller > Budget Materials) which detail exactly what changes have been made for the SEP, the only concrete protection enhancement made was to the turret composite side armor(⁷), this was increased by 250% against shaped charge munitions.

And lastly, for some reason people who play video games seem to believe that the survivability onion only has a single layer which says: ‘‘Don’t be penetrated’’ and nothing else. Obviously, armor isn’t the only way in which a vehicle defends itself.

(1) Source

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

(2) Source

Spoiler

Spoiler

(3) Source

Spoiler

(4) Source

Spoiler

Spoiler

(5) Source

Spoiler

(6) Source

Spoiler

(7) Source

Spoiler

(8) Source

Spoiler

(9) Source

Spoiler

(10) Source

Spoiler

I know this is a long post, just thought I’d be elaborate and use it as a reference in the future :P

[VF111_Sundowners]

Pretty sure Conte knows the exact Armor composition better than anyone in this forum. Which is why he made his statement that people might think they know based on publicly available sources, but in reality they’re still wrong. On top of serving as a commander, he helped with the development and implementation of the M1A1 FEP upgrade package. Nobody here has that level of insight and there’s really no arguing it.

[Conte_Baracca]

First @Necrons31467 let me say this is a well thought out and comprehensive post. I really appreciate this as there are documents here I haven’t seen.

Second, as a reminder I cannot really talk about the armor per se. Just too easy to say something I shouldn’t.

However, I am going to try to politely demonstrate how this is just more of what I am talking about.

@Necrons31467

The initial (X)M-1 design requirements have long been declassified(¹), they are as follows:

• ‘‘Protection of the crew compartment against XM774 (simulating Soviet APFSDS) at 800-1200m’’
• ‘‘Protection of the crew compartment against 127 mm HEAT at 50° frontal arc’’

This armor package is BRL-1 and puts the RHAe vs KE at ≈350mm, and ≈636-700 mm vs CE @ 50° arc.

The IPM1 and subsequent M1A1 use the same armor as eachother(²) which is BRL-2, the turret featured increased volume. The threat simulant was XM833 APFSDS, that puts the RHAe vs KE at ≈400 mm @ 60° frontal arc.

There are two problems with this. First, that you don’t know the classified armor penetration value of the APFSDS and HEAT rounds listed. Second, you don’t know what the actual performance the design achieved. A hypothetical would be a car that, when development began, was supposed to achieve 300 hp. In these scenarios this is a minimum. Engineers often exceed this minimum in their quest to achieve and the car will often end up with 320 hp off the production line. I hope that makes sense. This is well established that in acquisitions documents values are minimum or baseline and often exceeded in production. The only way to know for sure is to have access to the testing documents. Which AFAIK are all still classified.

@Necrons31467

HAP-2 was produced in an effort to increase multi-hit durability, this armor was fielded on the M1A1 HC and M1A2(²).
There were developments around improving the M1A2’s overall armor(³), but these would not be fielded due to weight, budget and production schedule constraints(⁴). The fall of the Soviet Union likely also played a part in the reduced urgency for upgrading armor.

The M1A1 HC’s actual protection is classified. This doesn’t really pertain to actual protection values. This is interesting but not really pertinent to what the values should actually be.

@Necrons31467

Now we come to the SEP, for this we have extensive, and I do mean extensive Budget allocation sheets (can be found here Army Financial Management & Comptroller > Budget Materials) which detail exactly what changes have been made for the SEP, the only concrete protection enhancement made was to the turret composite side armor(⁷), this was increased by 250% against shaped charge munitions.

This is a tougher one to address. I really can’t talk about it. I think the only thing I can point out is that you still don’t know the composition of the NERA components, the actual effectiveness of the NERA components, or how, precisely, they achieved this increase. Furthermore, since the data, going all the way back to the M1, is not based on actual technical (testing, design of the armor documents, etc.) and built off of assumptions based upon design requirement documents, you are building just more sand castles on sand castles.

Furthermore, this doesn’t address the fact that there were definitely M1 hulls built with DU armor in the LFP. If one was built, it can be applied to all M1A1 tanks and above. The hulls for those are just reused to make M1A2’s. Your documents will clearly support that.

The bottom line is, your entire argument is based on an assumption based on limited data.

Not your fault. It’s supposed to be this way. We absolutely do not want our enemies to have any idea how our armor is made or how well it works.

I will say it again. Gaijin. Doesn’t. Know. What. They. Are. Talking. About. That’s okay. Nobody else does either. Except the people who work on this stuff for real. And they can’t say anything.

[Conte_Baracca]

@VF111_Sundowners

Which is why he made his statement that people might think they know based on publicly available sources, but in reality they’re still wrong.

Not wrong. Just not the whole story. See above.

[MythicPi]

@Conte_Baracca

I will say it again. Gaijin. Doesn’t. Know. What. They. Are. Talking. About. That’s okay. Nobody else does either. Except the people who work on this stuff for real. And they can’t say anything.

I cant really speak of the Abrams armor, but I think this sentence here is kind of the crux of the issue.

Gaijin DOESNT’T know what theyre talking about at this point, but they still pass of their decisions as gospel based on “facts”.

Its pretty well known at this point that gaijin’s modelling of NATO armor (and other NATO tech) is pretty clearly lower than the values offered IRL, even from fisrt party sources and official testing data.

STANAG 4569 protection levels comes to mind for example, where the testing methodology, the vehicle rating, the projectiles used, etc… are all known, so when vehicles underperform compared to those stated protection levels, it infuriates people, as the info is all available.

A more recent example is the debacle currently going on with the Leo 2A7V’s armor, which is obviously vastly underperforming compared to IRL, and the STRV122’s which all underperform compared to the swedish trials which gaijin has previously “used” as an explanation as to why the Strv122 was better than the 2A7V.

2A7V and STRV122A WT vs Swedish Trials:

Spoiler

2A7V and STRV122A 20deg angled protection:

Spoiler

Some other notable things we KNOW that gaijin refuses to add is internal armor plates in the Late leo 2’s arrowheads as a direct result from the swedish trials to remove the 20 deg angled weakspots in the turret. Those armored plates can CLEARLY be SEEN in pictures, but gaijin doesnt care to model them either:

Spoiler

Another great example (though this is not as recent) is the PUMA IFV, which we have STANAG 4569 protection levels for and MANY pictures of the vehicles armor, along with in certain cases such as the LFP, a CLEAR view of the vehicle base armor, and the vehicle WITH armor:

Spoiler

2A7V and STRV122A hull add-on cross section irl vs ingame:

Spoiler

Gaijin may not have exact details on exact armor effective values, but they have been ACTIVELY refusing to take literal PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence regarding NATO armor arrays and also refuse to model vehicles accurately based on their own sources (swedish trials) when it doesnt fit their view of the world.

This is becoming a MASSIVE issue because NATO nations are being heavily held back, and people are wasting their time creating bug reports to try to resolve these issues, and gaijin refuses all the information regardless, which leads to people leaking classified information to try to get gaijin to listen for once.

Gaijin clearly has no intention on modelling NATO vehicles or tech correctly anymore, and should quite frankly get rid of the bug report system in its entirety if this is the stance they’ve decided to take.

P.S: I spoke of german issues because I’ve been involved with German bug reports and their response, I know every NATO/Western aligned nations have similar issues, but the issue as a whole is that gaijin refuses to properly model NATO armor even based on available information

Credits to @Yoshi_E @Necrons31467 and @FurinaBestArchon for most of the pics btw. They’ve been some of if not the most active bug reporters on the german vehicle side, and its all crumbled infront of gaijins “feelings” which they themselves admit to be illogical.

[NoreZi]

Imagine all this effort people make to even get close to hull like this, and be able to take some photos to make digital vehicle in game a little bit more historical and correct. Then spent time to dug sources, spent time writing all this, post it just to their post being in a special dimension of “acknowledged” for months and then be cherry picked or just being “not a bug” because owners of this game “assume” and “think” otherwise. I can wish everything good for people that want to make our beloved game better. Keep on guys !

[Conte_Baracca]

I’m not going to argue specifics. I will just say. To my knowledge if it is publicly available it’s not a FULL picture. Things are very likely better than any and all public sources.

[MythicPi]

I mean, obviously, but to NOT model based on what is lublicly available based on “feelings” is idiotic of them and leads to much more issues

[TheNuker123]

all it takes is a simple look in the protection analysis to prove you wrong; the 2a7v and t90m do not have the best armor; it actually fall behind the t90m in the hull by 300mm of KE protection against DM53. The difference is survivability; Russian vehicles are low profile, compact, explosive death traps, while the leos are actually made with protecting the crew as a priority. The reason the leo 2a7v is so hard to kill because of how deep the gunner sits in the turret with small weakpoints much like russian tanks.
Still absolutely blows my mind how obvious empty spaces in several nato tanks, chally’s, abrams, lecler, and ESPECIALLY the ariete’s are just seen as an abyss of nothing in gaijuns mind simply because no one can provide sources. I figured at some point balance would take priority, but its been years and logic and balance is NOWHERE in sight

[Necrons31467]

@Conte_Baracca

First @Necrons31467 let me say this is a well thought out and comprehensive post. I really appreciate this as there are documents here I haven’t seen.

Thanks, though credit also goes to various other people on here that do much more digging than I do.
And just to make this clear from the start, I wouldn’t ever claim Gaijin is 100% correct about any of the composite armoured MBTs in-game, I’m only trying to say that an approximate and ballpark estimate can be made based on available data.

However, this does stop being the case when more and more modern vehicles are added, of which there really isn’t anything to go off of.

@Conte_Baracca

First, that you don’t know the classified armor penetration value of the APFSDS and HEAT rounds listed.

127 mm BRL HEAT has it’s penetration listed in a seperate document, it is 318 mm @ 60°.
KE protection was also measured against Soviet 115 mm APFSDS with XM579E4 as a simulant, this possessed 161 mm of penetration @ 60° @ 1470 m/s velocity.

Again, I’m not saying this is definitive evidence of exact armour values, just a rough ballpark that Gaijin has to use as some form of a basis.

@Conte_Baracca

The M1A1 HC’s actual protection is classified. This doesn’t really pertain to actual protection values. This is interesting but not really pertinent to what the values should actually be.

One of the documents I provided detailed that the M1A1 HC and initial M1A2 share the same armour, I have to assume this document is correct for the time being.

The Swedish test trails documents include an armor diagram that was provided to Sweden by the U.S., the armor values listed in this diagram are based on test fires performed against a U.S. M1A2.
Lindström (project lead) says: ‘‘Firing attempts against its best ballistic protection were made in the United States.’’

This is what’s available to us, so I can’t blame Gaijin for using this data the way they are (though I blame them for many other things just fine).

@Conte_Baracca

Furthermore, since the data, going all the way back to the M1, is not based on actual technical (testing

I do believe that the Swedish trails documents are based on actual test firing data however, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

@Conte_Baracca

Furthermore, this doesn’t address the fact that there were definitely M1 hulls built with DU armor in the LFP.

From what I’ve read, this was only done in extremely limited numbers, and the utilization of DU in the hulls is treated very seriously in documentation.
Whenever these armor packages are used, it’s made very clear in various documents dedicated to these vehicles that they must be treated a certain way. Such documents can be found all over the place for the turret, but not so much for the hulls.
Further documents up until 2006 also explain that the number was limited to 5, and that this concerns vehicles of the M1A1 variety, not the M1A2 variety, though later documents change this to ‘‘As Needed’’ which is of course purposely vague.
Anyways, I understand you can’t elaborate on this, just thought I’d explain my reasoning.

And lastly, as far as I’m aware, the only way to get it 100% accurate is by using high-end software to simulate each shot with exact known materials, dimensions, compositions etc. With Soviet armor this is much easier as we know the exact makeup, but not with most NATO stuff.

[EL337GH0ST]

There is really no evidence, or at least nobody has provided, that the Swedes ever tested the M1A2’s armor - not to mention their variant was significantly inferior to the domestic DU M1A2, which was further upgraded after the tank was rejected (and before the SEP’s introduction).

The DU hull limitation was amended and received the same unlimited status as the turret DU already previously had, so if every M1A1HA+ has DU armor in the turret, which has the status “as needed”, then logically, every M1A2 SEP+ should have DU hull armor, which is also listed “as needed”. There is nothing vague here.

It makes no sense to argue the hull wasn’t upgraded (with DU), when that same argument can be applied to the turret DU armor to completely refute the existence of turret DU. Besides, the license was renewed EVERY YEAR with the same status for both hulls and turret - why would it specifically write “as needed” for both, if the hull never received upgrades?

[Necrons31467]

@EL337GH0ST

There is really no evidence, or at least nobody has provided, that the Swedes ever tested the M1A2’s armor

Sweden didn’t, the U.S. did.
This is explained in the original reports and you can read up on it if you wish.

@EL337GH0ST

mention their variant was significantly inferior to the domestic DU M1A2

That’s not what either Lindström nor the documents state.

@EL337GH0ST

so if every M1A1HA+ has DU armor in the turret, which has the status “as needed” , then logically, every M1A2 SEP+ should have DU hull armor

No. The M1A1 HA+ doesn’t simply have DU turret armor ‘‘As needed’’, the definition of the M1A1 HA (+) is that it utilizes DU turret armor, there are no M1A1 HA’s without DU turret armor as far as I know.

You can’t just take this out of context and then apply it to an entirely different vehicle and different set of armor modules.

And ‘‘As needed’’ =/= ‘‘Fielded on every vehicle’’.

Furthermore, numerous documents outright state that upgrades had not been carried out during this time period, as well as the budget allocation sheets I’ve presented making absolutely no reference to the fact that the hull armor was changed.

---

The reason why I have not commented on the SEP v2 is because I can’t show documentation to support my position, I can do that with the 1999 SEP however.

Regardless, I have no interest in repeating this whole debate over and over again, I’ve presented sources that back up my position and I’m sticking with what the original source material says.
I’ll leave it here.

[Conte_Baracca]

@Necrons31467

127 mm BRL HEAT has it’s penetration listed in a seperate document, it is 318 mm @ 60°.
KE protection was also measured against Soviet 115 mm APFSDS with XM579E4 as a simulant, this possessed 161 mm of penetration @ 60° @ 1470 m/s velocity.

Again, these numbers are the unclassified numbers. I’m not saying they are wrong, just that they may or may not be wholly accurate.

@Necrons31467

One of the documents I provided detailed that the M1A1 HC and initial M1A2 share the same armour, I have to assume this document is correct for the time being.

ofc. The problem is nobody knows the actual performance of the M1A1 HC

@Necrons31467

The Swedish test trails documents include an armor diagram that was provided to Sweden by the U.S., the armor values listed in this diagram are based on test fires performed against a U.S. M1A2.
Lindström (project lead) says: ‘‘Firing attempts against its best ballistic protection were made in the United States.’’

Absolutely. However, these are the unclassified numbers. Heck, they might even be close. But certainly there is room for plenty of doubt. Furthemore, the US absolutely does not export DU armor. To anyone.

@Necrons31467

I do believe that the Swedish trails documents are based on actual test firing data however, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

Sure. but, again, they are not the classified numbers. As those numbers are … classified.

How close it is is obviously unknowable.

@Necrons31467

From what I’ve read, this was only done in extremely limited numbers, and the utilization of DU in the hulls is treated very seriously in documentation.
Whenever these armor packages are used, it’s made very clear in various documents dedicated to these vehicles that they must be treated a certain way. Such documents can be found all over the place for the turret, but not so much for the hulls.
Further documents up until 2006 also explain that the number was limited to 5, and that this concerns vehicles of the M1A1 variety, not the M1A2 variety, though later documents change this to ‘‘As Needed’’ which is of course purposely vague.
Anyways, I understand you can’t elaborate on this, just thought I’d explain my reasoning.

And lastly, as far as I’m aware, the only way to get it 100% accurate is by using high-end software to simulate each shot with exact known materials, dimensions, compositions etc. With Soviet armor this is much easier as we know the exact makeup, but not with most NATO stuff.

As to the first part. Yep. Only a handful of hulls. The point it, it’s POSSIBLE. and since the hull for an M1A2 is literally an M1A1 hull with new stuff in it the point stands that Gaijin has no TECHNICAL reason not to give teh HC and above Abrams tanks DU hull armor, based on how they implement things in the game. Examples being the Radkampfwagon (only one was ever made and it didn’t even have a functioning turret) the F-104S (all versions) getting flares even though they only ever tested it and never used it in practice. Etc.

Finally, even high end software would be limited by the data available you would have to know the composition of everything from the armor to hoses to circuitboards to get a good picture of what happens when you shoot a tank.

This is obviously beyond the scope of the game.

The POINT to all of this is, given the unknowns, they should be more comfortable massaging armor performance to make gameplay more fair whilst keeping within the ballpark of the available information.
What they are doing now is just intellectually dishonest.

[EL337GH0ST]

While writing the M1A1HA+, I meant every variant of M1 after the M1A1HA, but I forgot the HC is also called HA+, sorry.

There has also been plenty of proof that the Swedish armor package is worse than the domestic package, provided by @Count_Trackula in another thread.

Besides that, the US exporting their newly developed armor package to Sweden, which would have the same performance as their newly developed DU armor, is impossible. They are extremely strict about export Abrams armor, and don’t even give it to much stronger allies like Australia. Sweden in comparison, especially in the 90s, wasn’t an ally at all.

Also, where is the testing of said packages supposed to be? I’ve never seen anyone provide proof that the armor was tested, especially not what protection it achieved.

[Flame2512]

@Conte_Baracca

The M1A1 HC’s actual protection is classified. This doesn’t really pertain to actual protection values.

We know from recently declassified British documents that the M1A2 & M1A1HA+ have 650 mm KE turret armour. The British evaluated the M1A1 & M1A2, and helped the US develop the second gen DU armour, so their numbers are most likely accurate.

[Conte_Baracca]

@Flame2512

We know from recently declassified British documents that the M1A2 & M1A1HA+ have 650 mm KE turret armour. The British evaluated the M1A1 & M1A2, and helped the US develop the second gen DU armour, so their numbers are most likely accurate.

You are welcome to think that the USA allowed an Ally to publish actual data on fielded tanks.

I can only reiterate that the performance of the DU armor remains classified.

[Mytho-GR1]

@Conte_Baracca

You are welcome to think that the USA allowed an Ally to publish actual data on fielded tanks.

Who makes the composite armour on the Abrams

[Conte_Baracca]

@Mytho61734

Who makes the composite armour on the Abrams

The United States. General Dynamics, I’m pretty sure.

[Daniel8599]

Don’t forget the Department of Energy whose responsible for the DU portions of the armor

[Conte_Baracca]

He specified Composite, but you are absolutely correct.

I was told, before I got out, that the NERA used on the Abrams hull and skirts was no longer classified before i got out. I know what it’s made from and how it works. However, I’ve never seen anything online that describes it. Just British stuff. So I still don’t talk about it. It’s probably still FOUO. And…this ain’t official.

It just confirms for me, nobody knows what they are talking about. I mean, they are in the ballpark, but only at the most basic level.