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?
Sweden didn’t, the U.S. did.
This is explained in the original reports and you can read up on it if you wish.
That’s not what either Lindström nor the documents state.
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.
Again, these numbers are the unclassified numbers. I’m not saying they are wrong, just that they may or may not be wholly accurate.
ofc. The problem is nobody knows the actual performance of the M1A1 HC
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.
Sure. but, again, they are not the classified numbers. As those numbers are … classified.
How close it is is obviously unknowable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I sincerely hope your argument isn’t that because the Abrams uses a derivative of Chobham, that means the British totally know everything there is about it and their declassified source on a tank still in service should 100% be trusted.
no not 100% im just saying they may possibly have better insight on the armour that we don’t know but that doesn’t mean any in game though
My point is that if any ally of the US to know the most about the Abrams it would most likely be the British but no saying everything they say is 100% and they know everything on it
The composition of the NERA on the Abrams is protected.
Has the United States government ever publicly stated what type of Composite armor the Abrams uses? The only thing I have ever seen is that they admit to using DU. Nothing else.
About the only thing I’ve seen in terms of official documentation is the Project Hindsight Revisited document, which mentions it was based off of Chobham, not necessarily exactly Chobham and there was some tech-sharing via Memorandum of Understanding.
Not the government. That’s usually stuff like Janes and such. Are there any Government documents that state they use Chobham? Or the composition of the Composite armor?
Short answer is no. As above the actual composition and design is protected information.
So is chobham the only thing know about is it only challenger 2 and its composite armour and has different names
Im sure the one the americans used is made in house but similar enough
Yeah challenger 2 is in service tank their is not a lot of info on it causing it to underperform in game especially with the add on amour of NERA and ERA on the tes having very low ce values then they should
