It doesn’t though? I think the most I’ve seen is a ~15mm difference which can be explained by different hardness of steel.
[and can’t legally do anything about it].
Fixed it for you.
Who said the US army needed Abrams X?
Did you mean the M1E3?
1 Like
If it’s more convenient for you, then yes, the US Army canceled the upgrade of the M1A2 SEPv3 to SEPv4 due to its excessive mass and lack of mobility in favor of the new M1E3.
And Abrams concept of the future is focused on reducing weight and automating processes in the tank.
However, we can only guess what will happen next. Draw your own conclusions.
Yes. Including the classified ones. The publicly available documents present a very limited picture. Ergo they do not present an accurate picture. As i have clearly laid out in this thread mutiple times.
1 Like
Take a hike… You are always on every Abrams post putting your non-sense. You already got discredited of your claims multiple time. You don’t even have enough time on this game to make your non sense opinion valid. For real, go to the russian forum.
Either way gaijin just laugh at this crap. Its being years since the abrams has problems. They wont fix it, so dont worry your lack of skills will still be carry away by your german and russian MBTS.
1 Like
I’m always on every Abrams thread because i love the Abrams and i want it fixed.
Not enough time? I grinded out the whole US tech tree with no premium at all, years of playing the Abrams, hundreds of games i know the Abrams very well.
I guess they do, but that wont stop people from complaining about the lack of armor and the turret ring issue.
That’s a funny thing to say, how do you know a lack skills?
I meant to replay to Necrons not you. My bad.
2 Likes
I’m allergic to false claims.
If people continue to lie and fabricate claims in regards to the M1 Abrams series of vehicles, you’ll continue to see me popping up and debunking those claims.
That however does not mean I’m against people engaging in constructive arguments. As always, if people disagree with what I say, they are welcome to provide counter evidence of their own. It’s just that there’s a distinct lack of evidence being presented by those who are on the other side of the fence.
And if you take issue with a specific claim I’ve made, please do point it out and present evidence which supports your case.
3000 hours across 12 years and toptier on four seperate nations isn’t enough?
Here’s a whole bunch of fixes the M1’s have received over the years:
- M1 Abrams, IPM1, M1A1 and M1A2 lower glacis: 332mm > 375mm.
- IPM1 and M1A1 right cheek: 400mm > 464mm.
- IPM1 and M1A1 left cheek: 434mm > 539mm.
- M1A2 left cheek: 667mm > 766mm.
- M1A2 right cheek: 625mm > 685mm.
- M1 Abrams left cheek: 486mm > 450mm.
- M1 Abrams right cheek: 426mm > 403mm.
- M1A1 received M829A1
- M1A2 received M829A2 based on dev server feedback
- IPM1 received M900
- Reload rate 6sec > 5sec
- UFP changed to defeat any and all APFSDS in the game
- Engine noise levels reduced significantly.
- Sight magnification buffed from 3x-10x to 3x-13x
Uhh, okay?
Your stats on the top row -vs- my stats on the bottom row:
And considering the fact that you play the Leopard 2A7V and Strv 122 series yourself, this seems like a bit of a ‘‘Pot calling the kettle black’’ situation.
5 Likes
All those “fixes,” yet nearly every aspect of the tank’s armor, reload rate, engine noise, round performance, etc. is incorrect. They still haven’t even added DU armor to the game (no, the Swedish trials are not representative of DU armor).
2 Likes
So when I said this:
I wasn’t expecting the very next comment to be a perfect example of it. I swear this isn’t a case of paid actor :P
1 Like
The Swedish trials armor isn’t representative of DU armor packages, that is just a fact. You’ve already seen the BRL report, the multiple sources talking about hull armor increases, the multiple sources talking about the integrated spall liners, etc., you just ignore them.
5 Likes
This video is very disturbing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1e5wr2f/why_did_the_first_m1_have_better_turret_ring_than/
2 Likes
Which is why I’ve provided numerous documents which coincide with the armour values presented in Swedish trails documents.
Here’s six seperate documents which all just-so-happen to point towards 600/350mm for the M1’s:
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Would I claim these sources are rock solid? No, I wouldn’t.
But at least there’s six secondary sources pointing towards the same armour values, whereas your side of the fence hasn’t presented a single source that shows an armour value above 600mm.
A package being developed doesn’t mean it’s adopted. We’ve been over this many times and you’ve never been able to prove it was adopted, whilst I presented numerous documents which heavily imply they were not in fact adopted.
Furthermore, The Leopard TVM / IVT clearly showed Germany had developed substantially better hull armour applique, yet we know for a fact that those weren’t adopted until decades later.
Which yet again, hasn’t been proven.
We’ve also been over other topics such as supposed armour improvements, which I’ve debunked here: Why does it seem the M1 abrams is extremely underwhelming? - #98 by zuadao
3 Likes
Isn’t that GVSI document some kind of simulation that isn’t even applicable to the actual tank? Also, the M1 CATTB had spall liners with a total weight of ~1800 lbs AFAIK, which is way less than the supposed 4800 lbs weight in this document.
Additionally, we have documents from 2006 confirming unlimited usage of DU armor for both the turret and hull of the Abrams, this document was originally limited to the turret, so why would they amend it to include the hull as well if not to upgrade it with DU armor - which, according to the turret armor having a ~160 mm KE increase, would provide the hull with ~550 mm KE protection, which also matches the 35% hull armor increase on that document with 5 DU hulls limitation.
Spoiler
1 Like
M1 CATTB only has turret spall liners and not in the hull, hence the low weight.
This has already been addressed via a newer itteration of the same source, which states it’s only utilized on M1 Abrams system turrets.
1 Like
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf#page=12
Special Armor referred to in this document consists of the specific Tri-plate installed in the first generation Abrams Tanks and its associated threat mechanisms. Special Armour by this definition does not apply to future armor development such as that within the M1A1 Abrams tank.
There’s a source that implies that the overall layout was changed in some way, and I doubt that it was solely changes to the turret alone considering that the hull also impacts frontal protection.
I forgot if I asked this on the forums, but does anyone have access to this bug report?
https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/573806-armor-upgrades-for-m1-abrams-variants/
It had some pretty good sources, unfortunately, I didn’t save them
It’s well known that the M1A1 received improved turret protection over the original M1 (the frontal armour array is physically larger), so that alone would satisfy the statement in that report.
Obviously, hence all the different armour packages such as BRL-1, BRL-2, HAP-2, HAP-3, NGAP, etc.
I’m quite familiar with that source and it’s a contributing reason why I sometimes suspect the IPM1 and M1 might have overperforming hull armour in-game.
The M1A1 might’ve been the first model to have received BRL-2 in the hull (or another form of improvement) whereas the M1 and IPM1 hulls utilized BRL-1 armour. The BRL-1 might’ve been closer to 322mm of protection rather than the 378mm we see in-game.
The M1E1 also featured weight simulants on the hull front, and I’m of course the first to point out that that doesn’t necessarily prove the existance of improved armour, it is however another contributing factor.
I also think that SpeclistMain1 was referring to this improvement:
And not one between the M1 and IPM1/M1A1.
1 Like