Gaijin and modern NATO armor

[Necrons31467]

@__The_Troop__

Take a hike… You are always on every Abrams post putting your non-sense.

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.

@__The_Troop__

You don’t even have enough time on this game to make your non sense opinion valid.

3000 hours across 12 years and toptier on four seperate nations isn’t enough?

@__The_Troop__

Its being years since the abrams has problems. They wont fix it

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

@__The_Troop__

so dont worry your lack of skills will still be carry away by your german and russian MBTS.

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.

[SpeclistMain1]

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).

[Necrons31467]

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

[SpeclistMain1]

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.

[Sug Madic2]

This video is very disturbing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1e5wr2f/why_did_the_first_m1_have_better_turret_ring_than/

[Necrons31467]

@SpeclistMain1

The Swedish trials armor isn’t representative of DU armor packages

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

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.

@SpeclistMain1

You’ve already seen the BRL report, the multiple sources talking about hull armor increases

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.

Spoiler

Spoiler

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.

@SpeclistMain1

the multiple sources talking about the integrated spall liners

Which yet again, hasn’t been proven.

Spoiler

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

[EL337GH0ST]

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

[Necrons31467]

@EL337GH0ST

Also, the M1 CATTB had spall liners with a total weight of ~1800 lbs AFAIK

M1 CATTB only has turret spall liners and not in the hull, hence the low weight.

@EL337GH0ST

Additionally, we have documents from 2006 confirming unlimited usage of DU armor for both the turret and hull of the Abrams

This has already been addressed via a newer itteration of the same source, which states it’s only utilized on M1 Abrams system turrets.

[tripod2008]

@Necrons31467

prove it was adopted

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.

[EL337GH0ST]

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

[tripod2008]

Might need to ask @Gunjob, he may be able to see the report if he logs in.

[Flame2512]

@tripod2008

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.

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.

[Necrons31467]

@tripod2008

There’s a source that implies that the overall layout was changed in some way,

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:

Spoiler

And not one between the M1 and IPM1/M1A1.

[EL337GH0ST]

M1A2SEPv2 doesnt have better LFP armour

The M1A1 hull front armor weighs 3,115lbs, and how do i know that? Well the recently “leaked” information about the Abrams Lightweight Variant Tank says the following: M1A1 Variant design changes for weight reduction. [FvXLNhLaAAozzpP] [FvXLOl-aAAEXDUU] You can see that they reduced -188 lbs from the M1A1 hull front armor incorporating titanium and increasing the height of armor in front. They’re also giving the Abrams Lightweight Variant Tank total front armor weight, which is 2,927 lbs. …

There’s also this idea that the HA/HC could have the improved hull armor that the CATTB had

[Gunjob]

Abrams Main Battle Tank: A Report to the Congressional Defense Committees, US Army
M1A2 Abrams Tank, DIRECTORATE OF COMBAT DEVELOPMENTS FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY 40121
M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank, GENERAL DYANMICS Land Systems Division
M1A1 Abrams Recapitalization Program, PM Abrams, US Army.

[SpeclistMain1]

Man you really need to cite your sources, because it makes it easier to prove them wrong when you bring them up.

@Necrons31467

From a purposefully pessimistic February 1989 Armed Journal article titled “Soviet Gains in Armor/Anti-Armor Shape US Army Master Plan,” by Robert Ropelewski.

In addition to the general tone of the article, since I can only find two pages of the article (none of which site their sources for the figures), we can’t trust this data. For all we know it could be based on export package data.

Image Sources -

• Page 1 - https://cdn.4archive.org/vg/image/1446/850/1446850674783.jpg
• Page 2 - https://cdn.4archive.org/vg/image/1446/850/1446850805136.jpg

@Necrons31467

Can’t even find a source to even evaluate its authenticity, and this is talking about the XM1 (not the M1).

@Necrons31467

I’ve already responded to this one, it quite literally states that the data is not official and that the actual specifications for US and Soviet anti-armor and armor protection is classified and known only to “commanders and staffs at battalion level and higher,” but also that “it is the company commanders and platoon leaders who much also understand their weapons’ capabilities and supervise the training, deployment, and employment or their antiarmor systems….”

Then later on in the same article it goes on to describe that the information that the battalion level officers/staff give to the lower-level officers should be vastly underestimated in order to set the tempo of the war (as if you tell your lower-ranks the vehicle is worse than it actually is and then those lower-ranks curbstomp their enemies, it will give them confidence).

@Necrons31467

Also cannot find a source, but this could be referring to the original M1.

@Necrons31467

Again cite your sources, but this is about the XM1.

@Necrons31467

This is literally using the Swedish Trials data.

@Necrons31467

Later on in that same document, it shows the Army planning to reduce the Abrams’ weight by three tons.

@Necrons31467

This is about the XM1, and from the tone of the document it appears to be based off of a computer simulation.

@Necrons31467

This is based off of a computer simulation, and only talks about there not being an interior spall liner (which we know the Abrams doesn’t have, its spall liner is integrated into the armor). All this means is that for some reason the creators of the program didn’t know/didn’t have the clearance to know about the integrated spall liner (or they’re doing semantics and calling an internal spall liner something else).

@Necrons31467

This says that a new type of DU packages were added, which doesn’t mean anything more than a new type of DU packages are being added to some M1 Abrams family vehicles. If anything, this just means that from August 2006 to December 2014, earlier generations of DU armor were being applied to both the hull and turret, and after that a newer generation of DU was added (onto tanks with earlier generation DU hulls).

[llSolitairell]

@SpeclistMain1

In addition to the general tone of the article, since I can only find two pages of the article (none of which site their sources for the figures), we can’t trust this data. For all we know it could be based on export package data.

• M1A1 (DU)
• Export package

lol

@SpeclistMain1

Can’t even find a source to even evaluate its authenticity, and this is talking about the XM1 (not the M1).

the M1 was called XM-1 right up to production, it wasn’t exclusive to the General Motors and Chrysler prototypes.

[Necrons31467]

@SpeclistMain1

From a purposefully pessimistic

And what leads you to believe this is ‘‘Purposefully pessimistic’’?

Furthermore, I’ve still not seen you provide even a single source that claims the protection should be in excess of 600mm.

@SpeclistMain1

Can’t even find a source to even evaluate its authenticity, and this is talking about the XM1 (not the M1).

Document is dated February 1978, this is well into M1 Abrams program development timeframe, XM-1 refers to the M1 Abrams by this period.

@SpeclistMain1

I’ve already responded to this one

And I then replied to you. So refer to my replies there.

@SpeclistMain1

but this could be referring to the original M1.

It is.

@SpeclistMain1

Later on in that same document, it shows the Army planning to reduce the Abrams’ weight by three tons.

And in subsequent documents it states the armour reductions weren’t fully carried out, at the very least until a later itteration.

And only when/if said weight reductions are carried out, could armour improvements be made. Hence why the SEP finally featured the improved turret side protection which was likely planned to be implemented at an earlier date.

@SpeclistMain1

This is about the XM1

No, it’s about the IPM1/M1A1.

@SpeclistMain1

and from the tone of the document it appears to be based off of a computer simulation.

As opposed to what? As if that somehow invalidates it’s contents?
The point remains that Alternative B was chosen as the preferable option.

@SpeclistMain1

This is based off of a computer simulation

I repeat: How does that invalidate the content of the source?

Countless development programs by that time were carried out using computer simulations.

@SpeclistMain1

and only talks about there not being an interior spall liner (which we know the Abrams doesn’t have, its spall liner is integrated into the armor

Please feel free to provide primary source documents that show the M1 Abrams uses integrated spall liners.
I’ve seen that term thrown around a lot, without anything to back it up or how the concept would even work given the interior steel structure of the fighting compartment.

@SpeclistMain1

This says that a new type of DU packages were added, which doesn’t mean anything more than a new type of DU packages are being added to some M1 Abrams family vehicles. If anything, this just means that from August 2006 to December 2014, earlier generations of DU armor were being applied to both the hull and turret, and after that a newer generation of DU was added (onto tanks with earlier generation DU hulls).

You’re just reading into it what you want it to say.

It claims ‘‘New Heavy Armor packages’’ because they’re simply newly produced armour packages. If you believe they’re an entirely new and improved set of packages that made it’s way into SEP v2 production, I welcome you to provide evidence to support that position.

I would also add: How is it that these supposed armour improvements you believe were carried out aren’t mentioned in the Budget Allocation Sheets, all whilst other armour improvements are mentioned there?

But given the fact that you don’t provide any evidence of your own, and that this is feeling like an increasingly one-way-street conversation, I doubt I’ll get to see such evidence.

[tripod2008]

@llSolitairell

the M1 was called XM-1 right up to production

@Necrons31467

Document is dated February 1978, this is well into M1 Abrams program development timeframe, XM-1 refers to the M1 Abrams by this period.

Depends, as per this document, for the Material Need / Requirements; the Next Main Battle Tank. Firmly indicates that an improved M60 (M60A4) is not suitable and so the XM-815 (the follow on study to the XM-803) develops as an alternative to the Leopard 2 (Leopard 2 (America Version) is tested and rejected in '76), which is a hold-over from segments of the '68 MOU that spawned the MBT-70.

Beginning in '71 Notional units are initially known as the; XM-815 or the NMBT, to be renamed XM-1 in '72 and RPF’s are sent to Chrysler, General Motors and Ford in early '73 and production decision is made in '76

You will also see references to the M1E1; after the Three Nation 120mm gun trials which is spun off as a Pre-Planned Product Improvement Program in 1978 before the M1 enters Operational Testing, though still falls under the XM-1 Program Management Office, which did produce a handful of Pilot vehicles in order to competitively down-select configurations tested for the XM256.

So all in all there is a very small 10 month window between November '71 and September '72 that you might see NMBT or XM-815, instead of XM-1, and later the M1 & M1E1 that do not denote the same configuration as the XM-1 that we have in game. Though the pilot XM-1s are eventually brought up to M1 standards.

[SpeclistMain1]

@llSolitairell

• M1A1 (DU)
• Export package

Gaijin has made the same mistake with using an export package to model DU, not sure why bringing up such an argument is invalid.

@Necrons31467

And what leads you to believe this is ‘‘Purposefully pessimistic’’?

Literally every single thing in the article regarding the Soviets talks about how they are either better in every way, outmodernizing at a rate of 4:1, and it gives the most pessimistic figures for Soviet preparedness in East Germany.

Had to find another source for the images, scroll to the bottom

@Necrons31467

Furthermore, I’ve still not seen you provide even a single source that claims the protection should be in excess of 600mm.

I don’t need to do that if all I am doing is disproving the sources that say it is just 600mm. If there is no valid reason to believe that the armor is just 600mm, then it is not just 600mm.

@Necrons31467

Document is dated February 1978

This is still not a source that I can go and fact check.

@Necrons31467

XM-1 refers to the M1 Abrams by this period

If it’s dated 1978, then its still an XM1, not an M1. There were still changes made, and regardless what does this have to do with the DU packages or the increased hull armors on the latter M1A1 (and M1A2) models?

@Necrons31467

And I then replied to you. So refer to my replies there.

Your replies were (paraphrased):

1. There’s no reason to believe the export package was worse than the Swedish version
2. Feel free to share sources about what it is
3. It reeks of cope

The first is just obviously not true, since the US literally says that the Swedish version wasn’t as good as the domestic armor package: "‘The newarmor is a much better package than provided in Sweden because we and the Army are smarter than we were then,’ McVey said. “We have learned how to use materials and geometry to improve the armor protection from previous generations without having to get into the DU [depleted uranium] material.” You quite literally had seen this at the time, too.

Second, we already have the BRL report for such and estimate.

Third, no its not. If they are explicitly stating that only battalion commanders know the real specs and then suggesting to tell their lower-ranked people that their vehicles are not as good as they think they are, I think they’re saying that the information shown in the article will follow the same principle.

@Necrons31467

It is.

Which again is pertinent to the DU packages how?

@Necrons31467

And in subsequent documents it states the armour reductions weren’t fully carried out, at the very least until a later itteration.

Could I have the source so I can actually check if this is the case? Because if not there is no reason to believe that the weight reductions were not carried out.

@Necrons31467

No, it’s about the IPM1/M1A1.

It explicitly states it is evaluating the armor of the XM1.

@Necrons31467

As opposed to what? As if that somehow invalidates it’s contents?

Because (since you haven’t provided the source of the image or the URL) we don’t know the context of the computer program or if the Army thought it was valid enough to base entire changes off of?

@Necrons31467

The point remains that Alternative B was chosen as the preferable option.

For improving the XM1, maybe.

@Necrons31467

I repeat: How does that invalidate the content of the source?

Because this specific program has already had its inaccuracies pointed out:

@EL337GH0ST

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.

And yes, I do know you responded to it below, but the computer simulation itself is already relying on the assumption that the spall liner coverage/density is the same as the FARV (and the FARV does not have a massive crew compartment).

@Necrons31467

Please feel free to provide primary source documents that show the M1 Abrams uses integrated spall liners.

Here’s some:

• The Canadian Army Trophy, Achieving Excellence in Tank Gunnery - https://mcoecbamcoepwprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/library/ebooks/Canadian%20Army%20Trophy%20Book_2018.pdf
• Technical Challenges of the U.S. Army’s Ground Combat
  Vehicle Program (Proof of the integrated spall liner definition) - https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA591460.pdf

As for secondary sources:

• Armor Technology - https://f-old.a0z.ru/2a/f2/Armor_Basics.pdf
• The definitive visual history of armoured vehicles. (2023). . Dorling Kindersley Limited - Community Bug Reporting System
• TRANSFORMATION: TRANSITION FROM A HEAVY TO A
  LIGHTER FAMILY OF ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLES - https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA389781.pdf

Feel free to post a secondary source that says it doesn’t have a spall liner that isn’t just “it isn’t a curtain-like spall liner.”

@Necrons31467

If you believe they’re an entirely new and improved set of packages that made it’s way into SEP v2 production, I welcome you to provide evidence to support that position.

There are multiple generations of DU armor, there isn’t really anything to prove there.

@Necrons31467

I would also add: How is it that these supposed armour improvements you believe were carried out aren’t mentioned in the Budget Allocation Sheets, all whilst other armour improvements are mentioned there?

They literally are: the “Frontal Armor Upgrade.”