Gaijin and modern NATO armor

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
701

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.

702

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

703

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

704

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.

705

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

DU in hull armour M1A2
DU in hull armour M1A21316×890 205 KB

And not one between the M1 and IPM1/M1A1.

1 Like
706

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

707

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.

708

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

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 -

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

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).

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

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

This is literally using the Swedish Trials data.

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

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

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).

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).

4 Likes
709
  • M1A1 (DU)
  • Export package

lol

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

2 Likes
710

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.

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

DOI XM-1
DOI XM-1627×1235 171 KB

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

It is.

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.

No, it’s about the IPM1/M1A1.

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

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

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

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.

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.

2 Likes
711

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.

713

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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

Which again is pertinent to the DU packages how?

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.

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

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?

For improving the XM1, maybe.

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

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).

Here’s some:

As for secondary sources:

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.”

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

They literally are: the “Frontal Armor Upgrade.”

3 Likes
714

I am still wondering how a spall liner in-between armor layers would help against internal splinters.

The most a spall liner would do if placed behind the DU backing plate but in front of the inside would absorb DU fragments, but the internal plate would make new spall inside the crew compartment.

715

Because the internal most layer facing the crew is made of dual hardness steels and so produces far less spall vs conventional HHA or RHA. Additionally it has a greater ability to stopping medium size, medium velocity fragments.

716

Well, Russia “recovered” (what’s left) of an M1, so, armor values could be changed, better or worse.

717

For non-DU Abrams [AIM].
Maybe hull if they cut it open.

718

I’m 90% sure they have for the turret cheeks.

719

Nah, they were replaced with conventional arrays for export to Ukraine.

720

Yeah, I know. I mean like 90% sure that it’s been cut apart, since they captured, like 3-4 at this point.

1 Like
721

Likely the internal plating are thin enough to not cause any lethal spalling