Gaijin and modern NATO armor

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
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

722

I guess Abrooms players need 2 sec reload now.
Leclerk mains have to give sources and wait years while someone can suck at the game and whine on forums.

Hell this is so hypocritical when you consider there’s several nations that get constantly denied any reload imporvement not by just developer’s but also by community, even if they have official documents and sources.

2 Likes
723

Isnt applicable to M1 series due to M1 CATTB having different crew compartment and having only 2 crewman instead of 3, having much more space given to just storing ammo & autoloader than original serial M1’s, crew being all in turret.

724

it was never amended to just the turret, since the document started in 1992 after they already started added D.U to both the turret and hulls of the abrams.

725

No, you implied that this DU package might as well be an export package.

So they talk about the fact that Russian composite armour and Kontakt-1 ERA have proven to be highly effective counters to chemical energy weapons developed in the West… That’s just true though.

They also state that the Soviet Union had created a gap in armour development over the US during a significant period of the Cold War… again, for a large portion that’s just true.

And even if their estimates on Soviet equipment are indeed overestimated, how does that invalidate their American estimates?

No, I asked you to provide me with sources that give armour values in excess of those listed in the Swedish trails which prove that the domestically produced M1’s have significantly improved protection.

You never did.

And yet Rickard Lindström says that the armour evaluation on the diagram is based off of domestic US testing using the best protection package available.

Now it’s been publicly made clear that the M1A2 suffered in the Swedish trails because it’s armour was not on-par with that of the Leopard 2 Improved. I don’t doubt for a moment that GDLS went on full damage control with their following statements.

Could the Swedish trails M1A2 have had inferior protection? Possibly.
You’ve still not shown what the armour of a Domestically operated M1A2 should be however, you’ve still stuck on square one.

Hulls don’t feature DU.

Weight reductions were carried out. Again, this is why I suspect the turret side improvements could be carried out.

image
image1171×873 85.2 KB

It’s also very clear that the weight restrictions were largely just ignored with the SEP v3, and that it’s sudden jump in significant weight gains makes sense given it’s stated armour improvements.

Abrams weight limitations

So we see a 2.3 ton increase in weight between the M1 and M1A1, which we know featured armour improvements.
Then another 2.6 ton increase for the M1A1 HA and 3.5 ton to the M1A1 SA.
Then suddenly there’s only a 2.5 ton increase between the following FIVE variants, which is followed by another 2.5 ton increase with the SEP v3 which we again know features armour improvements.

afbeelding
afbeelding1078×356 106 KB

An Independent Assessment of the Next Generation Armor/Anti-Armor Strategy

And then evaluates the best course of action when it comes to improvements being made into IPM1/M1A1 development.

So a secondary source by a country which does not even operate the M1?

‘‘Spall liners are a low-risk option and in use on many armored vehicles.’’

Okay?
I never said spall liners aren’t used on armoured vehicles. Nowhere in this document does it claim they are used on M1’s.

This just says that Kevlar can be used inside of armour composition, not that it specifically functions as a spall liner when utilized in that manner. (And why would it when there’s a steel plate behind it?)

This one somehow claims the XM-1 during it’s very earliest days of development featured a spall liner, not only am I very skeptical of that, it also doesn’t mean anything for the production versions.

I’m also still waiting to hear how a spall liner functions when there’s a spall-generating steel plate covering the interior of the fighting compartment without any measures to catch said spall generation.
I’m also pretty sure I’ve seen other users push back on this and that you were unable to provide any valid reasoning behind this idea.

Already debunked all of that in previous replies. Why does it seem the M1 abrams is extremely underwhelming? - #98 by zuadao

2 Likes
726

That SEPv3 chart includes all add-on armor (ERA, mine kit), without which it weighs ~62 tonnes

image
image1920×1091 136 KB

The one thing I don’t get from that chart is how it would suddenly weigh 4.3 tons (3.9 tonnes) more when APS is added, when the APS weighs like 2.5 tonnes max.

727

Again, without having access to the full article their “DU” numbers may be based off of export non-DU packages.

Because the whole point of the rest of the article is to be pessimistic, hence it is logical to assume that their estimates are pessimistic as well? Plus, without the full article we cannot tell what they are even basing their numbers off of.

The BRL report shows how much the armor is improved when adding DU.

The best the US would give Sweden (so no DU), yes.

It’s talking about the original M1, then yes the hulls of the original M1 do not have DU.

Again, provide some actual sources that I can go and double check, not some copy-pasted images.

Which has what to do with the DU packages?

It is a primary source written by a U.S. Army Armor Branch Historian from the U.S. Army Armor School stating that the M1 has a spall liner.

As I said in the parentheses, this source is proof that spall liners do not just need to be the curtain-type:

"Spall liners can either be used for added safety in case the armor system is overmatched or can be factored in as an integral part of the protection system, where the energy-absorbing properties of the fiber are exploited. "

The source above explains how it would function as a spall liner, and this one supports that by acknowledging the existence of Kevlar integrated into the armor.

Curtain Type Spall Liners: round hits armor → shockwaves move through armor composite → shockwave meets the innermost surface → shockwave breaks parts of the innermost surface, generating spall → spall liner catches generated spall

Integrated Spall Liners: round hits armor → shockwaves move through armor composite → shockwave meets integrated spall liner → spall liner absorbs most if not all of the shockwave → the remnants of the shockwave (if they exist) reach the innermost surface → reduced shockwave is not enough to break the innermost surface, or a reduced amount of the surface breaks → a reduced amount of spall (if any at all) is generated

This only addresses GA0750, not GA0700 which includes more than just M1/M1A1 tanks.

1 Like