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.
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.
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.
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.
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
That SEPv3 chart includes all add-on armor (ERA, mine kit), without which it weighs ~62 tonnes
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.
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
Neither do later hulls, save for the well known 5 examples.
Show it?
You’re arguing that the armour values currently seen in-game are underperforming, that includes the hull armour.
A historian isn’t isn’t considered a primary source, similarly, Frank Lobitz and his works on the Leopard series of vehicles aren’t considered primary source material either.
Furthermore, in every single interview I’ve ever seen not a single crew member claims the M1’s have spall liners.
???
You believe a shockwave resulting from penetration with AP projectiles is enough to break apart steel plates?
None of what you just said explains how the backing plate is preventing from generating fragments upon the body of a projectile piercing it.
Like I said, others have alreayd debunked this claims in some of the threads you’ve linked, none of this makes any sense.
Again, show me.
It states 1300mm CE protection @ 60 degree frontal arc for the M1A1 HA, that’s massively in excess of anything I’ve ever seen for it’s estimates.
Claiming this source is only pessimistic about US protection levels whilst it showcases these massively high CE protection values seems rather doubtful to me.
2 Likes
That is debatable, but again this whole thing is about the tanks that could have DU hulls which is why I question why the original M1 is being used in a debate about DU.
BRL Report, DTIC_ADA300522: Shows that at the very least the hull armor (whether it included DU or not, but given the context of the page it is assumed to include DU) could be improved by 35% in KE and 25% in CE.
This talks about a weight reduction program that used titanium specifically, rather than all of the weight reducing programs the M1A2 went under. From this document, we know that the M1A2 underwent other weight-reducing programs and that not all of the weight-reducing programs used titanium:
Plus in the original NSIAD-90-57 document, the listed items for weight reduction that could be included in the titanium weight reduction program were the “composite items.” If we were to take the worst-case scenario and say that the 1100 lbs of titanium-based weight reduction in the armor were the only composite items changed, the weight reduction in total would still be 2.75 tons.
Unless I’ve forgotten something, in terms of hull and armor improvements I’ve been talking about the M1A2(/M1A1HA or later).
The CAT document is a bit more rigorous than from what I can see of Frank Lobitz works, but technically it is secondary, that’s my bad.
The crew members of an Abrams wouldn’t be able to see a spall liner, though, if it is integrated into the armor.
That is what spall is, yes. Most of the spall generated is from the armor being broken down and tugged along, so if you can limit the amount of spall being created through liners within the armor, you have a spall liner. Visually, the idea looks something like this (from this comment):
If you want a more mathematical view on the idea of suppressing spall itself rather than just catching it, this document underlines the idea. In their testing they try spall liners directly behind the aluminum plate they test, but that:
Description of GA0700 (Source document):
Refers to “fielded Abrams family of vehicles and the Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) RECAP Programs”.
Description of GA0750:
Refers specifically to “M1/M1A1 tanks”.
It’s on par with the Soviet estimates of the M1A1HA’s CE protection.
If that wasn’t the case, the article specifically emphasizes how light ceramic/glass composites can withstand early model antitank missiles and that Soviet tanks with reactive armor on top of the glass/ceramic composite are “quite likely” to defeat all deployed antitank missiles in the world.
6 Likes
you realize people already showed necrons this, he doesnt care.
The 5 tanks that historically used DU hulls aren’t even in-game since we don’t have the M1A1 HA.
Yes, I’m very familiar with this report and I’ve already addressed this: Developed & tested =/= Fielded on production vehicles.
I already gave the example of the German Leopard 2 fleet not using the applique hull armour dispite it having been developed for 25+ years already.
We have several documents which cite that budget limitations, production limitations and reductions in program budget due to the fall of the Soviet Union have led to several upgrades not being fielded as was initially planned.
If you have evidence that this upgrade did in fact make it into production, I’d love to see it.
Which use the same hull armour as the M1A1.
Either way, if you believe the hull armour was substantially improved, I’d like to see evidence for that as well.
So firstly, if multiple steel plates of significant thickness aren’t able to resist this spalling, what makes you think a Kevlar liner would?
Secondly, that’s the body of the penetrator breaking up, if that penetrates through and strikes the inner armour plate of the fighting compartment, that’s still going to generate spalling.
You’ve still not addressed how the backing plate is prevented from spalling itself.
So this talks about HEAT penetration and not APFSDS as I’ve been referring to.
It also doesn’t mention spall liners, simply that composite armour consists of layers that can be optimized to reduce spalling. I see no reason why this method would be unique to an Abrams or even how it demands the use of Kevlar or any other spall liner material.
If the AIM featured improved frontal armour, why is it not listed in the line dedicated to AIM improvements?
‘‘Common Abrams modifications’’
It once again mentions ''TIGER" and ‘‘Side armor upgrades’’ which we know are modifications that were already carried out in 1999 on the original SEP variant. This source is again listing modifications that were already made on previous versions relative to the M1/M1A1 series of vehicles.
You’ve also shown that the very same source points this out for the M1A2 SEP, why would this then not be applicable to the SEP v2 and AIM?
We’re also starting to go in circles here…
2 Likes
The limit was removed in August of 2006.
None of this means that specifically the upgraded hull was not put onto vehicles, there are other places that the budget cuts could have hit.
We don’t have anything that suggests this, though. There’s been no document that I’ve seen that shows the BRL hull (or some other design) was not implemented.
The thickness of multiple steel sheets is in itself a major cause of spalling. To quote ADA143173, “if the target is relatively thick, the shock wave will propagate through the material and reflect from a parallel free surface as a rarefaction wave, so that the normal stress will be substantially zero. Hopkinson pointed out that such an interaction could result in a net tension behind the free surface, whose value could exceed the ability of the material to maintain its integrity and hence would account for the spalling phenomenon. The amplitude of the reflected waves may be of sufficient magnitude to produce fractures near and approximately parallel to the surface. The portion of the target material between the fracture and the rear surface is known as the ‘spall’. The energy trapped in this spall may cause a rear surface bulge; or, if sufficiently great, the material may become detached from the target creating a shrapnel effect. The fracture will be formed if the tensile stress reaches the critical dynamic strength of the material.”
The dynamic strength of Kevlar is much better than steel.
The image shows an example of several layers with different dynamic strengths causing the force from the penetrator to be lessened enough to allow for non-fractured deformation of the final 12 and 14 layers. There will still be spall generated from the innermost armor layer, but the amount of spall generated from that innermost layer is dependent on the thickness of that layer. If the innermost layer is thin, then there will be very little spall to be created in the first place. The difference between having the integrated liner and not having one at all is the amount of spall that can be generated, since when there isn’t a liner more material can be sheared from the innermost layer (or even layers that aren’t the innermost).
It explicitly states that “the principle for total elimination of spallation for a target perforated by a shaped charge jet is embodied in an armor system composed of layers of materials having different thicknesses and specific impedances,” which means that using brittle and ductile materials in repeated combination (steel and Kevlar, for example) can eliminate spalling. I.e., if you integrate liner(s) into armor, you can eliminate spalling.
This applies to KE penetrators as well, as spalling as a phenomenon is caused by shockwaves (which occur in both KE and CE target-projectile interactions). I found a variety of sources talking about this:
- https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0705536.pdf (tensile stress, shock waves, spall fractures)
- https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA507994.pdf (tensile stress, shock wave propagation, reflected wave, relation between target thickness and spall surface size)
- https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA585331.pdf (tensile stress, compression/recompression shocks)
Because the improved frontal armor applies to all fielded Abrams vehicles:
Going from 2004/2005 onward, there was a different designation to the Frontal Armor modification and the majority of the funding for that period was under “other” rather than equipment/installation kits, etc… If I had to guess, this is when the larger-scale roll out of hull DU was (it would be more definite if the 1999 budget justification included categories to GA0750’s armor modification).
6 Likes
A lot of documents being thrown around. A lot of numbers
I just want to point out that this is all the UNCLASSIFIED data.
They are helpful to a point.
I’m actually fine with Gaijin using all of these numbers. I don’t really care about that. I just don’t want people running around thinking this is some sort of definitive answer.
The purpose of this thread is mostly to argue for DU for the front hull of all M1A1 HC and above tanks in the tree.
It should be there based upon all publicly available information and it’s protection should be guesstimated based on weight if available.
The reason gaijin have given for NOT giving DU armor to the hull are ignorant and unfair.
For most of the rest of the conversation here it is quibbling over marginally accurate data.
Russia and China lie about their equipment and NATO countries released unclassified “sanitized” versions of their armor. Nothing in this game is wholly accurate and arguing about it is silly.
1 Like
I mean true, but within the bounds of publicly available information, there are still arguments to be had about protection (of which I think its clear that DU in the hulls of Abrams was done).
1 Like
What a prime example of double standarts
1 Like
Sources for the SEP and SEPv2 stated turret and hull armor upgrades. It may have been intentionally gimping the Abrams from the beginning but now I think after their devblog it’s a pride issue on their part. They can’t back down now.
Show them.
1 Like
GA0750 I No. 17
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
Good plan.
1 Like
I repeat: Show it.
1 Like
On second thought you are right. I have seen new sources that state the M1 Abrams family went through zero armor upgrade programs throughout its life. All DU packages were for space constraints in the armor to provide better load distribution on the front suspension system by moving the CG backwards. No armor improvements in terms of KE or CE were noticed. Due to budgetary constrictions many advanced materials originally present in the M1s have been removed, significantly reducing armor protection in all M1s.
Sources: NROC 385 page 2.
FY 2007 budget justification Item 14.
1 Like
This guy… AGAIN. I don’t know whether to feel sorry for you or just laugh.
1 Like