USA hasn’t built a new Abrams Hull since the 90’s. All variants of the Abrams since the mid to late 90’s have been built on existing Abrams Hulls. Those hulls all have the same suspension as well.
Upgrades to the hulls that can be done to an M1A1 can be done to any model thereafter.
Same. Exact. Hull.
Ergo, if an M1A1 HC can have DU hull armor than an M1A1 AIM, SA, FEP, A2, A2 SEP, A2 SEP v.2, A2 SEP v.3 and any abrams in the future can have the function. And before you get on about weight, all of those tanks can equip the TWMP. Which weighjs 4.08 metric tons.
My snapshot for winrates today shows a different picture.
I have conclusion on the Abrams hull armor from the M1 to the A2(exclude AIM and SEP+)
All Abrams hull are the same while NOT being the same
“How? You gave sources yourself that stated those listed are the same hull”
Same hull, same armor composition. But BETTER armor architecture(2nd generation chobbham improve composite/NERA thickness and give better material which would increase the protection value of the hull, and follow up by 3rd(HC/HA) and 4th generation(A2) chobbham the protection value would also be different. 3rd and 4th generation use DU BUT for the hull DU was NOT USED FOR THE HULL which mean that Abrams hull from listed model has a duality, they are the same but also NOT the same.
As for AIM and SEP their hull would be close to each other and of course better than what is on the listed abrams model above(AIM/SEP likely use 4/4.5th generation chobbham without DU for HULL or whatever heavy armor composition the Aus come up with)
SEP V2 use 5th generation chobbham with DU in the turret and without DU in the hull
SEP V3 is the latest 6th generation chobbham with DU in both hull and turret
In conclusion, composite armor generation matter
As somebody who worked the program I can confirm an M1A1 SEP V.3 hull is structurally identical to an M1A1 hull.
There is no reason you can’t do DU.
They do matter, but Gaijin can’t do anything about it because it’s all sensitive/classified. When it comes to composite armor they only have shown documents about Chally 1. The rest is pure guesswork. They could basically make the numbers whatever they want. It’s fake. All of it (excepting the Chally 1)
I feel like this is another “I am a 19kilo division sigma and delta i was in an Abrams” moment but hmmmmmmmmmmmm
suree
from what i see ingame and irl the frontal hull of abrams are about 50cm thick base on the ufp cut out, so it is likely they increase it to around 60cm or 38.1+400-480mm composite and backplate 101mm
USMC veteran and active War Thunder player Conte_Baracca shares his recollections about active service in the M1A1 Abrams, and how this tank feels in our game.
Goes for literally any tank in the entire game.
Moot point.
Can have =/= Does have.
A T-72B3 ‘‘could have’’ Relikt ERA all over it instead of Kontakt-5 as was done with the T-72B2.
But that doesn’t change the fact that T-72B3’s don’t have Relikt.
We’ve been over this many times by now, I’d be fine with armour upgrades for certain models that are new/vague enough in terms of available sources, and/or just implement the SEP v3 which is concretely known to have upgrades hulls.
But for once, I’d like to see anyone try and mention armour upgrades for M1’s without once using the term ‘‘DU’’. It seems nigh impossible these days…
In not even 2 years time, A certain country has lost around 68% of it’s supplied number of M1A1 SA’s in combat.
You’re providing me with a large wall of text, but without any sources it’s all meaningless.
Anyone can claim whatever they like regarding armour changes, that’s why referencing sources matters.
I was USMC Liaison Officer from PM Tanks (SYSCOM) to PM Abrams at TACOM from 2008-2012. My duties primarily revolved around informing PM Tanks and PM Abrams what each side was doing. I did however do user advising to General Dynamics Land Systems (I was integral to the long abandoned M1A3 project). Another key task was to seek commonality between Marine and Army projects. I also toured the Abrams production facility in Lima, Ohio.
The TWMP is compatible with both the older and newer suspension systems and comes in at 4.5 tons and it’s center of gravity is well out from the LFP. The weight really isn’t an issue. It’s the costs associated with doing so IRL. DU Armor is highly classified and toxic. You can only work on it in a special part of the Lima facility.
I operated the M1A1. The M1A1 HC (including combat) and the M1A1 FEP. I also have test drives on the T-55A and the Stryker MGS (which is tremendous pile of shit IRL). I got to crawl around on the LAV 105 too. Which didn’t work well IRL but would be FANTASTIC in War Thunder.
Your skepticism is very appropriate. This is the internet and a forum after all. But I do know what I’m talking about.
Things I assess not from personal experience. There are things I know about T-80 tanks from classified briefings but I never use that information. I just fall back to historical performance and the fundamentals of tank design. The carousel loader has significant physical limitations as well as greatly reducing tank survivability. I have worked with Canadians in an after action process for their Leo II use in Afghanistan and though it is hard to quantify it appeared to be less rugged. It’s rugged, but not as rugged as an abrams, for lots of reasons. I also think their turret layout is inferior, particularly in reference to Maing Gun ammo and their commanders weapon station is vastly inferior. The M1A1 FEP and SA/AIM have the best commanders weapon station of all the abrams and it’s power is underrepresented in the game.
I could go on. I am 1000% okay with the level of detail currently in the game. It’s a simple simulation and it’s authentic enough to give the players a good feeling they are somewhat recreating real life. Tank combat in War Thunder is NOTHING like real life, but that’s okay, mechanically the tanks are very tank like. The issue I have is that the pretend to be more accurate than they are. They present a public position that is inaccurate. I understand why, if they admit they are as ignorant as they are people would not like that. People fail to understand that given the complexity of modern tanks and the amount of details that are classified Gaijin does as good a job as anybody could reasonably expect. I genuinely think it is unfair how they treat the Abrams. DU hull armor, to me, is a no brainer for the M1A2’s, M1A1 AIM, and the SA and FEP when they get added.
Gaijin does ammunition based on balance. It gives flares to F-104S and ASA when the Italians never used them. In fact many planes in this game have CM suites because it is possible, not because it existed. The Radkampfwagon turret never could traverse IRL. I could go on.
This is a game. Top tier is not an accurate representation of real life. Of course they can give DU armor to Abrams hulls.
Don’t forget Iraq. Now what are the losses of top end Russian tanks that were actually deployed to combat???
There are no sources other than funding documents. But, since it’s all fake anyways Gaijin can do whatever they want and be just as inaccurate as they are now.
Could not function without them.
I’d also request some sources on that as I don’t think either of us are fully qualified on that topic.
Again, literally wouldn’t function without it.
M1 functions perfectly adequately as it is, the M1A2 SEP being on the upper end of the various 12.0 MBT’s in War Thunder.
So once again I come back to my T-72 example: Are you in favour of the T-72B3 receiving comprehensive Relikt coverage? The T-72B3 is currently one of the worst MBT’s in top-tier matchmaking, clearly that would qualify as it being justified in your eyes.
Pre-war estimates were around 80-160 T-90M produced.
Production of T-90M’s has been on-going with estimates being around 90 per year. We’re now 3 years into this conflict, and 127 vehicles are listed as lost in combat.
