lmao
quite literally yes it is stating that the lowest armor provided by the turret cheeks in a 60 degree frontal arc is 600mm which is almost exactly the in game value
protip: angle is not measured in meters squared.
That’s not the GD export package :^)
it is though, I really dont know how you can be stupid enough to think that this is depicting a domestic US M1A2
nope
and even the other image indicates turret cheeks offering 600mm+ at 30 degrees
explain to me why in the swedish governments consideration of purchasing the abrams they would need to have armor values not relevant to the tank they are purchasing
also both of the armor packages in the other image would have been US designed and both were stated to be inferior to the domestic package at the time
It is relevant, Sweden was on the market for MBTs before the US self imposed embargoes on Depleted Uranium armour packages and would display upgrade potential over the non-DU package.
- “svensky skydd” = (Swedish Protection)
- US designedTM
any more flailing and cope?
= package designed for sweden (later was also used in greek trials)
= originally tested package
no it is not as abrams began trials after DU armor was prohibited for export, and that still doesnt explain why the US would allow their clasified armor values to be contained and eventualy publicly published in a swedish report
This was never intended for publication
the arc protection chart is still labelled secret btw
1 Like
if they wanted to display upgrade potential they would list the dimensions of the array, not the protection values of an array they wont get technical details on until it is outdated
thickness of the array would be much more beneficial there as it would provide direct comparisons between other vehicles
that doesnt matter, what if the swedish government decided to sell the information or something, there is a lot of risk if that is a chart for domestic armor that doesnt make sense considering the circumstances
the former is redundant when you have access to the tank and GD engineers for the purposes of recreating the array for ballistic tests
more cope
you are selling a modern state of the art Main Battle Tank, there are more systems than the armour array that would still be classified, you are going to have to divulge and entrust information like this on the export market
except it is still much more useful information than the protection of an array that you dont know the details of
yes but you are not selling a variant with that armor, there is literally no reason to divulge information on a system that you are not selling
you are just coping tbh hf
you are the one just claiming that a chart is showing the armor values of a tank that is not relevant to the sited report with literally no sources indicating that it is for a US m1a2
this is “M1A2 SEPv2” with the projectile being m829a2 from 1500m which game says 601mm pen, the area in the middle is penetration possible and as you can see around 50% of turret area visable offers less than that, which is what the swedish rated the armor package they tested as
this is obj.292 at point blank which is estimated as just under 700mm, which the second armor package proposed for sweden should be able to stop according to their graphics and yet the “M1A2 SEPv2” does not in game
if anything this is less angled than depicted in the info graphic as seen by the base of CITV overlapping with the edge of cupola in the info graphic while a visible gap in the in game testing
it looks like gaijin copied armor values for the abrams from the armor package that the swedish tested, and have modeled no improvement in between abrams variants after M1A1 HC or M1A2 in the tech tree
so I stand by my claim that all the top tier abrams in game are actually depictions of theoretical swedish abrams, some of which having improved optics and TUSK kit
1 Like
Gaijin seems to believe that the Swede armor packages are literally the best in the west, and no other nation can hope to match their technology without heavy ERA (which NATO does not make use of). (See Leopard 2A7 protection vs Strv 122A protection) It wouldn’t surprise me if the eventual addition of the M1A2 SEPv3 also has functionally identical protection to the M1A1 AIM.
I doubt we can ever expect the armor protection of the Abrams improve too much, aside from making the turret ring area volumetric to help with autocannon spam. Lest the USA decide to call the Abrams obsolete and declassfy it. Something confirmed not to happen for quite some time.