Which could easily include the modifying of the turret rotation mechanism to be able to support the heavier M1A2 turret compared to the turret previously mounted on older hulls.
It is simply not proof there is DU in the front of the hull.
2 Likes
It seems Gaijin is more interested in gaslighting the community about western vehicles rather than changing things based on publicly available data. A la this post here.
“ The protection in an armoured vehicle is a model based on available open information. In some cases, it might be calculated based on publicly available data. Examples are photos and videos of destroyed vehicles. In other cases, protection will be assessed only on the appearance of the vehicle, the location and size of the armour modules, as well as possible threats and requirements that could be presented during the development of the vehicle. ”
Given this. Even taking for example “possible threats and requirements that could be presented during the development of the vehicle” 3BM46 was already in service by the Sep Programs introduction. Which has upwards of 500mm flat pen. An INFERENCE can be made that the protection must AT LEAST achieve something like this.
But none of that matters. The gaslighting is completely ridiculous with cherry picked sources.
They seem to assume that the correct method is not having complete data on something does not call for an estimate to be made based upon it, the only option is to omit it entirely.
We know the torsion bars were upgraded, we know the hull limit was removed. And we know the weight went up, and we know the new weight was simulated.
It has DU. Period. Stop with this nonsense.
There is a very clear bias here.
22 Likes
@Stona_WT please check this source. is it credible enough to confirm the existence of DU hull armor on production variants?
2 Likes
unless it explicitly states what in the hull is being reworked then this source is too vague and certainly doesnt disprove DU when almost every source primary/secondary state DU in the hull with estimated protection valuues.
1 Like
…but they stated they dont know the difference of 2nd and 3rd gen DU…LOL!!!
2 Likes
I just posted a souce saying the suspension was upgraded to handle the increased rate. This here says M1A1HA has DU.
18 Likes
Iraqi tanks were unable to penetrate it anywhere, at least we have that as a benchmark
1 Like
Looks like only Russia is allowed to have armor on their tanks, im so happy that if my aim is off by even a couple pixels the ERA armor on russian tanks will eat my entire round as the sabot disappears into the void.
The Abrams are all really just copy pastes of each other at this point, does Gaijin really believe that the Abrams never received upgrades to its armor packages and the US just doesn’t care about the performance of its MBT after several decades of making newer and better versions of the Abrams. This is pathetic and a middle finger to the players, there is no longer any reason to play any nation that isnt russia, and my motivation to continue playing is slowly dwindling.
20 Likes
Haha, I love this, from the IPM1 to the M1A2 SEP V2 they have the same armor, it seems that the American designers are like the Russians, inventing statistics to be the same old garbage.
Now seriously, then if they all have the same armor, why did they create the M1A1HC (Heavy common) or the M1A1HA (Heavy Armored) if the armor increase is only in the name? Where are the different generations of armor of the M1A1 and M1A2? The thing is that even on Wikipedia you can find all the submodels well explained, and to be honest, I trust Wikipedia more than the data that says that the Abrams are wearing the same armor in 2023 as in 1987, my God, it’s simply Ridiculous, that doesn’t even happen to the T-72, since there are differences in the models from the beginning of the 80s to those from the end of the 80s, between A and B, between B from a certain year to other years later, and replaced the abrams with the same armor since 1987.
12 Likes
“Has DU” can mean in the front turret, which is what Gaijin thinks.
You need sources which unambigously specify that a variant has DU hull armour.
1 Like
The NRC specifically states “Radiation readings are no higher than 0.5 mrkr or 0.005 mSv/hr on the external surfaces of turrets containing DU packages in the M1 series tanks. The DU packages in the turret and hull become the DU Armor for the turret and HULL” what more do you want it to say? 😂 would you like a document saying there’s depleted uranium specifically located in front on the hull approximately 1000lbs and 200000 inches thick Longitude 39.9292929.92929 Latitude 2918.82828.818 😂
11 Likes
do you have this source somewhere? cannot find where you posted this
The NRC is classifying it that way because the upper hull becomes irradiated by the proximity to the Turret composites.
Hence it becomes an issue of contamination. They are treated as one for this reason.
It was stated in a congressional budget office release in an earlier post thats indisputable.
2 Likes
These have been provided, please attempt to read.
2 Likes
Denying the Abrams having spall liner and improved armor despite everything provided by the community.
Galaxy-level clownery.
18 Likes
Quote it.
Do your own legwork
1 Like
“The DU packages in the turret and hull become the DU Armor for the turret and hull.” What part of DU packages for the turret and hull do you not understand? It literally says it right there broddie
2 Likes