block II also might not have had hull DU only improved hull armor
1 Like
There was a fan blowing next to the holes that weren’t specific where they were welded. Material could have been blown by the fan. The report doesn’t specify there isn’t a fan blowing in the room where it could have blown material.
Without specifying where the holes were made and what DU panel it was you cannot take this as evidence of DU in the side armor.
-Gaijin logic’d again!
Multiple different armour packages were created for the Block II:
Edit - BRL = Ballistic Research Laboratory:
1 Like
Survivability enhancements could just describe increased survivability of the armor under repeated hits that isn’t modeled in War Thunder.
-Gaijin logic.
1 Like
yes i was aware
R&D tests for armor doesn’t prove that it was implemented in production vehicles.
-Gajin’s previous response to this document.
1 Like
block II also added roof armor
Survivability enhancements could just describe increased survivability of the armor under repeated hits that isn’t modeled in War Thunder.
No, the armour package weighed a significant amount:
The multi-hit armour was already incorporated in all M1s produced since 1990, that’s what HAP-2 was (plus a CE improvement).
Here’s the SA and HA sources I was talking about:
5 Likes
Bro look who posted that those pictures lmao I literally made that last pic. You think I’m fighting you but I’m just pushing back with Gaijin’s own existing responses and logic from past bug reports that I submitted…
1 Like
I know it was you lol, ayeflyingcowboy just wanted the sources for the 1990’s DU armor
Yea I have already seen that, I though you had something new, the SA always had a possibility of having the DU hull as it was from the mid - late 2000s.
Also I already know the M1A1 HA has DU?
This document only lists that the Block II armor weighed extra and it says not all armor was to be added. The extra weight doesn’t correlate to increased resistance to KE or Chemical rounds. This extra weight could be explained by increased protection against repeat hits, or more durability to specific round type but not another.
This document doesn’t give you any indication that the hull should be improved.
-This would be Gaijin’s logic and response.
I’m not kidding that you need a smoking gun and the devs will still ask to see the footage of the bullet being fired. Gaijin will not accept any suggestions based on conjecture. You and I might hate it but this is the rules they play by.
3 Likes
I thought you asked for the sources though
For the SA with DU hull, I just thought you had something new that’s all.
Pretty much this.
Short of a signed letter from the US Government stating there is DU in the hull and giving you a protection estimate, Gaijin is going to continue clinging to the Swedish trials much to our ever wonderful headache.
SA having DU hull argument is based on the HA or HA+ having DU hull. The SA is just the next iteration in the upgrade chain and gets all the previous updates of HA.
If HA can be proved to have DU hull than essentially M1A1 HC, M1A1 AIM, M1A2 and SEP/SEP2 would be updated.
Agreed, I’m doing some light trolling here because I think people need to understand this conjecture will never stack up against hard data. The only hard data we have is from those trials. The test data is skewed because the DU was specifically removed for those trials. Without alternative values attached to a specific production model nothing will work.
We need a document that says “M1A1 HC has depleted uranium in the front hull plate and offers protection of 590mm protection.” We might be able to get away with “M1A1 HC has DU in the lower hull plate” and another document saying "DU armor in the hull plate provides 590mm protection, but chances are slim.
Seeing docs say “Increased survivability” paired with no production variant or generalized description of “Frontal armor was increased” will never work. Its been tried 20x times at this point.
3 Likes
This document only lists that the Block II armor weighed extra and it says not all armor was to be added. The extra weight doesn’t correlate to increased resistance to KE or Chemical rounds. This extra weight could be explained by increased protection against repeat hits, or more durability to specific round type but not another.
All of this is completely irrelevant to what me and neatspartan were talking about.
Regardless the increased weight doesn’t explain the increased protection against repeat hits, the M1A2 already received that improvement which is why it has an improved DU armour package to the M1A1 HA… It also wasn’t due to an improvement in CE protection as the Brits helped the US with that in 1989/1990 and the M1A1 HC/HA+ and M1A2 likewise received that armour.
Edit: Even tech mods will tell you the M1s from 1990 received multi-hit capable armour.
This document doesn’t give you any indication that the hull should be improved.
Explain the extra 3.6 short tons.
This document doesn’t give you any indication that the hull should be improved.
-This would be Gaijin’s logic and response.
Gaijin has already acknowledged there were 5 M1s DU hulls, these hulls were most likely tested in the M1A1 Block II which why with all of the armour it weighed 3.6 short tons more then the M1A2s do, remember the non-DU to DU turret armour increased the M1A1s weight by “only” 2.6 short tons.
This would be my response.
In the post this thread is attached too they literally said:
If we consider other projections, possible changes to the armor of the Abrams over its various modifications may not have directly resulted in an increase in the actual protection of the armor itself. These changes could rather have been aimed at increasing the armor filler’s survivability upon impact (which is an element not currently modeled in the game). Because of this, without hard numbers and solid facts confirming a tangible increase in protection, we can’t alter the protection currently offered by the armor on the M1 series.
You might think I’m being obtuse but this is verbatim what they said. They don’t accept “increased survivability” as a term.