They’ll just copy the SEPv2 in terms of armor and slap a V3 behind it lmao.
People will ask them about it and they’ll respond “well we have no actual values so we don’t believe the actual effectiveness of the armor was increased, now piss off”.
I do not, but they have been shared around.
While true that there are other ways of reducing spall, the primary two Spall Liner types are metal linings on the interior of the turret and fabric linings on the interior of the Turret.
Two examples of this are the Leopards with metal linings and the T-90M with a fabric lining.
Fabric linings tend to be lighter but are also weaker. The tradeoff is that they also fit over equipment easier.
Metal linings are heavier and take up much more space, but they eat significantly more spall.
1 Like
And many others who served claim otherwise. Being in the Military doesn’t make your right. There are many who claim things that simply aren’t true.
Luckily, my friend is joining the US military as a Tanker, so I’ll probably have some more hands on information soon.
okay i’ve looked at that document further.
-
its not a primary source, its a private company putting forth a computer model for engineers to use as a preliminary assessment of performance change in the event of a new feature implementation.
-
its just that, a computer model. no real world info can come from this looking forward.
-
its from 1996. even if the information in there is correct, its outdated.
-
the calculations they have used for spall liners make absolutely no sense. they have used a previous estimation of a “Future Armored Resupply Vehicle” (i.e a truck) using x amount of weight for spall liner, then for some reason divided that by number of crew (??). then taken that per crew weight and made a guess that the same is true for all other vehicles and made it x 4 for the Abrams. that makes no sense since A LOT of the liner protects several crew at the same time in an Abrams.
-
what they have calculated for spall liner is for use in the computer simulation(and apparently involved guesswork), not actual real life Abrams numbers. what the added weight for Abrams would be we can’t at all tell from that document.
-
even if the “Since the Abrams tank does not use a spall liner” information is correct, that goes for pre 1996 tanks. so any M1A2 SEP variant comes after that.
-
page 10 outlines the limitations of the computer model:
“The desire to keep GVSI an unclassified model limited survivability
characterizations to representative threats and an unclassified survivability
database developed by the US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
(AMSAA).” -
the newest source they themselves have used for their research is from 1994, while most of the sources used are from the 1980’s. making the data even more outdated.
-
since they had to use external sources i’m starting to believe that this report even is a third party source and not even a secondary source (but this is just a personal feeling more than fact).
i’m doubting that paper more and more and i don’t think it would be an acceptable source in almost any situation.
10 Likes
Oh, is that so?
73.6 short tons = 66.7 metric tons.
77.9 short tons = 70.6 metric tons
The Military is weight conscious of the Abrams. Seeing how the V4 was cancelled partially because of just that. Without a Spall Liner, the V3 already clocks in at nearly 70 tons. What you’re doing isn’t using evidence. It’s making assumptions based on technology and budget.
No, what I am doing is looking at what the military has been doing since 2014/2015 i.e. the US had already developed an advanced UHMWPE by said time:
Interestingly at the same time the SEPv3s new NGAP/NEA armour was further being tested:
UHMWPE is known to help negate spalling i.e. it is a spall liner built into the actual tank armour that would replace the old material used by the M1s. The M1A2 SEPv3s armour being renamed to the Next Generation Armour Package / Next Evolution armour wasn’t an accident, it uses next generation armour.
The problem with the M1 is they really needed to actually change what should have been changed years ago i.e. they could have reduced weight if they wanted to by incorporating the XM360, this alone would reduce the M1s weight by 1 metric ton, they also should have incorporated the hybrid power pack which likewise reduces weight as less fuel is needed, etc etc.
TRADOC even knew back in 2014 that if they fully incorporated what they knew about armour materials they could reduce the M1s armour weight by 31.7% (armour weight from 40.7 down to 27.8) whilst keeping the SEPs protection levels the same. It now being 9 years after this means they likely can get this weight down even more.
This is why the SEPv4 was cancelled and the M1E3 is being developed.
10 Likes
I just want this game to stay relatively impartial instead of becoming a credibledefence tier meme like “Command: Modern Operations”
It seems reasonable, but to be honest Gaijin already uses estimates, they just aren’t estimates popular with NATO players.
I say the future of the game will be much more interesting once we expand into prototype territory, CATTB and so on. I think that’s the solution, instead of praying for M1E3 or whatever to turn up and be implemented as a dream car.
At least personally I would prefer this game become more like WoT. Keep the realistic WT mechanics, make them more realistic, but allow feasible napkin vehicles. I think this would allow everyone to have many interesting vehicles and allow for tech trees to be properly filled out. I don’t support a move away from realistic damage models or mechanics, if Gaijin can wave their magic wand and turn M247 into a functional vehicle, or fit the proper turret on Radkampfwagen 90, I don’t know why we can’t realise napkin vehicles.
Completely flawed conclusions based on erroneous assumptions and estimates using export variants confirmed to have different armor compositions than the model Gaijin claims to represent.*
Fixed that for you. Also, Russian armor is overperforming, and have artificially buffed mantlets.
9 Likes
Which battles proved that Nato tanks superior then Russian (Formerly Soviet) in the same segment face the same segment, or you just want T-72M face M1A2 like the US did with Iraq ?
- Currently, T-80BVM, T-90M, T-72B3, Leo 2A6, Challenger 2 (which is have not seen since 5 of them smoked out and Britain don’t want it get to the frontline anymore) and Merkava Mk4 with Trophy, most of them knocked out by FPV (top attacks) and Arty, but you saw some of it lost and claim that it’s bad show how copes you are with your glorious M1, now i still waiting for Abrams (which is detonated by some good old RPG-7 since Iraq) to show what it can peform since Leo 2A6 far better then M1A2 (every models BTW).
- Then what, now everyone just want cope cages and anti drone/FPV system, which is Russian still has the most experience with it since the conflict and their tank still has better base platform (which is heavy ERA with thich roof armor on it), the barebone still got room for upgrade, unlike Abrams, sides too thin, roof too thin, btw show me which NATO tanks currently has >30mm of roof with anti-FPV/Drone system that get into service (and since when Trophy design to stop FPV)
- Also, thousand of tanks (no sources) destroyed in Syria, yeah, i can say that Turkish Leo 2A4 still happy with your claim though, and yeah, RPG-29/30 and all other Russian cheapo anti tank weapon waiting for Abrams.
1 Like
No, in 2018 it was till going through trials. Gdls was not awarded the contract till late 2020.
Abrams have survived hits from RPG-29s lol.
…and yeah, thousands of tanks were lost in the Syrian civil war, lol.:
You can find every destroyed Abrams ever documented…even counting the recoverable losses, and over the entire service of the Abrams, the total was less than 100 “destroyed.” Going off the old LostArmour site before they took down other conflicts. Guess the contrast was a little too embarrassing for the Russian armor. XD
3 Likes
kek
9 Likes
Russian deathtrap enjoyers big mad. XD
8 Likes
Multiple nations purchased T-72
Multiple conflict
Losses duo to destroyed or abandoned because it’s actual fighting
→ Procceed to set it’s perfomance
No country bought M1 or any US vehicles ever got into serious conflict and face real-weapons (because they are the guy who made conflict)
No Abrams destroyed
→ Self-earning
1 Like
It’s really impressive how hard Russian tanks die. More Russian tanks have violently disintegrated in under two years than Abrams have ever been knocked out in battle over the entirety of its service life. XD
5 Likes
Unfortunately we lack sufficient evidence to disprove their conclusions.
I’m curious what you think about the information I posted above, where an M1A1 with 19mm steel added to the front turret is seen as interchangeable with an M1A1HA?
In other words, accurately demonstrating known design flaws in T-90 welded turrets.
So we should ignore generational advantage engagements.
But here it’s back to 73 Easting and so on.
As I understand, coalition forces included AMX-30’s and Challengers, of which none were lost. Does this make them indestructible? There’s nuance to these things and you don’t seem to acknowledge it in many cases.
Not hard to find Leopards and (Obviously monkey models without the magic DU) Abrams getting blown up by a variety of things.
War Thunder would completely stop being of any interest to me if it just became a game so totally dedicated to portraying the already extremely common US military historiographic perspective. There are enough other games slavishly devoted to such a monotonous chanting of “U S A” ad infinitum.
Very extremely neutral OSINT moment.
We will wait to see if two nations equipped with Leopards or export Abrams engage in some kind of peer conflict to get a comparable situation.
For now you’re not speaking to actually meaningful comparisons, but some kind of “gotcha” ragebait or whatever. It’s not meaningful or nuanced analysis.
I respect how you have provided significant evidence centrally related to the topic of Abrams armour.
I wonder if the tankies can find the photos of the claimed Abrams losses…
Something something no sources.
3 Likes
Nah man you dont get it, the world they live in, they can machine gun the breach into nothing.
1 Like
No, they were not, trials began in 2015 and in 2017/2018 they started being procured, all the contract is it becoming formal, i.e. M1A1s were already being upgraded to SEPv3 in 2017 and 2018, this is also why the Army weight document has them being from 2017:
FYI 1 - 5 is the normal figure for testbed (usually 5), as of the 2018 budget they would have had 215 SEPv3s before the contract in 2020, so no they were not still testing the SEPv3 in 2018 it was in service.
Most my wandering down rabbit hulls convinced me the same regarding gulf war era M1A1’s.
Front page to show unclassified
Spoiler
There was a massive push to find out what caused the gulf war sickness in the late 90s to mid 2000s and the military was keen to prove it wasn’t linked and keep their armor/shells, there’s a lot of unclassified papers and research out there involving its safety and radiation levels.
If the hull of the gulf war era A1’s had DU it should be mentioned in the 1996 guidelines in dealing with DU if the encapsulating steel is compromised or the various studies involving radiation exposure to the crew.
It did surprise me how relatively thin those plates are, there’s two images of the same uparmored tank on alamy, the bolts on the side of the breech make a good reference.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-23rd-march-1991-a-us-army-soldier-sits-on-his-m1a1-abrams-tank-in-83202581.html?imageid=452D9ECD-9F94-492F-AE78-29514A195A69&p=257184&pn=1&searchId=1bc319a75625aa2a4c8e66912da884a2&searchtype=0
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-23rd-march-1991-us-army-soldiers-with-their-m1a1-abrams-tank-in-the-83202579.html?imageid=4F00C339-D235-4638-9C2F-1D9BE75BF612&p=257184&pn=1&searchId=c2509b379c06755c48de322fa29927be&searchtype=0
Its just the hole I dug down hoping something would lead to the A2 and all I’ve stumbled across is the previously mentioned BRL-2 hull
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA300522.pdf
2 Likes
The findings of the ongoing war in Ukraine have led to the cancellation of research on 130+mm guns. This is because even the DM53 projectile, if it hits, will penetrate the armor of any Russian tank, including the T-72B3 and T-90.
4 Likes