Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams

I love how gaijin defend his decisions of holding most of the nato nations in sh*thole just to make one nation with red flag competetive. The only thing that we can do is grab a popcorn and watch how gaijin perform intelectulal flips and spit in the face of every single player that spend their time to provide vast amount of sources. I know that nations like France or Italy are DEAD in this game(In ground battles), but i never thought that USA will be next. Grab the diving gear Abrams fans, destination bottom o7


Yes. I would much rather have an accurate M829A3 than the reload buff. Right now the reload buff doesn’t make a difference to the Abrams. If you don’t make your first shot count you never get another one. M829A3 should greatly increase the lethality of that first round.


What about Merkava 4? Can you tell us why its so bad in game?

1 Like

For the comical value I will imagine it is a 945lbs radio installed.

1 Like

Why dont you add DU in turret Gajin? Even you said that the turret has got DU. It would increase its protection to ~~950 ke and ~~1511 heat

1 Like

You also cherry-picked the outdated license, the same license that is amended to remove all mentions of any hull limits later that year.

Why does the unspecified M1 turret status leave no confusion as to whether or not they were in production turrets, but when the same status is given to hulls, Gaijin can’t be sure any more?
Amendment 2006 Hull Limit Removal 1
Amendment 2006 Hull Limit Removal 2
2016 Amendment

Especially when we have government documents talking about armor being provided by the Department of Energy in frontal armor improvements.
DOE Armor
Even as early as early as 2002, frontal armor improvements are mentioned.

Then we have these.:
DU Frontal and Turret Side Protection with Suspension Upgrade


No, I will not spoiler these uploads. No, I am not claiming any exact values or precise layout. This is nothing more than evidence that depleted uranium was put in hulls, and in more than the 5 hulls mentioned in the obsolete and amended license originally cited.

I will not entertain any mental gymnastics from deniers.


if it is a Russian vehicle gaijin add for them evertyhing(tunguska rocket ->32g etc…) , if it is a nato or usa vehichle : gaijin give a fuck 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡


By most sources you mean 1 source.

1 Like

1 source and shit they pulled out of their own ass apparently


They did the same thing with the stinger/mistral G-pull too


Britain is in hell

Forum moderators really under damage control after this article lol


I’m assuming Britain is already dust XD

Doesn’t matter how many people they censor. The outrage will not be quelled.


Never o7

1 Like

Watch them consider this not a primary source, and then add gen 7 thermals to every T series because some russian general sneezed on a napkin and it kinda looked like a tank


Well, you see you need to have a sign document from Joe Biden himself and 60-page document breaking down every inch of the composite to the exact measurement, where it came from, how it was transported, etc. Then maybe it would be good enough for the devs.


I mean yeah, I’m not saying they’re correct at all, necessarily, but hypothetically if you DID improve the armor to take a lot more hits before falling apart, Congress probably WOULD be pretty happy with that.

Funny how we never have conversation of underperforming armor of russian tanks, and for abrams it’s the third battle with gaijin. First was when they added IP and M1A1. Second with M1A2 and now third. Spall liners for Abrams, Leclerc, and Merkavas will also be ignored because reason. I hope french players have their government financial spending report on spall liners for leclerc like we have for DU armor, otherwise there will be no discussion about this. This is outrageous.


We literally commented in the article on some of the sources players provided.

Why “Some”? Why not “All”? You left out literally like 2 dozen other sources people gave.

The only plausible reason to not have replied to all is that you couldn’t manage to come up with a counterargument to the others…

(“Not having the time, due to low importance” is a reason I frankly don’t consider “plausible” for you to believe here, in the face of your players almost rioting again over this. So that just leaves “We couldn’t come up with a reason to deny the other sources”)