…that the SA upgrade was a recipient of the SEP program improvements. It is literally making the M1A1s have the improvements of the SEP. LOL!
Also notice the suspension upgrades that Gaijin claimed never happened.
20 Likes
M1a1SA has the same armor package as SEP just so you know.
6 Likes
Username checks out.
5 Likes
damn the fact they specifically mention he M1A1 and the 70 ton weight with improvements flat out debunks gaijins suspension claims here
7 Likes
Wait so 2-3 examples of T80bs receiving experimental thermals is enough to justify it having thermals in the tech tree but “muh 5 Du hulls” doesn’t get the same justification? Interesting….
Side note - Yes I know the 5 DU hulls is outdated and further amendments clarify more than 5, just a funny contradiction in “Gaijin policy”
33 Likes
I went through this source and found this table on page 67, showing the Abrams’ changes throughout its various modifications. It clearly specifies that “Heavy armor [is] added to hull and turret” under the 2000 M1A1 AIM model, as an improvement over the 1985 M1A1 variant.
Although the date of introduction (2000) may seem like it would come after the m1a2 sep v1 (1999) its important to note how the very first m1a1 AIM (for the US army, not the Australians) was refurbished in 1996 as apart of a proof of principle program, explaining why its placed before the m1a2 sep on the chart. (Meaning the m1a2 sep would have then received the previous model’s armor improvements)
It does not specify that this was depleted uranium, however it would not be surprising if the 3rd generation depleted uranium mentioned under the M1A2 Sep v1 was added to the hull as well as the turret due to the significant additional weight. (2+ tons, ignoring the multitude of weight saving improvements attempted in all models)
At the very least, this should be confirmation that the 11.3+ abrams should receive additional hull armor, even if it’s not depleted uranium.
As for the exact values? Those are still classified so using the various estimations from the other sources that have drifted around may be necessary. (I believe I saw some that suggested a 25-35% improvement, but I’m sure someone else here could find that)
Oh and as for why the addition of spall liners is not mentioned as one of the upgrades, that is likely due to it being implemented within the very first M1.
22 Likes
Utterly fascinating how Gaijin thought they could include a specious claim in order to deny these bug reports and not realize that this claim regarding the Abrams suspension would be proven incorrect almost immediately via simple Google search. Truly astounding arrogance.
9 Likes
Every m1 Abrams used by the U.S. army starting with the M1A1 HA/HC should have 500-600mm hull front armor vs KE.
M1A1 HA development time line 1988-1990 is the same time line of various studies about improvement over existing ceramic armor against full scale kinetic energy threat.
There’s also this from the Design News 1988 Vol 44, unfortunately i can’t find a better version of this page.
20 Likes
Gaijin would not make better Abrams hull because Russia itself must have a easy OHK target for it’s “newest” shell xd. I don’t know, Gaijin arrogance in this topic is enormous. We need to know that they didn’t want to upgrade Abrams, what so ever. Every source we will provide that clearly states improved hull, even redesigned ones but they will say "nah, this is bullshit we want actual numbers " xD. Now even Devs stated that they want classified documents to make changes in game. What a shame.
7 Likes
This isnt even true.
we know that the DU increased the KE effectiveness of the armor and reduced its CE effectiveness by substituting NERA volume for the DU. This is true of the turret protection.
It doesnt have to grow in size when the mass efficiency increases.
Literally the T-72 has like 5 different armor arrays that all take up the same 205-220mm total thick hull front.
The 80-105-20 array. 60-105-50, 60-15-15-15-50, 60-10-10-20-20-50, and 60-60-50 arrays. EACH ONE is within the ~215mm thick footprint of the UFP. And the kinetic protection increased step by step substituting the textolite for more steel while the CE remained relatively the same after the transition to full steel composition.
And their mass efficiencies for KE threats gradually increased from 0.9, 1.07 (long rods), 1.2, 1.18, and ~1.17 (excluding podboi layer. in game it is 1.27 which is false).
12 Likes
Dude, read your source again! It says that shifting the weigh forward puts undue stress on the vehicle. What do you think adding DU, a metal 2,5 times as dense as Steel, to the front of the hull will do?
Stress yes
“undue” stress? Nobody can say. Obviously surviving shots is important, so it might be “due” stress, no “undue stress”
in A2 and SEP they even decreased the mass of all electronics we know for what? OF COURSE ARMOR upgrades.
3 Likes
He is talking about the turret. The hull front armor is only ~25" thick, a protection level of 1000mm would mean a ~1,6 times more volume efficient armor protection than the original 1-1,2 while. If they could achieve that, why did, they extend the turret to achieve the same protection level?
If your tank is broken and it can’t drive, then having impenetrable armor just makes it a very expensive bunker for 4 people.
I see then, I’m of the opinion that even the low end of this estimate would be a good change in game. Even if it doesn’t account for later DU armor additions, it would still be a significant improvement to the in game abrams.
It seems like a reasonable compromise, along with the fact that the turret ring remains a glaring weak spot for Abrams players. It’ll just mitigate the effectiveness of poorly aimed shots at the hull.
Have you read this whole thread? Numerous sources have already stated that the suspension was improved on the Abrams over the various models. Why are you even arguing about this? Who cares as it would not have any effect on gameplay anyways. I just think it’s funny that Gaijin made an official post claiming that the armor could not have been upgraded because of the suspension, and the community took no time in disproving that claim.
14 Likes
Yeah, you can ignore him. He’s just a troll trying to distract and make arguments that have already been disproven. The Abrams received improved suspensions during these upgrades. Anything else is just noise from him.
2 Likes
I have read the whole thread, and I am offended by the bad arguments made here. When they are improving the suspension it’s for the whole vehicle not just the front of it, they need to spread out the weight to carry those 70 tons.
1 Like
Great, now when will you address the Merkava? You haven’t said a word about it in almost 2 years after nerfing it to the ground.