Swedish trials were based off a non-heavy NON DU Abrams so values are severely lacking.
1 Like
But as I said the M1A1 having 350 mm KE hull armour does not come from the Swedish trials. And even if it did the M1A1 didn’t have DU hull armour anyway.
1 Like
Wasn’t the number of Abrams tanks with DU hull armour limited to 5 until license was updated in 2006? Is there evidence that the rest of the fleet was upgraded after 2006?
And your source for the 350mm KE not coming from the Swedish trails? It’s a KNOWN thing that the U.S. does NOT export any model Abrams with classified HEAVY armor. So every trial by every other nation is invalid.
Also where’s your source for determining the M1A1 has no DU in the hull? Seems to me like parroting the deniers
1 Like
How is the hull side underperforming???
Not sure if this has been used yet but.
“The M1A2 SEP has improved frontal and side armor for enhanced crew survivability.”
Notice how it says improved FRONTAL and SIDE.
Frontal including the Hull and Turret. If not it would’ve been said as improved Turret Armor.
https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2009/oco/various/sup-pf-wtcv.pdf
Page 27
12 Likes
eSim is clearly over-stating stats for T-series.
And I cannot comment on Steel Beasts.
Steel Beasts focuses on crew aspects more than other facets, its also entirely possible that Steel Beasts does not have a strict ruleset for armor.
1 Like
Probably limited to test models, but the Frontal Armor Upgrades were happening as early as 2002 on the FY budget forms.
It’s possible specific test models might have fallen under a different budget line item and program when testing the upgraded armor mentioned in 1996.
6 Likes
Not sure why, the swedish trials alone put thr figures very high
Something else to piggyback off off.
“ This modification incorporates both Frontal Armor and Improved Side Armor to the M1A1 Abrams Tank.”
And
“Armor is provided by the Department of Energy (DOE).”
Page 70
11 Likes
I misread it, its at a 25 and 45 degree arc, as long as were getting 750mm CE and 480mm KE at a 25 degree (which we actually arent)
Since you get side front penned at that and less from the front side angled attack. Even at a 10 degree ive been side penned in the abrams, which should be significantly higher protection wise than even 25 which is already very high, 380KE at a 45 degree arc is impressive too
And this is all non-DU
2 Likes
I posted the source already. It was the British evaluation.
Considering the addition of DU armour was the defining feature of the M1A1 HA version, I didn’t think it’s controversial to say that the base M1A1 version doesn’t have DU armour.
Even if the M1A1 did have DU armour it’s safe to say that the British know how it performed, because they helped America design the DU armour (after America’s initial attempt failed to provide adequate CE protection):
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/4/8/48a4b117226fa7a10e20ae68524bb9aa80697246.jpeg
4 Likes
That document is still useless in determining the efficiency of the Abrams armor without its Heavy Armor. Regardless of what the document states the British would never be able to duplicate correct figures without actually know the classified armor.
Go back and read my original comment:
The British evaluated the M1A1 to determine whether it would be a suitable tank for the British Army (they concluded it was not suitable, and that M1A2 would be required at a minimum). As part of this evaluation the Americans provided information on the armoured protection of the M1A1 and M1A2. And in one of the British reports they list the hull as having 350 mm KE / 750 mm CE protection over the frontal arc.
As I explained in my last comment the M1A1 did not have DU in the hull. The Swedish also evaluated the M1A2 without DU armour and came to the same conclusion that the hull had 350 mm KE / 750 mm CE protection of the frontal arc.
It can therefore be said fairly safely that the non-DU hull armour on the Abrams provides 350 mm KE protection over the frontal arc.
I’m out of likes today but I agree 100%
1 Like
Thank you for sharing this document!
It’s interesting how this Chobham “2.0” was only implemented after M1A1 production had almost completed, this might explain what the “frontal armor upgrade and side turret upgrade” for M1A1 AIM tanks was. It was not magic weight less DU but a new more effective version of Chobham that restored the good CE protection of non-DU tanks.
İm back from basement guys, so any News about on hull armor situation that we can put some pressure on Gaijin?
Hes right for the most part
They can make the LFP has 1 meter in KE protection. It will not change the winrates at all. It’s obvious how top tier works at this point. Most games are usa matched with germany, and either the germans carry (with that extra burden) or you lose. Soviet teams are full of brainless bots that don’t even know what a capture point is. Skillwise 2nd worst average playerbase, usa being number one
The guy has been wrong pretty much the entire thread. Since when were all LFPs the same, and since when did Gaijin throw aside historical accuracy and relying on documents to create a specific meta layout of tanks for balance at a very specific BR?
The clown hasn’t been right yet.
As far as German mains go, I can’t count the number of times they pull in front of all the friendlies, blocking their allies lines of fire, only to take fire since they drove into the open like an imbecile, and then pop smoke, preventing any chance that the team might be able to accurate engage the threat that is going to kill them because they’re in the same spot when they popped smoke.
There is a reason the German M48 was at a lower BR than US M48s, despite them also have smoke grenade launchers.
But Wehraboos won’t think twice about blinding their entire team with smoke after making boneheaded maneuvers.
10 Likes