where is the improved M1A1/M1IP hull even? not to mention newer versions…
16 Likes
Yeah…Gaijin…what gives?
5 Likes
The M1A1 hull was 350 mm KE in real life, so it’s actually over performing in game. And Swedish trials put the M1A2 hull at 350 mm KE also.
…based on the Swedish Export non-DU nerfed M1A2…got it.
7 Likes
The M1A1 being 350 mm KE has nothing to do with the Swedish trials.
where does the information about 350 mm RHA come from?
What about the M1A1 HA, which clearly has had DU in the hull, confirmed as early as 2005 by a license, as early as 1998 by a VA memo, …and possibly as early as 1996 when an updated armor package was confirmed to have been developed.
2 Likes
The British evaluation of the M1A1:
And the Swedish evaluation of the M1A2 without DU armour:
4 Likes
Based on that, the hull and turret sides are massively underperforming
1 Like
The British did note the turret side armour as a potential issue during their evaluation of the M1A2:
Is that all your brain could possibly come up with? Nothing productive to say just straight to insults 😂 use your brain you got this, I believe in you.
1 Like
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
11 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