750 CE - This figure is what the M1 has in game i.e. 750 - 800mm, the area around the fuel tank is 870 - 900mm , it does not have 830mm in either the Swedish trials or in game, I don’t know where you are getting that figure from.
When the front turret says 600/900@30 it means that the protection at 0 is 690/1040
It means the armour protection at 30°s is 600mm for KE and 900mm for CE (for both turret cheeks), whereas the 680 (KE) /1010 (CE) figures are for the armour at 0°s i.e. front on, both of these figures are what Gaijin has given the M1s with DU armour:
I think Gaijin is wrong when they model it like that, but I was not talking in game but IRL.
And no, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the armor is exactly 600 at 30°. Ex if you go look for a British test of Early Leopard 2 armor, they say it’s likely 350@30 from its performance, if you want to extrapolate take know that the turret cheeks are angled back at 35° degrees you can end up with thinking its @0 protection of ~425, In reality the armor was 330@35 which gives you 400 same as 350@30. @30 is shorthand for what the armor needs to provide @0. And think about it when you have armor that is not angled 30° or more back you end up with a weak side just like the Abrams in WT it doesn’t make much sense to distribute armor and weight like that. If there is an even chance of the cheeks being hit, then it doesn’t make sense to distribute the weight and protection so one side is over performing alot and the other is under performing
You clearly didn’t read the image I posted. It explains that America developed DU armour based on Chobham Armour. The 1st Gen DU armour that the Americans came up with offered excellent KE protection, but the CE protection was unacceptably weak.
As a result RARDE (Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment) were tasked with helping America develop a new type of DU armour. The 2nd Generation DU armour maintained the excellent KE protection, while also offering comparable CE protection to other types of composite armour.
So yes, Britain was involved in developing DU armour.
Yes it does:
point 5.a.2. in original document limits to 5 hulls (unlimited turrets).
The amendment changes this in point 8.A to “As needed” for use in 9.A/B “tank turrets and hulls”.
so there is no longer a limit of 5 hulls (whilst turrets still remain unlimited).
Yeah, sorry, i read your text wrong there, my fault.
Replacing the entire turret and in the hull replacing the armor packages.
weight distribution does not really tell us much, lets say they remove titanium armor and add DU in front hull thus increasing weight by 500kg (arbitrary number) then you can move other things around in the tank to even out the weight so that its spread more evenly across all wheels.
additionally; the graph is visually misleading, if you look at the scale of it there are several changes that jump a thousand pound force in difference (on contact patch load); 1lbf is roughly 4.4 Newtons so it jumps about 4kN which is about 400kg. so there are several places where the weight changes by around 400kgh of contact patch load. that’s a big difference.
and if we look at the wheel station load that jumps about 40kg in difference using the same calculations.
So i personally feel like that strengthens my point that they have shifted weight around a lot and we can thus not use the load for only the front wheels/contact patch to determine if armor was added in front hull or not.
As you can see, topic is still opened.
If we will have something to add to it, we will do it here, or in new article.
Breaking forum rules will only put punishment on your profile, that’s all.
Please RE-READ forum rules before you post anything else. Cheers!
Amendment no 9 clearly says that it’s based on the 22/02/2006 application. So 5.a.2 is part of it, unfortunately, we are missing the first points 1-4 so there is some unknown ground. It could just as easily be a simplification of language if we look at 6." Pumose(s) For Which Licensed Material Will Be Used.
The license is for the use of DU material utilized as Armor in tank turret/hulls of the
Abrams MI series tanks at the locations listed in item 3 above. The turrets and hulls are components of the Abrams M1 series tanks. The scope of the license is for field (user) possession, usage and storage only. The license does not cover repair or maintenance work directly on the DU Armor." There really is no reason for pointing out the hull limit.
No, it really doesn’t and doesn’t say DU in the hull armor. If you read the paragraph it says "This option would include a program to convert oldest Abrams. I, and I think most strongly suspect that the IP/A1 update already changed the Hull armor some so to update the hull would require change the hull armor and if you go up a bit you will see that the UK provided the US with a new version of Chobham in 1990 that was more effective against CE, incorporating this in the “short front hull” seem like a good idea.
I think it’s very unlikely that plates of titanium were used in the hull, Steel is more effective than titanium in stopping penetration when it comes to distance, so by using Titanium you are using an expensive material that needs to take up more room thereby lowering your protection against CE weapons.
I am not sure I am understanding you completely here, why do you call it misleading that there are differences in load that’s the whole point of the paper to create a hypothesis for a suspension where both tires of a roadwheel is loaded evenly.
It’s easy to say “switch weight around a lot” but you stil have to keep the heavy DU armor upfront in the turret. You still have to add weight to the engine area to balance out the front full armor, so every time you add weight to the front hull you have to add just as much to the rear to keep the tank reasonably balanced. So, for every ton you add to the front hull, you add ~2 tons to the vehicle overall.
I answered this previously, but I see why its confusing, what I meant was that Inetres doesn’t have any speculations but are merely re-reporting official releases about features added to the Abrams.
Like Santa, but the one who brings coal, bans and salt tears ;)
Guys, we are reading your posts and pass your concerns to Dev team (like we do with all the topics like that).
Swearing, insults, personal trips against people who got different opinion and different point of view than you, other rule breaking posts is making our job much harder and move this discussion thread on much lower level.
I get it that insults and swearing is meaningless but sometimes it’s difficult when Gaijin seems to be completely blind to some documents and raports and on the other hand they nerf FW on a whim without any solid evidences.
I assume that part of the dev team is also celebrating christmas right? I guess larger balance changes likely aren’t expected to happen until at least late ish January right?
HAP isn’t Chobham 2.0, that would be Dorchester. HAP was no longer really considered “Chobham” like BRL was, probably because HAP has quite a unique layout.
Also what Flame is talking about has nothing to do with the 2002 improved armour package, its most likely referring to HAP-2, although HAP-2 also added multi-hit capability to the armour.
The improved frontal and improved turret side armour seems to be referring to HAP-3, because the Improved frontal and turret side armour did not exists in 1990 because its first design review was in 1998, and it ballistic testing of that armour didn’t happen until Q4 of 2000, as noted in the development status section:
Also it wasn’t the M1A1 AIMs that received that, because afaik the original AIM had HAP-2. Regardless all tanks being upgraded from 2002 seem to have received that improved armour, i.e. this would be tanks being upgraded to SEPs, AIMv2/SAs and FEPs.
