Here. And it wasn’t yesterday, it was 7 days ago, sorry my brain lags sometimes.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BcMSgWYhwd5k
1 Like
Well, how else they would implement tandem heat rounds or warheads? Of course i’m guessing on my own experience as a developer, but they could do it on a number of ways. They could refurbish the tandem heat mechanic to anti-era apfsds, they could use my example of reducing x or x% value on the era, etc.
2 Likes
They are also looking at the abrams turret ring.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K
8 Likes
Just a small bit from the bug report so people know what its about.
“In conclusion, please modify the 50.8mm turret ring shield to have volumetric protection, as well as modify the interior 25.4mm turret ring to have a diameter that matches the 50.8mm module, and adjust it’s vertical height accordingly to seal that gap as well.”
4 Likes
Yeah, the turret ring is protected by a sloped metal part and is sitted down inside the hull. It’s what i got from that report at least. They even got pictures of the ring and the sloped metal protection
22 Likes
yes
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-07-14/html/98-18674.htm
Can you please tell me what is unclear about the Abrams having received DU armor packages in the hull?
9 Likes
Its not that is not clear, the problem is that it is too ambiguous and they can deny it at will. With the m1a2 Sap V3 they cannot, because it clearly state’s improved hull armor, and has a shit load of weight increase too.
What’s not clear about it? There are no limits on DU in hulls. There are budget form upgrades for frontal protection using Department of Energy armor in the records. The original document that stated a limit of 5 hulls, which was amended in August 2006 to remove any limits on hulls and allow unlimited DU use in hulls, had the FONSI results conclude there was no issue with the new armor packages, and and that the new packages would go into all SEP and AIM Abrams. Even the 1998 memo linked talked about the 1996 armor package update would be cut-in to Abrams production for M1A2s at the Lima Plant.
There is nothing ambiguous about this.
4 Likes
Bro, there is not 1 official source explicitly saying that they put depleted uranium on the front of the hull. Thats the problem. You have a document saying they could, definitely. But no official document saying that they did. I’m not saying that they didn’t okay? I personally believe that there is indeed DU in the hull. But it lacks a official statement saying: depleted uranium installed in the lower frontal plate of the hull.
This sources are unfortunately not enought.
3 Likes
It was the same document that they cited, which explicitly stated the DU in the 5 hulls, but updated that same year to have turrets and hulls authorized for unlimited DU use. Then you have all the budget forms show many Abrams tanks receiving frontal armor upgrades using DOE armor lol.
There was no confusion or doubt about DU in turrets when the same document allowed unlimited turrets, but then in August once they allowed unlimited hulls, and then the budget forms show frontal armor upgrades, it magically becomes unclear? Clown world logic on your end.
Also, that VA memo also blows your claim out of the water.
7 Likes
My brother you should slow down a bit and stop trying to offend people. That doesn’t help your cause. I just gave my opinion. And my opinion is that until you have a clear statement from from general dynamics, from the MoD, from someone who tested the M1A1HC or newer variants with DU or something like that stating “there is depleted uranium on the lower frontal plate of the hull”, they will not do anything about it, because they can. It’s that simple. It’s not that I like it. Trust me, I don’t. But they can deny and will keep denying it until some official source clearly states affirmatively that there is DU in the LFP on the production variants.
Just gonna drop this here regarding weight.
‘ATOM’ ARMOR FOR U.S. TANKS NEW URANIUM PLATING NEARLY IMPENETRABLE
March 15, 1988 | Philadelphia Daily News ¶
The Army has secretly devised a new armor plating for its main battle tank that combines uranium with steel to produce an almost impenetrable skin, military officials say.
“We’re talking about something so good the experts think it will take the Russians almost a decade to catch up,” said one official who spoke only on condition of anonymity.
“This is a major advance; a very major advance.”
Sources said the new process involved “weaving” a thread mesh of uranium into the regular steel armor plating at the time of casting. The process produces an incredibly strong plate that adds “an insignificant amount of weight,” they said.
“It’s not only the strength of the uranium, but the way it’s worked into the steel,” said one official. “The process is still highly classified and nobody’s going to say more.”
NY Times, March 15th, 1988
12 Likes
Thank you for call out. My bad.
But the point is this is from the government. The original SUB-1536 that was good enough for Gaijin to say it was in turrets, unlimited turrets but only 5 hulls, was amended later that year to allow both unlimited turrets and hulls. It’s the same document. NRC License SUB-1536. It even shows where the armor is, but was amended to remove all limits on hulls. In that same unamended document from early 2006, they mention the FONSI results meaning there was nothing to change and that implementing the improved armor package would go ahead for SEP and AIM Abrams. The same armor package and FONSI program mentioned in the 1998 memo, which talked about cutting the upgrade into production at the Lima plant.
This is the government, confirming this, and all the budget forms indicate this happened.
6 Likes
Nah they won’t. They will go “reee no values” and still model the SEPv3 according to the 1993 swedish tests.
Just like they did with the 2A7V.
7 Likes
Iirc people also supplied proof that the 2A7V had D-tech in the hull, but Gaijin still went “reee no values, swedish tests reee”.
6 Likes
Yeah I know that, and unfortunately for us they said that is too ambiguous to be considered as evidence of depleted uranium on production variants of the M1 Abrams. They need a better source, or we can try somehow to justify the armor increase on the LFP without DU. For the first option i think that guy requesting a FOIA on the DU is the way to go unfortunately. For the second option i think that there is sources indicating increase of the LFP kinetic protection without specifying the type of armor used. That could also be a option.
It is a possibility yes, but one of the logics they used here is that “there is no evidence of increase of protection because the weight increase is negligible.” And in the Sep V3 thats not the case, there is alot of weight increase, as we can see on the graphic they showed. Plus statements from official sources saying they increased hull armor and turret armor (I not sure about the turret). But yeah, we are at the mercy of gaijin here.
1 Like
But that would be even more ambiguous unless we could show how they did it.
If there are I haven’t found them in my fun spelunking dives.
2 Likes