I know, but do we have a document acknowledging that they removed DU armor from the hull? If you guys have it it would be a very good source
1 Like
But it’s the document they use to justify the limit on 5 hulls. It’s SUB-1536. They can’t say SUB-1536 is why there are only 5 hulls, because SUB-1536 actually doesn’t say that. It ties into the FONSI statement and decision to cut in the modified armor package design change in 1996.
You say they rejected it, but they didn’t. They are using an obsolete version of the SUB-1536 license to say that there is a limit, when SUB-1536 does not do what they claim.
1 Like
I know that. But it does not work like that, because they can keep denying it. You need to try and think something else. There must be evidence elsewhere.
They are denying the only proof that they used to allow DU in the turrets, but somehow deny that it allows it hulls…even though it didn’t limit hulls since August 2006. It’s the same SUB-1536 that they use to show where the DU would be in the hull.
SUB-1536 is the battle. Just because they deny it, doesn’t mean they are correct.
try looking for General dynamics form like this one.
but a later one
8 Likes
Good call. I guess try looking around 1996 for the armor package update. I’ll plug it in.
did they? where?
They’ve closed bug reports that have submitted the updates to SUB-1536.
Which also shows that once Gaijin decides they don’t want to do something, they will deny reality and official documents. See the Stinger debacle. We have proof the missiles can do way more than Gaijin would like, so they nerf it because “they believe” or “they feel.”
They’re wrong, but it doesn’t matter to them. We can find more sources, and they can do exactly what they are doing over and over again.
14 Likes
Someone correct me, but if I sum up this topic then in game, the M1A2 SEPv2 has armor based on 30 years old trials with EXPORT armor package?
Not just that US Army would have better armor then any export variant, but it is highly unlikely that no one would bother for several decades to update the hull armor. (possibly non-DU in hull)
9 Likes
M1A1 and later abram use the export armor evidence from Sweden Trial, so it slightly underarmored since DU wasn’t in the abram that was tested by Sweden but instead Export Armor. Probably Tungsten.
4 Likes
So you belive that all americans ever did, was replacing DU with tungsten ?
Effectively meaning that Polish M1A2 SEPv3 or Ukrajian M1A1 has the same level of protection as the “Swedish” M1A2 30 years ago?
DU Armor Packages in general are referred to as ‘Heavy Armor’ in documentation. Thus why you’ve got HAP-1 (M1A1HA), HAP-2 (M1A1HC/M1A2), and HAP-3 (M1A2 SEPv1/2 & M1A1 SA).
All 3 of which are ‘Heavy Armor Package - X generation’
7 Likes
Pretty much yes. A lot of the modern tank armor values are in fact based off the Swedish trials if I remember correctly.
Yes.
1 Like
We know that Sweden Abram used for trial didn’t have DU in it armor scheme. There is conflicting sources on export abrams as some states they do have DU armor while other says they don’t and use other materials, such as Tungsten but is prone to brickle when penetraded.
Ukraine Abram will not be equiped with DU as stated, polish probably not too.
You will have to ask someone who is really an Abram expert, which im not.
2 Likes
“ Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBs and Aircraft” has 1,106 replies.
“Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams” has 1,017 replies.
Most of these are valid criticism and sources proving Gaijin’s points wrong.
Yet… nothing. It really feels like no one is listening up there.
Shameless plug to what I believe to be the only solution.
We can’t beat them at their own game, so let’s change the rules:
16 Likes
Whether the hull has DU or not really doesn’t matter. What matters is how the protection improved. Until we can show how the protection increased, we can’t get Gaijin to change it. We need numbers, which we likely won’t have access to, or we can’t change the results.
1 Like
The best you can try to do then is contradict the SUB-1536 stated limit by mentioning SUB-1536’s true intention. You have to remember at the end of the day, we are talking about a Materials License. The government wants to have a list of all things expected to be in the presence of significant (measurably) radiation. TACOM has a license because it handles radiological material, and must maintain the standards of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and it’s amendments regarding the usage, storage, and modification of it. Make it known to Gaijin that SUB-1536 is a Materials License for a Tank Laboratory, and that the license they want is General Dynamic’s SUB-1564.
In other words: of course SUB-1536 is going to have specific language regarding training and testing, that’s what a research lab does. General Dynamics Land Systems has a license (SUB-1564) as well with even greater liberties afforded to it, and looking through it’s safety inspection reports, clearly handles a large amount of DU whenever they get a new batch of tanks at the Lima plant.
Edit: It also needs to be mentioned that the hulls which contain DU are classified, and a procedure was already in place at the time of the application (5 Hulls era) for the declassification of the process, to be done only at Aberdeen. We know this because the turrets that have DU are not classified, and are easily identifiable by their turret serial numbers.
1 Like
Don’t forget about
With 1700 replies
9 Likes
why would anyone even think the javelin couldn’t pen a russian mbt? Their tanks are garbage.
4 Likes