Since the release of M1A2 there has been extreme disappointment for Abrams players. I am convinced Gaijin dosent want an Abrams with an impenetrable LFP… so many updates hoping for an Abrams with upgraded armour just to be disappointed incredibly.
I’ve seen so many people giving so much time finding any source possible to prove armour upgrades occurred, especially for SEP and SEPV2. You guys at gaijin only choose the sources that fit your narrative of bias.
Gaijin has effectively insulted some very intelligent people who carefully followed your requirements to provide proof and spent lots of time digging for info.
Gaijin choose all the sources that fit their Russian bias, but none of the other sources that fit common sense and real world application.
Any other fairy tale vehicle you guys wanna add that aren’t historically accurate…. but then need the MOST specific proof to get an armour increase in the abrams hull after 40 years of service and upgrades.
@Stona_WT I know many people ping you i have a simple question.
Is Gj planning to do this kind of devblog on all top tier MBTs?
That player base would know on what they are and what can they do.
Oh and about Abrams thumb up.
When will we be seeing your responses to the tens of other sources that blatantly prove the sources you cite to be false or at the very least out of date? Have your technical moderators and/or devs even been keeping track of the mountain of sources seen in the other thread?
Gaijin this 100% contradicts your suspension theory, we need answers. There are multiple sources saying the suspension has been upgraded without changing the armor profile.
Ide also like to point out this source actually contradicts your claims.
“Conscious decision to drastically reduce weight will result in compromised protection” page 36 of that source, the entire premise of that graph is to show how weight increase has lead to poor mobility and serviceability of the Abrams MBT so by them acknowledging if they reduce weight to improve mobility they are reducing the protection so what was the 7 ton weight increase for between the M1 Abrams and the SEP V2 for?
Your source isnt concrete evidence nor does it prove the non existence of DU in the M1A1SA and after variants
Every M1 abrams used by the U.S. Army starting with the M1A1 HA/HC should have 500-600mm hull front armor vs KE according to Mr. R.M. Ogorkiewicz, a noted international expert on tank development and author of over 400 articles and several books, even TACOM and TARDEC mentions him on their reports, but for Gaijin he’s not credible…
We know for a fact that current ingame armor values for the Abrams are based off the Swedish trials of an Export model of the Abrams that was purposely made weaker to keep the armor technology secrets from being stolen. Recent vehicles sent to a recent warzone were purposely downgraded to make sure the latest technology is not captured. One of the biggest issues for abrams tanks in American service is the armor upgrades are so significant that the weight has become a problem and they canceled the SepV4 because the weight needed to be brought under control. Recent upgrades to the wiring and electronics inside the tank were made to reduce the weight by 2 tons. Gaijins answer to the weight increase is we believe that the armor was never made stronger/upgraded and is infact weaker then actual us documents and that a export model in an old Swedish trial is more accurate. This is Insane. What makes a single trial in sweden the Ultimate document of US technology?
Which could easily include the modifying of the turret rotation mechanism to be able to support the heavier M1A2 turret compared to the turret previously mounted on older hulls.
It is simply not proof there is DU in the front of the hull.
It seems Gaijin is more interested in gaslighting the community about western vehicles rather than changing things based on publicly available data. A la this post here.
“ The protection in an armoured vehicle is a model based on available open information. In some cases, it might be calculated based on publicly available data. Examples are photos and videos of destroyed vehicles. In other cases, protection will be assessed only on the appearance of the vehicle, the location and size of the armour modules, as well as possible threats and requirements that could be presented during the development of the vehicle. ”
Given this. Even taking for example “possible threats and requirements that could be presented during the development of the vehicle” 3BM46 was already in service by the Sep Programs introduction. Which has upwards of 500mm flat pen. An INFERENCE can be made that the protection must AT LEAST achieve something like this.
But none of that matters. The gaslighting is completely ridiculous with cherry picked sources.
They seem to assume that the correct method is not having complete data on something does not call for an estimate to be made based upon it, the only option is to omit it entirely.
We know the torsion bars were upgraded, we know the hull limit was removed. And we know the weight went up, and we know the new weight was simulated.
unless it explicitly states what in the hull is being reworked then this source is too vague and certainly doesnt disprove DU when almost every source primary/secondary state DU in the hull with estimated protection valuues.
Looks like only Russia is allowed to have armor on their tanks, im so happy that if my aim is off by even a couple pixels the ERA armor on russian tanks will eat my entire round as the sabot disappears into the void.
The Abrams are all really just copy pastes of each other at this point, does Gaijin really believe that the Abrams never received upgrades to its armor packages and the US just doesn’t care about the performance of its MBT after several decades of making newer and better versions of the Abrams. This is pathetic and a middle finger to the players, there is no longer any reason to play any nation that isnt russia, and my motivation to continue playing is slowly dwindling.
Haha, I love this, from the IPM1 to the M1A2 SEP V2 they have the same armor, it seems that the American designers are like the Russians, inventing statistics to be the same old garbage.
Now seriously, then if they all have the same armor, why did they create the M1A1HC (Heavy common) or the M1A1HA (Heavy Armored) if the armor increase is only in the name? Where are the different generations of armor of the M1A1 and M1A2? The thing is that even on Wikipedia you can find all the submodels well explained, and to be honest, I trust Wikipedia more than the data that says that the Abrams are wearing the same armor in 2023 as in 1987, my God, it’s simply Ridiculous, that doesn’t even happen to the T-72, since there are differences in the models from the beginning of the 80s to those from the end of the 80s, between A and B, between B from a certain year to other years later, and replaced the abrams with the same armor since 1987.
The NRC specifically states “Radiation readings are no higher than 0.5 mrkr or 0.005 mSv/hr on the external surfaces of turrets containing DU packages in the M1 series tanks. The DU packages in the turret and hull become the DU Armor for the turret and HULL” what more do you want it to say? 😂 would you like a document saying there’s depleted uranium specifically located in front on the hull approximately 1000lbs and 200000 inches thick Longitude 39.9292929.92929 Latitude 2918.82828.818 😂
