73.6 short tons = 66.7 metric tons.
77.9 short tons = 70.6 metric tons
The Military is weight conscious of the Abrams. Seeing how the V4 was cancelled partially because of just that. Without a Spall Liner, the V3 already clocks in at nearly 70 tons. What you’re doing isn’t using evidence. It’s making assumptions based on technology and budget.
No, what I am doing is looking at what the military has been doing since 2014/2015 i.e. the US had already developed an advanced UHMWPE by said time:
Interestingly at the same time the SEPv3s new NGAP/NEA armour was further being tested:
UHMWPE is known to help negate spalling i.e. it is a spall liner built into the actual tank armour that would replace the old material used by the M1s. The M1A2 SEPv3s armour being renamed to the Next Generation Armour Package / Next Evolution armour wasn’t an accident, it uses next generation armour.
The problem with the M1 is they really needed to actually change what should have been changed years ago i.e. they could have reduced weight if they wanted to by incorporating the XM360, this alone would reduce the M1s weight by 1 metric ton, they also should have incorporated the hybrid power pack which likewise reduces weight as less fuel is needed, etc etc.
TRADOC even knew back in 2014 that if they fully incorporated what they knew about armour materials they could reduce the M1s armour weight by 31.7% (armour weight from 40.7 down to 27.8) whilst keeping the SEPs protection levels the same. It now being 9 years after this means they likely can get this weight down even more.
This is why the SEPv4 was cancelled and the M1E3 is being developed.
I just want this game to stay relatively impartial instead of becoming a credibledefence tier meme like “Command: Modern Operations”
It seems reasonable, but to be honest Gaijin already uses estimates, they just aren’t estimates popular with NATO players.
I say the future of the game will be much more interesting once we expand into prototype territory, CATTB and so on. I think that’s the solution, instead of praying for M1E3 or whatever to turn up and be implemented as a dream car.
At least personally I would prefer this game become more like WoT. Keep the realistic WT mechanics, make them more realistic, but allow feasible napkin vehicles. I think this would allow everyone to have many interesting vehicles and allow for tech trees to be properly filled out. I don’t support a move away from realistic damage models or mechanics, if Gaijin can wave their magic wand and turn M247 into a functional vehicle, or fit the proper turret on Radkampfwagen 90, I don’t know why we can’t realise napkin vehicles.
Completely flawed conclusions based on erroneous assumptions and estimates using export variants confirmed to have different armor compositions than the model Gaijin claims to represent.*
Fixed that for you. Also, Russian armor is overperforming, and have artificially buffed mantlets.
Which battles proved that Nato tanks superior then Russian (Formerly Soviet) in the same segment face the same segment, or you just want T-72M face M1A2 like the US did with Iraq ?
Currently, T-80BVM, T-90M, T-72B3, Leo 2A6, Challenger 2 (which is have not seen since 5 of them smoked out and Britain don’t want it get to the frontline anymore) and Merkava Mk4 with Trophy, most of them knocked out by FPV (top attacks) and Arty, but you saw some of it lost and claim that it’s bad show how copes you are with your glorious M1, now i still waiting for Abrams (which is detonated by some good old RPG-7 since Iraq) to show what it can peform since Leo 2A6 far better then M1A2 (every models BTW).
Then what, now everyone just want cope cages and anti drone/FPV system, which is Russian still has the most experience with it since the conflict and their tank still has better base platform (which is heavy ERA with thich roof armor on it), the barebone still got room for upgrade, unlike Abrams, sides too thin, roof too thin, btw show me which NATO tanks currently has >30mm of roof with anti-FPV/Drone system that get into service (and since when Trophy design to stop FPV)
Also, thousand of tanks (no sources) destroyed in Syria, yeah, i can say that Turkish Leo 2A4 still happy with your claim though, and yeah, RPG-29/30 and all other Russian cheapo anti tank weapon waiting for Abrams.
You can find every destroyed Abrams ever documented…even counting the recoverable losses, and over the entire service of the Abrams, the total was less than 100 “destroyed.” Going off the old LostArmour site before they took down other conflicts. Guess the contrast was a little too embarrassing for the Russian armor. XD
Multiple nations purchased T-72
Multiple conflict
Losses duo to destroyed or abandoned because it’s actual fighting
→ Procceed to set it’s perfomance
No country bought M1 or any US vehicles ever got into serious conflict and face real-weapons (because they are the guy who made conflict)
No Abrams destroyed
→ Self-earning
It’s really impressive how hard Russian tanks die. More Russian tanks have violently disintegrated in under two years than Abrams have ever been knocked out in battle over the entirety of its service life. XD
Unfortunately we lack sufficient evidence to disprove their conclusions.
I’m curious what you think about the information I posted above, where an M1A1 with 19mm steel added to the front turret is seen as interchangeable with an M1A1HA?
So we should ignore generational advantage engagements.
But here it’s back to 73 Easting and so on.
As I understand, coalition forces included AMX-30’s and Challengers, of which none were lost. Does this make them indestructible? There’s nuance to these things and you don’t seem to acknowledge it in many cases.
Not hard to find Leopards and (Obviously monkey models without the magic DU) Abrams getting blown up by a variety of things.
War Thunder would completely stop being of any interest to me if it just became a game so totally dedicated to portraying the already extremely common US military historiographic perspective. There are enough other games slavishly devoted to such a monotonous chanting of “U S A” ad infinitum.
We will wait to see if two nations equipped with Leopards or export Abrams engage in some kind of peer conflict to get a comparable situation.
For now you’re not speaking to actually meaningful comparisons, but some kind of “gotcha” ragebait or whatever. It’s not meaningful or nuanced analysis.
I respect how you have provided significant evidence centrally related to the topic of Abrams armour.
No, they were not, trials began in 2015 and in 2017/2018 they started being procured, all the contract is it becoming formal, i.e. M1A1s were already being upgraded to SEPv3 in 2017 and 2018, this is also why the Army weight document has them being from 2017:
FYI 1 - 5 is the normal figure for testbed (usually 5), as of the 2018 budget they would have had 215 SEPv3s before the contract in 2020, so no they were not still testing the SEPv3 in 2018 it was in service.
Most my wandering down rabbit hulls convinced me the same regarding gulf war era M1A1’s.
Front page to show unclassified
Spoiler
There was a massive push to find out what caused the gulf war sickness in the late 90s to mid 2000s and the military was keen to prove it wasn’t linked and keep their armor/shells, there’s a lot of unclassified papers and research out there involving its safety and radiation levels.
If the hull of the gulf war era A1’s had DU it should be mentioned in the 1996 guidelines in dealing with DU if the encapsulating steel is compromised or the various studies involving radiation exposure to the crew.
Its just the hole I dug down hoping something would lead to the A2 and all I’ve stumbled across is the previously mentioned BRL-2 hull https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA300522.pdf
The findings of the ongoing war in Ukraine have led to the cancellation of research on 130+mm guns. This is because even the DM53 projectile, if it hits, will penetrate the armor of any Russian tank, including the T-72B3 and T-90.
I love most that the US Military response was to swear blind that it wasn’t the radioactive metal making people sick, by being extremely secretive and only allowing military doctors (who have sworn an oath of alleigance to the military, compromising their objectivity) to talk about it and explain why actually radioactive metal is harmless.
You still have people today insisting that DU is fine and claims to the contrary are propaganda from Big Tungsten.
It’s really odd how there’s no up-armouring of the hull. You can almost say they either didn’t upgrade the hull with HA package, they considered M1A1 basic to have good enough hull armour, or just don’t expect the hull to get it.
In any case, this all only provides evidence that either no hull armour improvements exist or it’s so marginal nobody cares. Additionally it also suggest hull armour isn’t a priority for upgrade programs.
My belief is that the Abrams is actually considered by the decision makers to have “good enough” hull armour and that it’s so unlikely to be hit that it doesn’t justify the costs of upgrading the fleet, or it’s not a high priority in any case.
Just more evidence of no additional KE/CE thickness for the hull composites.
Bro i don’t know if you don’t understand what procurement means but this is not approved production. These tanks that your trying to point out is for testing. At no point was the M1A2C approved for production in this.
No where does it say these M1s with add-on armour were interchangeable to M1A1 HAs, all its says is that some 800 M1A1s were up armoured.
Regardless, going by what Gaijin has for RHA (all we really have) we can make some pretty good assumptions that 19mm of additional RHA made it no where close to the M1A1HA i.e. the Chally 2 has 70mm RHA in the LFP and that only gives about 85mm of KE protection against APFSDS 19mm likely didn’t overall change much.
I love most that the US Military response was to swear blind that it wasn’t the radioactive metal making people sick, by being extremely secretive and only allowing military doctors (who have sworn an oath of alleigance to the military, compromising their objectivity) to talk about it and explain why actually radioactive metal is harmless.
Considering not even the UN has been able to prove it with their extensive attempts to do just that (extremely extensive reports on DU from warzones), this seems to be true, the dangerous part about DU are actually its heavy metal properties not the radiation.
That aside, you do know in comparison to DU research on Tungsten ammo/armour is pretty limited right?
