Well here you have this snippet from a British document. The source deals with alternatives to aquiring Cr2. Armor values are informed by each of the manufacturers (except for the soviet ones).
These pages are from documents dates between 1990 and 1992. So, BRL-2 turret has 460mm KE.
As for HAP-2, the value informed by GDLS was 650mm. This is consistent with seconday American sources rating HAP-1 a little lower at 600mm.
So, the switch from BRL-2 to HAP-1/2armor sees a leap in KE protection of almost 50 percent without altering the external geometry of the armor module. On the other hand, BRL-2 armor modules aren´t that much thicker from BRL-1 equipped M1 tanks.
The Challenger would like a word. Also, false. The LFP on the Abrams often doesn’t spall unless you hit the middle because of the fuel tanks. I’ve experienced it both ways.
Those fuel tanks help with the spall which is the main issue other than the actual armor of LFP is mid at best. Those “protective barriers” they added create enough spall to easily one tap from the LFP at least 8-10 times.
BRL-1 and BRL-2 were test targets from the mid 1970ties they were actually not the armors put in the Abrams. But BRL-1 was close to the initial XM1 protection level of 320mm. That was however when the tank weighed 57.5 tons. Then they redid the turret to the winning design we know, which increased the weight to 57.9 tons, among the changes was an increase in the slope of the turret cheeks and making it 120mm capable. They would add an additional ~2.1 tons more before production (not all of it armor) increasing sides to 350/750mm from 320/740mm @25° and the front to 400/750mm.
The early M1A1 armor package was formulated in the early 1980ties, the tank went on a 0.75 tons weight loss program before adding most of the 1.75 back to the front of the turret for a total weight of 61 tons for IPM1, the protection level you showed seems to be for total crew compartment, not the turret front which would have around 900-1000mm CE protection. Thickness was to increase CE protection, not KE, which is why they kept the turret shape for DU HA.
idk where you have been but if you shoot an abrams LFP it will either spall like crazy on the initial armor or it will spall even more on the fuel tank bulkhead
Late reply, but fair point. But the Challenger doesn’t only have a LFP weakspot, it also has a UFP weakspot. I was speaking mainly for the LFP. The Abrams LFP is almost double the size of Russian/German MBTs. The LFP also does consistently spall and with the new turret basket, will most definitely disable you.
