Looks like some of the comments were flagged and removed. I did get to read most of your comment Necrons. If we’re talking about the A2 blueprint thread, we did butt heads concerning the A2 hull. I made a valid point that the A2 being a heavier version of the A1, the hull would need to be reinforced to deal with the added weight and stress. You believe that the A1 hull wasn’t altered in the 44 years of service and that’s fine. While there is no documentation of current A2 hull specifications, it’s almost impossible to not have altered the A2 hull to some degree.
I made an educated guess as to which the hull had to be upgraded and made use of both the CATTB program’s findings and the weight difference between the A1 and A2 to make that guess. I also made note that you can’t change the composite from BRL pattern (A1) to HAP-1/2 (A2) without removing parts of the hull.
That educated guess you scoffed at, told me I was not credible and you would not listen to anything I had to say. (not like you did anyway) That’s why I don’t treat you with respect.
I know, that’s why the Abrams armor is ineffective. The lower mantlet being a non-pen area would be a hotfix until Gaijin could rework the Abrams or even apfsds
You’re just looking for a fight, regardless of context.
I never said that.
What I said is that the M1A2 uses the same hull structure as the M1A1. This is corroborated by numerous sources stating this fact.
Obviously the hull has underwent changes, notably to APU housings, NBC filter housings, changes to crew seating, belly plate additions, etc. etc.
But you were arguing that the 80mm UFP is a possibility because the M1A2 supposedly saw changes to the hull structure.
I asked you to provide sources for that claim, to which you replied: ‘‘I don’t need sources, it’s common knowledge’’ or something along those lines.
It’s a one-way street with you, you require others to support their claims with sources, but then when questioned on your claims, suddenly those high standards are dropped.
Re-read that post. I did not mention UFP. We were talking specifically about the use of the original M1 hull vs the Hc and further in game. Let’s keep it civil, the moderator was kind in not locking the thread.
There’s a multi-ton weight difference because the M1A1 features no DU armour.
The M1A2 and M1A1 HA do, they’re literally called ‘‘Heavy Armor’’.
Other users have explained this to you, but I don’t get the feeling these explanations stuck.
You then tried to argue that the weight increase comes from internal changes and hull structure changes.
You’ve still not presented any evidence to support that claim.
You also claimed the UFP was possibly ‘‘thickened’’ around the time of the SEP v2, not surprisngly you again show no source to support that claim.
Ever more problematically, I had already shown you evidence that even the SEP v3 uses the same 38.1mm UFP prior to that comment.
This is possibly due to some cross sections including the Fuel tank’s internal liner in the thickness of the plate, though it isn’t RHA or a monolithic slab.
You can’t just add 5 tons of weight to the turret and expect the original M1 hull to take it, that’s the point I was trying to make. The original M1 hull was already stress cracking and deforming from the CATTB program’s heavier turret. The notes made in the document I posted explain what was done in order to combat that. They reinforced areas of the hull. (fact) You are right in saying I said that it’s a possibility that they increased the armor of the UFP on newer models using the data from the Cattb program. The HC/HA hulls came after the CATTB program was scrapped. I never claimed anything was fact.
At the time of the HC/HA since they were used in the A2 and newer M1s.
A single photo with no measurements or ways of validating thickness.
He wasn’t talking about the areas surrounding the fuel tank, just the UFP in general.
Which is why suspension was reinforced.
I fail to see what suspension reinforcements have to do with the glacis armor however.
I once again fail to see how that report is relevant when it comes to it’s changes.
The M1A1 uses the M256 120mm smoothbore cannon, the primary reason why the CATTB required changes is because of the increased load and stress caused by firing the XM291, from what I can find the XM291 results in 2.5x more load stress when firing compared to the M256.
The M1A2 still uses the M256 cannon, I don’t see how structural changes (which aren’t stated to have anything to do with the glacis armor anyways) are relevant.
Furthermore, changes listed are the deletion of the hull blow-off panels to increase structural strenght. There’s no indication that the hull blow-off panels on the M1A2 were deleted, nor are any of the other listed changes in the CATTB stated to have carried over to the M1A2.
You’ve also still not shown any sources that back up your claims.
I’m asking for the three-dimensional turret ring that is very obviously thicker than 50mm be modeled as a three-dimensional turret ring that is thicker than 50mm (it should be 250mm+ and angled).
“Maybe GRB should just become an RNG game, where you have no agency in where you aim.”
Do they mean the turret side? Legitimately what does “above the turret ring” mean lol
Ok. It was fixed for 98% of possible cases. Now it only can rarely happen with APFSDS < 90mm or very weak shaped charge like tow-2b. In all other cases, getting a black ammo without an ammo explosion is unreal. I haven’t seen a single example of black ammo after shooting with 105-120mm APFSDS (most common shell on top tier) either here or on reddit since patch 2.35.0.26, although before that you could consistently see at least a couple examples every month.
If you see this a lot, I’d love to see a link to a replay.
The armour of an M1 Abrams has nothing to do with the in-game armour of an M1 Abrams?
Is that what you’re trying to say here?
If/when the source I referenced becomes available for public sharing, I’ll use it to bug report the turret ring armour values, so I’d say it’s pretty relevant to the game alright.
Yes the guns were different and the CATTB program was meant to test a lightweight 140mm cannon. I know I am not going to explain this well but I’ll try. Let’s just imagine that the xm291 turret weighs a total of 10 tons and the m256 turret (m1) also weighs 10 tons. You fire both and they exert a measurable amount of kinetic energy which can be measured in both directions. (shell exiting cannon, and recoil from the shot) The 140mm version exerts more kinetic energy and causes damage to the hull from stress and deformation and the 120mm version does not. Now add 5 tons of weight to the 120mm version, what happens when the same exact gun is fired without making the hull more rigid? The turret is going to exert more kinetic energy from the recoil into a hull that is not meant to handle the extra weight. I tried to explain it as best I can, I asked the same question in AI and here’s that result.
"Structural Strain and Fatigue:
The hull will experience greater stress, especially at the points where the turret connects to the hull. This increased stress can lead to:
Cracking: The hull might develop cracks, particularly in areas of weakness or stress concentration.
Warping: The hull could become distorted or bent due to the uneven weight distribution.
Fatigue: Over time, repeated stress can cause the hull to weaken and eventually fail.
Reduced Maneuverability:
The increased overall weight of the tank will make it more difficult to turn, accelerate, and decelerate. This can reduce the tank's agility and responsiveness on the battlefield.
Increased Ground Pressure:
The heavier tank will exert more pressure on the ground, potentially leading to:
Reduced traction: The tank might have difficulty moving in soft or muddy terrain.
Damage to infrastructure: The tank could cause damage to roads, bridges, and other structures.
Reduced Suspension Life:
The increased weight will put additional strain on the suspension system, leading to:
Wear and tear: Components such as springs, shock absorbers, and tracks will wear out more quickly.
Reduced ride comfort: The tank will be less comfortable for the crew to operate.
Increased Maintenance Costs:
The additional stress on the hull and other components will require more frequent maintenance and repairs, increasing operating costs.
To mitigate these risks, it would be necessary to:
Reinforce the hull: This could involve adding thicker armor plates, strengthening the turret ring, or using stronger materials.
Upgrade the suspension system: The suspension components would need to be designed to handle the increased weight.
Optimize the overall design: The tank's design could be modified to distribute the weight more evenly and reduce stress on critical components.
By taking these measures, the negative consequences of increasing the turret weight without reinforcing the hull can be minimized."
I never claimed it as fact, I made an educated guess. It’s more of a physics thing
Not to sounds biased but if this is supposed to be a realistic game, the US should really be top in everything. If you look at post Vietnam era aircraft, their combat records are second to none. 1,904 M1A1 Abrams tanks were deployed in Desert Storm of which only 23 were damaged or lost (7 lost from friendly fire, 2 intentionally destroyed, and the rest had minor damage). That being said, Italy should get Leopards since they’re already worked out a deal to get the 2A8s in the future. Maybe we’ll see the M1A2C when the 2A8s hit game. If it’s a balancing issue, then CAS should be reworked
That’s wrong, the deal on 2A8IT was canceled because KMV didn’t agree to allow Italians make changes into construction using equipment of Italian origin. Italy is now making a new MBT with Rheinmetall, most likely based on KF51 design.