810mm KE out of a 960mm LoS turret means a KE modifer of 0.84375, hull’s LoS is ~700mm, so 700*0.84375 = ~590mm RHAe KE head-on (so I’m really not sure where you took the “810mm KE hull” from).
Regardless, it’s physically impossible for the hull & turret to offer the same amount of protection due to difference in how much armor they physically have, under the assumption that they use the exact same armor, of course (which, for the sake of making it simpler to produce, would likely be the case).
The only MBT that I can think of to have similar protection on its hull as it does on the turret (IRL), atm, would be the 2A7V, but that’s purely because the physical amount of armor it has is nearly identical on both.
The current armor values for the turret cheeks are 600mm KE at a 30 degree angle, and going off of the BRL’s hull proposal which increased the KE protection by 35%, then the turret cheeks would have ~810mm of KE protection at 30 degrees. Seeing how there were likely non-DU hull upgrades before the DU ones, it wouldn’t be surprising for the non-DU hulls of the M1A2s to be within the ballpark of the non-DU turret cheeks.
That’s… not how it works? The BRL document is talking about improvements over the existing NERA hull armor composite, which at the time offered ~350mm RHAe KE within a 25 degree arc (British and Swedish documents confirm this).
That’s 350*1.35 = ~473mm RHAe KE within a 25 degree arc for the hull with new armor.
Said document, which was talking about the Tandem Ceramic Armor meant to replace the NERA based armor of the hull, did not mention that the turret armor was the point of reference, so by trying to tie the two together, you’re effectively grasping at straws to peddle forward an agenda that somehow, a hull with significantly more limited armor space, can somehow match vehicles who used equally heavy armor sandwiches, and match them mm for mm, that had +/- 300mm more of space to work with, lol.
Case in point:
Seeing how there were likely non-DU hull upgrades before the DU ones
And which document is meant to confirm this, exactly?
Plus, a hull with DU would not offer the same level of protection as the turret, because of the available space, this can be easily calculated:
Turret’s offering ~600mm RHAe KE within the 30 degree arc means it’s 600mm KE out of a ~830mm LoS thick turret, thus the KE modifier is 0.72289156626, knowing the hull’s LoS, 700*0.72289156626 = ~506mm RHAe KE. Nowhere near to the turret.
Here’s some food for thought, TCA was pretty similar to HAP-1/2 series of armor in terms of KE protection pound for pound, how do we know that? Simply, since it has to offer 35% more KE over the existing “BRL-2” armor of the M1A1, and knowing that M1A1s turret protection was worth 400mm RHAe KE/60 degree arc, TCA equipped turret would be worth 540mm RHAe KE, a 60mm difference from a DU turret, meaning 1mm of DU armor was equal to 1.11mm of the TCA armor, as such, if a TCA hull offered ~473mm RHAe KE, a DU hull would have offered ~525mm RHAe KE.
Still nowhere near a DU’s turret level of protection.
Honestly your whole post is just mumbo jumbo of wishful thinking and absurd beliefs.
Yes, the export packages did have a 350mm KE protection hull, but those are export packages (of which we know are weaker than the domestic packages due to the lack of DU, so it isn’t unlikely that there are other protection differences elsewhere).
Which is exactly my point. In terms of protection, it would be: M1 hull < M1A1 hull < M1A2 (DU) hull. Sure, if you want to say that the hull of the M1A1 isn’t the same protection as the non-DU M1A2 turret cheeks going off of the amount of volume then sure that’s fine, but it’s not like hull armor improvements didn’t happen before the DU hulls (from what I’ve seen).
From what I remember, it’s the pre-FY2004/2005 budget reports which mention an improved frontal armor upgrade in combination with the 5 hull limit until August of 2006, and then some stuff from this bug report showing that the SEPs were approved for improved hull protection (without specifying DU).
in my experience the m1a1 HC is one of the best abrams for one reason. IT CAN DIG, if it can dig a hole or a trench for itself deep enough to hide your hull you become ALMOST invincible from the front, however wether you can dig fast enough before you get seen by the enemy is dependent on if the maps big or small. in my experience the large Poland map is where I had it work out the best
There was never an “export package hull” as there is no armor package that contains DU unless decisively proven otherwise, M1A1 and M1A2 had the same exact hull armor package, the British & the Swedish confirmed this. Stop making stuff up.
All this talk about hull armor on the M1 abrams reminds me that the hull side composite provides 25mm additional KE protection yet has more than 40mm of steel in it.
~105mm total RHA over the side at the thickest, but protection just barely gets to 87mm.
Little silly that 105mm of steel can’t actually stop ammo with ~105mm of penetration if a bit of rubber and air is added.
The British and Swedish got non-DU armor packages, yes. Did they get the most up-to-date non-DU packages? Who knows?
If I remember correctly, that document (a medical journal for the army I think?) is referencing a source from 1988 - where there were no DU-hulled Abrams in existence (not even in prototypes, yet).
Which they didn’t. By the power of the previously shared snipet (which happens to be from an FM dated to 2001), and NRC licenses, M1A2 could’ve never had a DU hull.
If I remember correctly, that document (a medical journal for the army I think?) is referencing a source from 1988 - where there were no DU-hulled Abrams in existence (not even in prototypes, yet).
What is you talking about boy brah. The snipet is from a field manual, a source that’s as primary as it gets (but of course, it must lie because it says no DU hull).
You’ll reject everything unless it conforms to your fantasy, won’t you? If that’s the case, I give up, impossible to have a discussion with a glazer.
Of which the field manual’s source is a document from 1988. If you send me the field manual’s name/code I can look it up to be sure.
I did some searching for the form from what I could remember, and I found that your source wasn’t that medical one I was thinking it is, but here’s the context so you know I wasn’t just making stuff up:
Spoiler
Anyways, if you have the name of the source then I can double check it.
There were no more “M1A2” MBTs in the purest sense of the term by 2006 in active servce. All either had been upgraded to SEPvX variant, or retired from service. Everything else is just you trying to wish something into existence.
Of which the field manual’s source is a document from 1988. If you send me the field manual’s name/code I can look it up to be sure.
Frankly untrue. The “document from 1988” is only one of the dozens that the FM cites as its references, with their dates ranging from (the oldest being) 1981 to (newest) 2000. This is normal for Field Manuals as they more often than not borrow and re-use data unless it’s been made outdated by advancements, changes to X thing, etc.
All in all, this FM (that I will not be sharing with you, because I simply don’t want to), singe-handedly debunks the absurd idea of M1A2 (1992) having a DU equipped hull. It also refutes the claim that the Swedes and the British were provided with some “export, non-DU hull armor”, NRC licenses are just a cherry on top.
Well that’s likely true, I thought you were referring to any M1A2.
Ok so it’s completely irrelevant for all Abrams past 2000, thank you.
The most recent version of FM-8-283 (which is what I believe you are referencing) is ATP 4-02.83, which is approved for public release and unlimited distribution, does not state DU is just in the turrets of Abrams.
That’s where NRC licenses come in… actually, I’m pretty sure I specifically mentioned that I am talking solely about the M1A2 as it was between 1992 and 2001 - 06 i.e till the license “supposedly” lifted the ban on DU armors.
ATP 4-02.83
That’s nothing more than the FMs version for the Army, anyhow, the one I am referencing is older than the one you are (as yours is from 2014), and is not approved for public release.
Because the original one couldn’t. That’s obvious… SEPv1 had entered service before the “cleareance” for DU hulls happened, hence why;
SEPv1, unlikely. SEPv2, maybe, somewhat likely.
There’s a seven year gap between SEPv1s entry into service and the DU clearance. Maybe v1s post-2006 have had their hull armor replaced with a DU one, maybe they thought there’s no point in doing so as SEPv2 had already begun to enter the force in numbers by then.
