Disabled =/= Destroyed.
Please read posts fully before replying.
Maybe you could avoid pointless replies. Bad fuel will disable a tank or hitting a rock .It has nothing to do with the game.
Odds are “above the turrets ring” is turret sides. They were typically less armored and an target by opposition. Hence the upgrade in side turret armor.
I repeat: They could’ve simply called it ‘‘Turret side’’ in that case.
They said in 1980 that they felt there were no obvious shot traps and that they had considered them all and fired at them all with Russian guns and even their own guns.
They had criticism form older US Generals initial but they replied they were out of date with their out look.
Friendly fire such as longbows and US DU is what took out US tanks during the Gulf and the crews still survived ,they did not go up in smoke after a tap from an old Russian tank.
As necrons stated it was mostly disablement not outright destruction never to be repaired.
Except they mentioned vulnerable area’s. So identified vulnerable areas above the turret’s ring this could range all to the commanders hatch.
Likely referring to nothing, you can’t infer anything they’re talking about without specifically referencing it. Since they themselves don’t actually point with specificity. As well as injury from getting hit in the turret ring, as you clearly said was an issue.
Your claim, assumption and your inference as of now have zero evidence. As such, they should wholly be disregarded, as it’s just your opinion with nothing to back it up.
Which is strange, considering the turret ring is listed as ‘‘Low band armor’’ as opposed to the lower plate, upper plate, gun shield and turret cheeks being listed as ‘‘High bad armor’’ on the initial M1 Abrams.
The difference between high band and low band is not stated to be particularly great, but it does indicate a slight inferiority in protection offered.
The M1’s high band armor is only stated to equal ≈322mm RHAe (KE) @ 60° frontal arc.
Of course, later models feature extended turret fronts with improved composite solutions, later still they incorporated DU for the cheek modules.
The turret ring area would be of significantly lower protection relative to those turret improvements in the form of the cheeks and gun shield.
Do you have any source for these claims?
From what I recall, the US made use of threat simulants using US-made ammunition as a proxy for Soviet ammunition.
I didn’t rig anything, you chose to comprehend it that way and I gave up trying to explain that to you.
1 Like
Interesting data. A bit vague and confusing though. First they say 23 and the second sentence says of the 9 destroyed (not 23?). Does that mean the 2 that were intentionally destroyed were from damage from the turret ring? I’d suspect the Abrams was hit through the hull, not the turret. “above the turret ring” is still through the hull since the ring sits pretty far down in the hull. I can’t make a guess as to what they meant by the rear
USA is biased in air, kinda makes up for their ground being bad in some areas
“What is good about top tier us? Oh but you can’t name all these vehicles because of reasons unrelated to them being good.”
1 Like
How is it vague? I quote:
“23 Abrams were destroyed or damaged in the Persian area.”
It means that these tanks were disabled, I don’t know from what damage, and intentionally destroyed afterwards by friendly forces.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Buoncing gor apfsds shells shouldnt even be a thing. Apfsds shells shatter. They dont bounce
2 Likes
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
Lets stay on topic and keep personal debates to PM’s. :)
2 Likes
We’re not.
We’re talking about this one: Is it too much to ask to fix US Ground top tier? - #442 by Necrons31467
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.
5 Likes
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.
3 Likes