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.
2 Likes
no it wasnt.
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.
So you read a book well,shame it has nothing to do with the game
1 Like
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.
The armour of the M1 could be entirely fictional but fun to play. Would that be a better option?
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
2 Likes
I’m gonna say it again, USA is biased in air to the point them being bad in some areas in ground is counter-weight to that at this point.
4 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
The game doesnt balance BRs by time frame, it balances them by capability. So the USA even if you think its top in everything (It isn’t until you get to specific time frames and even then they lose in tanks and helis at that point lol, even realistically they are not superior here) would still be finely balanced until you get to the point where USA has more shit to add and others dont.
combat records end up being used as contextless, lacking of nuance, posterboards to point at for USA pilots. They are misleading.
4 Likes
Ah I didn’t know that. I thought they already secured that deal. That’s pretty cool, interested to see what they come up with. Curious to see what Japan comes out with too since they are working on domestically made military units.
Ah I meant post Vietnam era. The US wasn’t really known for being great at anything equipment wise
You still can’t blindly point to combat records.
4 Likes
Increased vehicle weight =/= 2.5x higher load stress when firing.
You’ve also not addressed one of my arguments, so I’ll repeat it:
Seems you’re pretty well read on the CATTB program, better than I.
Problem. CATTB was implemented in the mid-90s, and the chassis underwent multiple revisions and yes, reinforcement. The suspension alone was redone 7 times.
Were M1A1s upgraded? Absolutely those that could were. Particularly when upgraded to M1A2 standards.
The question of hull armor won’t be answered for at least another 40 years unless we get a unlucky leak which I don’t suspect will happen.
The weight of the turret recoiling from a 140 versus a 120 is valid, but if they then discovered how to reinforce the chassis to carry more armor and the turret could boast thicker/heavier layers of composite and DU screens, that explains the upgrades to the suspension, alongside the APU and other grubbins introduced.
Most forget that M1s and M1A1s had one battery pack of six batteries before the M1A2 SEPSv1 introed the double banks for greater electrical output to offset the newer digital models’ drain.
2 Likes
As USA vs. Itself in air, maybe Ground RB should put Germany and Sweden and USA against each other like they do USSR.