After reading though the posts here I do have a genuine question on the SEP v3. Was the UFP thickness increased at all? I don’t have any sources but I have seen claims of it being 51mm thick.
1 Like
I don’t understand why the snail put the hydraulic pump where it is, it’s suppose to be on the other side of the firewall next to the engine.
who knows tbh but someone made a bug report and its been accepted now its the waiting game
1 Like
That’s nice to hear, I had made a bug report about it, and they just closed it saying it wasn’t a bug. Good to hear someone else got through.
I forgot to post this but here you go. If it is accepted is questionable. Community Bug Reporting System
Post that aged very well.
1 Like
It may have been a pre-production unit fitted with mass simulators, to allow for proper testing of the suspension loading characteristics. Or erroneously including the revamped fuel tank liner
There are a number of aspects regarding the M1 Abrams series of vehicles that are such basic knowlegde, so easily verified via the most basic of google searches, that getting them wrong is honestly shocking.
Yet here we are with you claiming the M1A1 uses DU armour.
This is the equivalent of claiming the Leopard 2A4 uses applique turret wedge armour, when in reality that concerns the Leopard 2A5.
The M1A1 and M1A1 HA are two seperate vehicles and you cannot confuse such basic aspects when discussing this topic with any sincerity or depth.
You’re linking sources here, but I don’t get the impression you’re properly reading through them, here’s an excerpt from one of your own sources:
The basic M1A1’s were produced in 1985 with the same armour package as the IPM1. Production of M1A1 HA’s with DU turret armour started from october of 1988.
Could you please answer the following questions for me?
- What is the official designation for the composite armour package that the M1 Abrams uses?
- How about the M1A1?
- M1A1 HA?
- M1A2?
Literally says it right here. You can call up the author of the document and tell them they are wrong.
I’m 70% sure all export models such as the AIM and A1s that went to Egypt did not have UR.
It was initially known as the UR armor package but after it was standardized, it’s just considered an M1A1
2 Likes
What says the DU was only in the turret?
If you know a source contains errors, maybe consider not using the source?
If a certain source claims the M1A1 uses a KwK 36 88mm gun, I’m going to discard that information because it’s obviously false. There’s no reason to blindly take their word for it.
Which variant are we talking about?
You said m1a1 HA only had turret DU, is there a document that shows it was limited to only improvements in The turret? I’m curious about this stuff
Yes, quite a large number of sources state the same thing, here’s one:
‘‘The Abrams tank family (M1, IPM1, M1A1, and M1A2) has an improved hull armor envelope that does not contain DU. However, M1A1 heavy armor (HA) and M1A2s have armor modules on the existing left and right frontal turret armor. The DU in these modules is completely encapsulated in steel. The front slope of the turrets of these tanks has a radioactive signature; a little less than 0.005 mSv/hour.’’
-TREATMENT OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES 20 December 2001
? You mean the turret ring bug report acknowledged 10 months ago after initial Abrams folks mentioned it 3 or 4 years ago?
The conversation you replied to was about the Abrams Spall Liners bug report. Gaijin (rightfully) closed the report because the sources in it were bogus.
1 Like
I covered that with some fellows last year.
What difference does that make with the turret ring and the BRL-2/HAP1/HAP2/HAP3/FEP packages?
I already mentioned in a Tiktok they could add flak vests to Abrams since all crew wear them regularly
What? What does that have to do with the conversation? Neither the thread opener, nor the reply chain you replied to have anything to do with those packages.
Bro, I don’t watch your TikToks. I refuse to use that cringe ass platform in the first place. Regardless. I’d be okay with that. It’s historic and somewhat unique.
1 Like
Necrons mentioned the difference in armor. Hence I thought we were discussing armor, not spall liners.
That platform is pretty good for outreach. You just have to be willing to rub shoulders with different folks. Not everyone is to your cup of tea, but that’s most social media.
Glad you like the suggestion.
Both SpeclistMain1 and I posted numerous sources, literature and documentation that confirms that there is du in the hull. That’s a medical document that references the M1, not an M1 document. That’s equivalent to me posting this screenshot from a VA doctor. If you can find a M1 specific document that says that there is NOT du in the hull, I’d be interested to read that. I don’t know if you completely ignored, or did not acknowledge Speclist’s post but these all directly reference DU in the hull.
2 Likes
All of which isn’t valid and I (among many other users) have debunked countless times.
I’m not going to repeat myself by once again debunking those one-by-one.
Official U.S. Army Field Manual (FM 4-02-283)*
Documents don’t come with much more authority than this one.