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.
M1A2 (DU) hull
And evidence of that? Because;
but it’s not like hull armor improvements didn’t happen before the DU hulls
They didn’t until at least post-1999 (i.e post-SEPv1s accepetance into service).
3 Likes
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.
Sorry, rubber is not Soviet, therefore it’s worse
))))))))))
5 Likes
So then why renew the license instead of allowing it to lapse, if it was excess to requirement?
1 Like
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).
It happened at least during SEPv1.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Yes, that’s true. Until August 2006.
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.
1 Like
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.
SEPv1, unlikely. SEPv2, maybe, somewhat likely.
1 Like
forgot Australia
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.
1 Like
Well you said post SEPv1 acceptance, which to me implies that you meant the SEPv1 couldn’t have had DU hulls as well.
You should probably delete the messages referencing them, then.
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.
1 Like
Going off of the budget justifications (amongst other sources), there were SEPv1s with DU hulls, though.
wasting your time talking to jecka doesn’ matter what you show him he will keep posting old sources and ignore your proof.
Better brace for the random incoherent insults about to be thrown your way lol.
1 Like
I’ve seen him ramble on the old forum, even the post for which he got perma banned there so, I’m already used to it.
2 Likes
Everytime I go against what he says I’m apparently just a noob that just sits in the back of the map sniping and doesn’t contribute anything to their team lmao. Can’t even count how many times he has told me that already.
Which is ironic on multiple levels lol.
3 Likes
2 Likes