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).
2 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
))))))))))
2 Likes
So then why renew the license instead of allowing it to lapse, if it was excess to requirement?
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.