This is not true…
It is electro optical, similar to the T-90
1 Like
Do they? Never knew, my bad.
shtora
Look at the cheeks of the M1A1 versus the M1A1 HC or any M1A2 variant with an APFSDS like DM53 fired at them.
This is an M1A1’s turret cheek.
This is an M1A1 HC’s turret cheek.
This is an M1A2 SEP’s turret cheek.
DU, while it might not be visually modeled, is represented within the protection analysis of the Abrams. All M1A1 HC and M1A2 models receive this armor package.
3 Likes
You can check this old forum post.
Right, thanks for the clarification, I thought the M1A1’s armor was bugged since the value doesn’t show.
Whether it is underperforming or not doesn’t matter when you say it’s not present at all.
Buddy go ahead and check every unclassified document presented, it says alot about whether the Abrams in the game got DU in turret cheeks or not, because i highly suspect they don’t because as Gaijin said their sources are based on export models.
You said
Directly stating the Abrams within the game do not get DU in their protection, not that it is wrong. You stated it does not exist at all.
Yet the thickness of the HC and later models does increase to nearly 750mm of protection.
It just so happens that the HC and above models in the game did receive turret DU in real life, unlike the M1A1, making this consistent with DU addition packages, even if the values are incorrect.
its a bit inaccurate regardless
DU turret on current ingame abrams are base on swedish trial/swedish export model armor which they explicitly stated “substaintially worse” than the domestic model
the protection of actual domestic DU abrams would be same as Leopard 2A7V but without the “breaking wedge” part
and also i pretty sure that the M1A1 turret armor is underperforming anyways
2.2x times the composite but only ~70mm improvement from the M1
1 Like
I did not say it was accurate, I stated they are present regardless if it’s incorrect in thickness.
The M1A1 HC was not trialed in Sweden and has the same armor as the M1A2. Stating that the in-game M1A2 Abrams is based on Swedish Trials does not add up because of this.
In case you haven’t looked, they do have similar turret protections within the game.
Right
Gaijin modeling fool another person once again
do u realized that armor ingame are inaccurate
do u seriously think that germany would give sweden a better leopard?
i dont think so, if anything sweden buy leopard uparmored to match w german and if anything abrams ingame should have the same protection or closely to the “actual” leopard that is meatball flavor
KE protection is slightly underperforming but CE protection is substantially over-performing:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IFCdPIBui58s
yeah i see that
+/-750mm ce and like +/-500mm something ke for the gunner side turret
The line of the wedge has a lot of protection, but the entire turret doesn’t offer that. The lower parts often drop to sub-300.
Sure, the Abrams should be stronger, I agree, but so should the Merkava and Leclerc. This isn’t an American-only issue, and the protection against kinetic hardly matters since no shell is penetrating anything above 650mm in-game.
true
in the end its just gaijin modeling doing its thing
they are sh*t
Ohh. So distrupting the missile. I get it
Soft-Kill is disruption of missiles through jamming, like the T-90.
Hard-Kill is physically destroying a projectile, like on the Merkava Mk.4M or Black Night. The Black Night’s Israeli Iron Fist can also destroy APFSDS at a distance.
1 Like