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.
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.
What amazes me most is the Abrams’ turret armor from the side. It can be penetrated at incredible angles. And this is a one-shot. And those who write about skills here, at least look at the cardboard-like Abrams armor and how the gaijin ignore all the Abrams reports.
And I’ll remind you that you can’t penetrate the T-80BVM straight from the side of the turret.
This is the correct guess. Gaijin, unless they have perfect understanding of how a tank’s armor is composed (fx: see Russian T-series MBT and how their armor is modeled compared to basically every single Western 3rd gen MBT), will not model a certain part as its own separate layer, they will simply adjust armor values whilst leaving the actual model unchanged for simplicity’s sake.
it is not DU though
the armor values for the later abrams are nearly 1 to 1 copies of the results of armor testing from the swedish trials abrams which had an export armor package that didnt have DU and was noted as being less protective than the domestic armor with DU
I dont know how gaijin has gotten away with ignoring multiple documents that specificaly state improvements to turret side armor
The M1A2 and M1A1 shouldn’t have different protection levels without the DU.
While the DU should be stronger, it isn’t a big deal right now. Nothing can penetrate the turret cheeks reliably right now.
they should though? abrams non DU armor development didnt stop the instant they added DU
even though domestic abrams did all or almost all use DU because of export restrictions non DU armor packages were still developed and the in game abrams armor is identical to the one of those packages we know the values for as such it does not contain DU because in the same document that has that information it mentions that the domestic DU packages are more protective
Documentation on the HA upgrade program says otherwise.
No Abrams before the HA received DU inside IRL according to the DoD. The HC is the earliest in-game to receive them.
I am not able to send the documents to prove this, unfortunately. Gaijin doesn’t allow documents anymore due to classified leaks.
Aside from the SEP v3, there is no internal change to the armor between the M1A1 and M1A2 outside the DU additions that are publicly known.
wtf are you saying because I can guaranty that modern export abrams dont have the same protection as the basic m1a1
we also know for a fact that the armor package for the greek trials was significantly better than the one for the swedish trials and that both of them do not contain DU proving that non DU armor was still developed
I should have clarified but I meant after it was introduced with HA
What are you saying? The M1A1 did not receive the DU package. The M1A1 HA and above did.
Export models also lost their DU regardless if they received a DU package in US service. I never said they didn’t.
Export models such as the Ukrainian M1A1 SA in US service received DU, but when sent to Ukraine, they lost the upgrade package, which brings them back to the standard M1A1 protection.
then what is your point? because your entire argument is that because the m1a2 has better protection than m1a1 it must have DU
but we both agree that there were improvements in non DU armor so your claim is not inherently valid and when combined with the fact that the in game M1A1HC and on armor is nearly an exact copy of the values known for a non DU armor package that is specificaly stated to be less protective than the DU packages I dont know how you can keep arguing that they have DU in game
The primary difference between the M1A1 and M1A2 in real life is specifically the upgrade from Analog to Digital. The protection levels between an M1A1HC and an original M1A2 should be identical.
As far as I’m aware, the v3 is the only one with any major protection upgrades after the HA program, which can be visibly seen on the turret and hull.
This is an M1A2 SEP v1
This is an M1A2 SEP v3
The difference in thickness is obvious.
I agree that the current protection is probably lower than real life, but most MBT have this issue. The only reason I commented here at all was to correct the OP’s confusion and fix the blatantly untrue rumor that the in-game models don’t contain DU protection within their statcards. That Protection may be too low, but it is present.
It doesn’t.
The M1A1 uses BRL-2, the M1A1HC Clickbait uses HAP-2.
BRL-1 → BRL-2 → HAP-1 → HAP-2 → HAP-3 / EAP → NGAP
BRL-1 = M1/105
BRL-2 = M1 IP + M1A1
HAP-1 = M1A1HA
HAP-2 = M1A2 + M1A1HC + M1A1 AIM
HAP-3 = M1A2 SEP + M1A2 SEPv2 + M1A1 AIMv2/FEP (M1A1SA uses EAP, simply uses different material compositions to circumvent export materiel regulations)
NGAP = M1A2 SEPv3
