In what way do you see it as “magically [having] a new[,] significantly better armor package 5 years later”?
FMS and FMS-IP had the same protective capability… FMS-IP simply have a thicker backplate that put it on-par with HAP-2.
Why don’t you go ahead and quote exactly where I said such.
I do not care to go on a duck hunt for you. Cite your sources within the book, not the whole book (in case you didn’t understand that, it’s a metaphor). Like seriously, that’s a lot to read through and I don’t want to be on the forums that long. I’m not terminally online.
Gaijin would probably strangle me, but I’ll take a gander through my hundreds of documents again to find the exact line. These things aren’t exactly small, you know.
Visual identification and documents do not state a major improvement of armor outside of DU. Some use wording which can be assumed as such, but I have yet to see any solid proof that these vehicles received major armor reworks in production models, especially when it’s hard to get the DoD to do anything at all.
It’s even harder to take this random guy’s word for most things when he states the M1A1SA could have received DU hull inserts, which is laughable. The hull would destroy itself from that.
You’re still assuming that because Gaijin can’t model protection correctly, the package isn’t present in-game. This is just not a good way of thinking. It’s more likely they did it incorrectly than not at all, especially when they have reaffirmed the turret has DU in-game at several points.
A vehicle’s armor being bugged doesn’t mean that it’s non-existent.
and you are still not holding gaijin accountable for their mistakes
if they model a tank without a specific feature it is only valid to say that it lacks that feature in game, yes it is gaijins fault but that doesnt change the state of the game
Oh no, I am fucking livid how badly they’ve butchered Israeli vehicles within the game. I have the largest Namer armor post on the forums and many more.
then dont say they have modeled things that they havent as doing so is just covering up their mistakes
The difference in protection starting with the M1A1HC, which remains identical across the M1A2 series, shows that they intended to model DU. It just isn’t very accurate.
Let me remind you that Israel’s Namer and Merkava still have the incorrect armor type and are vastly weaker than they are IRL.
it just shows they intended to model armor upgrades not DU
and even if they intended to model it they effectively did not so saying that they did is covering up their poor modeling
The armor upgrade shouldn’t remain the same if you continue to push the idea that the M1A2 series has received major armor reworks.
The M1A1HC has DU inserts, which set it apart from the M1A1. Thus making its armor much thicker.
If there was some armor improvement between the HC and M1A2 SEPv2, it would show in-game, according to your statements that non-DU upgrades were done. If non-DU upgrades were done, then the Non-DU Abrams in-game should have different values.
they do m1a1 and before is obvious but AIM has like 30mm less protection
it has, gaijin just ignores the sources claiming that you need specific values to report them and then says no without a good reason when you do have values
no it has to do with the internal spaced armor (exterior armor stayed the same)
M1A1 HC has better armor than the export models.
M1A1 Heavy Common
Source? I’ve seen stuff from the early 1990s with similar sentiments, but I pointed those out in the timeline.
“‘The new armor is a much better package than provided in Sweden because we and the Army are smarter than we were then,’ McVey said. 'We have learned how to use materials and geometry to improve the armor protection from previous generations without having to get into the DU [depleted uranium] material. We have passed along technical details to both customers through classified channels, and I would say we are equal, or better than, the competition in terms of protection.”
Should, not would.
What I CAN show you is the Kevlar Spall Liner source talking about how that addition would be 4800 pounds and terrible for the vehicle’s mobility and sustainability.
This screenshot comes from page 57 of the 1996 M1 Abrams OptiMetrics. Using Deductive Reasoning, we can assume that if adding two tons to the M1A2 Abrams was considered highly impractical for the model due to weight concerns, their response to several more tons worth of DU would likely be the same if not stronger. If they’re willing to ditch a spall liner, they’re willing to ditch a heavier DU kit. We also know that the DoD discussed the possible addition of DU to the hull starting with the SEP series, meaning that no M1A1 models should already have this standard.
I apologise for not being able to send you the document you want (mostly cause I have no idea if it’s declassified), but this one should be sufficient to prove my point. The suspension already struggled with the addition of the turret DU and other armor modifications. They didn’t want to add more weight to the already struggling chassis until a solution could be found. This solution appears to have been found for the SEPv3 by the present increase in thickness on the cheeks and hull of the tank.
See above for visible evidence.
I do my best to be informed on these topics as I genuinely love these vehicles, but I don’t see any evidence for hull DU on M1A1 models. Not only could the suspension not handle it, as seen actively discussed by the excerpt above, but it really wouldn’t be necessary either. This was in the years following the Soviet Union’s collapse, when Military Budgets were shrinking and several programs were cancelled to save money. There wasn’t a need to increase the hull protection, considering what threats we faced in the years after, and without a need, it wouldn’t happen.
I do believe they modeled DU, but did a poor job at it. I’m pretty sure in one of the threads on the forum someone went and accounted for all weight based upgrades on the SEP v1 and calculated a decent bit of weight that was unaccounted for, meaning it had to go to armor. Since the density of tungsten and DU is publicly known, wouldn’t it be possible to calculate that relative to the remaining weight to see how much was added? Also I’m pretty sure there’s public information on the ratio of DU to RHA effectiveness.
Thank you. It’s not so hard to just assume Gaijin did a poor job than to jump to the conclusion that the DU actually isn’t there at all.
I think the original issue in an older thread came down to if the LFP got DU inserts as well
It’s blatantly obvious on the v3 that the LFP, Turret Cheeks, and even the UFP got upgrades
Yes, we know that the Abrams (except for the SEPv3 maybe?) doesn’t have a curtain-style spall liner on the interior of the crew compartment like the FARV.
It seems like you haven’t been paying attention to the Abrams threads, as the unupgraded suspension myth was debunked within hours of Gaijin posting their Abrams devlog.
Additionally, the GVSI simulation uses a simplified representation of the Abrams and purposefully relies on unclassified sources. Most of the references they use are from the 1980s - before weight saving measures were meant to be implemented - and the 1990s references from what I can tell are purely about non-armor systems (countermeasures, signature reduction, or just Jane’s).
The M1A1s that got DU armor were retrofitted to have the M1A2’s upgraded suspension.
The document isn’t being used in the context of spall liners right now. The Abrams does not have one.
The document clearly states that only two tons would bring the M1A2 Abrams over its recommended weight limit. Any DU hull package would bring this weight up more than that.
Funny. This is a main source in one of the Top Abrams Threads.
I was never talking about the M1A1. The Document is for 1996, meaning it would be discussing the M1A2 primarily.
no abrams have spall liners
maybe stuff like CATTB or like prototype base on abrams chasis but otherwise no
yeah but the ingame M1A1 isnt retrofitted version
and i find it hard to believe that 2.2x composite would only give +70mm ke
its kinda overperforming in ce tho