No, they don’t. I have the document, which talks purely about DU when upgrading from the M1A1 to the M1A1HA.
so how else do they magically have a new significantly better armor package 5 years later for the greek trials when according to you there were no upgrades to domestic armor in that time frame
or are you suggestion that they were offering a better package than the domestic one
why dont yall look at this and trace his sources instead of just repeating the same illogical things M1A2 SEP V2 doesnt have better LFP armour - #1871 by SpeclistMain1
1 Like
Care to elaborate the exact model which was trialed? I care not to go on a duck hunt. Especially when I do not speak Greek.
Funny thing, actually. I have a document from the DoD that states DU was not added to the SEPv2’s hull because of weight concerns. This directly contradicts the TLDR given by this random dude on the internet. Most documents do not show any proper DU upgrades for the SEPv2’s hull and to rely on a single random source for this information is a bad idea. This is what has led to the Merkava Mk.4 being 65 tons in-game.
You can also physically see the additional protection on only the SEPv3.
The guy might be correct on most things, but stating the DU isn’t intended to be there is false. Gaijin is just wrong and not modeling correctly as usual.
well, Germany didn’t have much of a say on that matter, since Sweden bought the licence of the Leopard 2 and the right to modify. so the Strv 122 is not even on par in terms of armor, it’s even superior.
did you look at the post he linked that had sources for most of this?
can you post this anywhere? or are you just claiming to have secret documents with no proof
yes but that isnt proof that the armor wasnt upgraded previously
they copied values from a source testing armor that explicitly does not contain DU and was not equivalent to armor with DU, they did nothing to compensate for this so it is unreasonable to say that the in game armor contains DU because it does not
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.