Right so the M1 has never been produced with hull armor strong enough to resist state of the art APFSDS, why do you think that would suddenly change in 2017?
If this is the typical M1 user I can see why people are screeching for changes.
3 Likes
1 Like
The game should strive to be as realistic as possible unless theres a good reason not to. In this case, (turret ring buff) there isn’t a good reason not to add it.
1 Like
Uh, buddy. The 1979 M1 had this armor array. It didn’t protect it against most shells from the 70s.
1 Like
YOU ARE LITERALLY EVERYTHING we laugh at. The U.S Was working on a British developed armor… in the 1950s?
2 Likes
Chobham was brand new technology in 1979 and it was designed to withstand 115mm shells from T-62, which it successfully did; as well as early 125mm shells such as 3BM5, 3BM9, 3BM15 and 3BM22; which it successfully did as well.
Leaving that aside- 3rd generation Depleted Uranium armor was developed decades after this first Chobham iteration had been fielded for the first time.
The United States doesn’t spend billions on armor that won’t serve its purpose.
The 1979 M1 armor array protected it against:
125mm:
-3BM22 (1976)
-3BM15 (1972)
-3BM9 (1962)
115mm:
3BM28 (1978)
3BM21 (1975)
3BM6 (1967)
3BM4
3BM3
The first Abrams’ armor DID protect it against its contemporary threats.
1 Like
The earliest known composite armour for armoured vehicles was developed as part of the US Army’s T95 experimental series from the mid-1950s. The T95 featured siliceous-cored armour which contained a plate of fused silica glass between rolled steel plates. The stopping power of glass exceeds that of steel armour on a thickness basis and in many cases glass is more than twice as effective as steel on a thickness basis. Although the T95 never entered production, a number of its concepts were used on the M60 Patton, and during the development stage (as the XM60) the siliceous-cored armour was at least considered for use, although it was not a feature of the production vehicles.
Source: Evaluation of Siliceous Cored Armor for the XM60 Tank
You don’t have to be ignorant your entire life.
1 Like
Do you know what combat ranges are? Do you even know anything at all You’ve been spouting off garbage non stop. Even in game 3BM 42 can’t even pen a M1 Abrams from 2,000 meters. now go out to 3500 - 4,000 meters
Chobham was brand new technology in 1979
Uh no by that time it was about a decade old, if you said it was newly being used then yeah that makes sense.
it was designed to withstand 115mm shells from T-62, which it successfully did; as well as early 125mm shells such as 3BM5, 3BM9, 3BM15 and 3BM22; which it successfully did as well.
Yeah no, that’s a big reason why the M1A1 had a redesigned turret because it was found that the M1’s turret was vulnerable to the T-62’s 115mm according to the CIA. The M1 was most certainly vulnerable to most Soviet shells in it’s first iteration.
1 Like
say again?
Using a round that came out in 1986 vs a tank that was being developed in the 1970s crazy logic. This isnt even the standard combat range.
Okay here’s your 1986 tank against your 1986 ammo. We have a stunning change of absolutely nothing awesome.
combat range
M1s were putting shells into T-72s within 2,000m at 73 easting that’s the only real combat we’ve seen with M1s against T-72s. Just because these vehicles can fire at 5km doesn’t mean it’s the norm. Even the longest confirmed kill was only 5.1km.
E Troop continued toward a ridgeline, the 73 Easting, on which the enemy commander had positioned 18 reserve T-72 tanks and other armored vehicles. My tank and others destroyed the first of the reserve from a range of approximately 1,000 yards beginning at about 1640. We could not see the others until we crested the rise and entered the assembly area. The enemy reserve was attempting to move out, but E Troop tanks destroyed all of them at close range before they could deploy.
They opened fire at less than 1km and continued to fight at close range, playing the combat distance card is not going to work.
I think the fundamental problem here is a misunderstanding of why the M1 is such a great vehicle. It’s never been because of it’s armor it’s always been because of it’s internal components and it’s ability to bridge the significant gap left by the M60. The tank has always been vulnerable to the newest batch of ammo produced by the East.
1 Like
The M1 Abrams was being developed in the 1970s, and the first tank came out in 1979. How the hell do you not know this? The only tank that came out in 1986 WAS THE M1A2, another tank gaijin and its merry band of misguided devs have messed up using export Data. on a tank that had a upgraded hull over the already improved hull of the M1A1
Pray tell, what tank was produced from 1985 to 1992? Oh. Right. The M1A1. Also the M1IP was produced in 1986, Weird. This means that the M1A1 and M1IP were both being issued into the field in 1986 making it… a 1986 tank… woah.
It’s not that hard to comprehend fella.
1 Like
Do you know what combat ranges are and why the U.S Tests them at those ranges.
Did you forget that the battle of 73 Easting was fought IN A SANDSTORM.
Yeah they’re usually within a mile.
Only part of 73 easting was fought in a standstorm. But this also goes to show that you’re not always going to be fighting at extreme ranges so that really makes your whole “muh combat ranges of 3.5km +” really irrelevant.
1 Like
and you do realize all the tanks received upgrades right? In and before 1988 D.U Started to be incorporated into the frontal armor of ALL ABRAMS TANKS. You and the gaijin devs are decades slow in having the correct information. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/03/15/tougher-tank-armor-developed-by-pentagon/82ced69e-60e6-4279-a31d-2ff9cae33e1f/
1 Like
Yeah, and? The tanks are still replicated in game to their IOC standards. It wouldn’t be too fair to mr Obr 1979 if your M1 (1979) got 90s upgrades. There were no hull upgrades to the M1, M1IP or M1A1 prior to 1988 so why should these vehicles change?