That image also shows the thicker upper plate armor around the fuel cell on the left and right hand side beneath the fuel caps
In all seriousness the Booker is the most DOA item to come to the US in a long while
2 Likes
It is a tragedy. And for the same amount of labor, they could have fixed all of the discrepancies with the entire Abrams line, and added the SEPV3 at the same time.
I own all of the us tech tree and a couple of premiums.
Honestly I like the Abram’s very much. A recent buff made it harder to kill frontally with auto cannon rounds. And they gave it LWS. Also turret cheeks are nearly impenetrable. I know because I tested it. Got shot point blank by a 2A7V with its best round and poof. Nothing happened. At least they gave it attention this time. I wish they’d give it APS now. Trophy.
I love the booker though I bring it to top teir. Almost got some nukes there with it
It’s just called M1A1 MSGL
You forgot about AAI X-rod SACLOS (top)(the other is TERM X-rod by Hercules, which can be fired with the help of MTAS or just in Bulldog mode)
There are also enough 140, 130, and 152mm tanks, we should see one of the CATTB or thumpers in the research tree eventually, which fight the Obj 477 and one of the Leopard 2 140s
1 Like
Can anyone explain a few things to me?
Why are the composite skirt elements only as effectives as straight RHA, when it supposed to be similar in composition to the other Special Armor arrays.
There is an additional amour panel behind the composite skirt plate that doubles the thickness, which is what gives the observed improvement;
~145 =>270, which is short of the ~290 The doubled amour thickness would imply vs CE
should be 65mm Composite+30mm Applique RHA +27.6 basic RHA+ ~400mm air, as can be seen with the external amour off in the viewer, and the above cross-section.
Worse is that it does practically less than anything against KE threats considering 87~60mm effective isn’t great, for something that is effectively 122.6~92.6mm (65(+30)+27.6).
And how they are supposedly greater than 10x the thickness(6.35 vs 65mm) of the regular RHA plates used in the skirt elsewhere when on the model the thickness barely changes.
3 Likes
Well most likely it was done as a balancing measure when the tank was added and they have balanced all the other vehicles around this since then so they don’t want to have to rebalance to give it more side armor yet. Also it makes it vulnerable to IFV’s another gameplay concession.
The Abrams side hull armor is well known 350 KE and 750 CE at 25 degrees.
haven’t seen this posted here yet but I assume some of you would like this video about repairing/ the changing barrel process for the Australian Abram’s.
Great video, thanks for sharing.
Finding myself getting killed by BMPT 30mm APDS through the turret ring at least once almost every game now… if only they fixed the turret ring after two years so that couldn’t happen (but that would hurt Gaijin’s best selling premium)
Is there a bug report on this?
The only way to get the turret gap corrected would be to go and measure it, which really isn’t a possibility.
Not talking about the turret gap. The turret gap is correct, and actually, there is a way to measure it. There is an M1A1 at the American heritage museum 25 minutes away from me. But regardless, there’s nothing wrong with the turret gap. The turret ring thickness is wrong.
1 Like
Not from me, it might exist but I don’t think so.
Well, it might be worthy of putting one together if it can be proven Gaijin’s interpretation is incorrect. I’m not sure I understand the issue enough to make an indisputable bug report. I’d have to look into it more. What it really might come down to is Gaijin’s material multipliers, which I haven’t looked at in a while.
The document in question is
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf
The issue is
Composite Skirt are erroneously configured as they probably don’t take the embedded RHA/HHA strike plate into account.
The main thrust should be that by inspection of the attached excerpt the composite skirts are improperly configured as there are currently modeled as if they were composites all the way though their thickness.
By inspection of the plan view provided on [PDF page #17], and cross referencing the Key on page #16 there is an (assumed to be RHA, may be HHA so has either a 1.1 or 1.0 RHAe) strike plate that takes up ~half the thickness (65/2 = 32.5mm ) of the structure, backed onto by a “tri-plate element”, similar in composition to others found in the Hull, Mantlet and (implied) Turret face.
As such the side protection is underperforming in both KE and CE protection effectively being less efficient that the same thickness of RHA as currently modeled.
Basically the protection offered by the Side of the Hull against M774 is only ~87mm when it is as evidently comprised of the Skirt(65mm), add on block armor (30mm) and then the underlying hull(27.6mm)
If you assume that the non skirt armor is properly functional it should comprise 57.6mm RHAe of protection, so subtracting that value from the effective protection leaves ~30mm to be provided by the 65mm thick skirt, assuming that it was properly modeled with the RHA/HHA strike plate which comprises approximately half its thickness it’s still providing a RHAe value of less than one(30/32.5 ~= 0.92, if strike plate is modeled. otherwise 30/65 = 0.46 RHAe), as if the composite layer(s) have no effect on the penetrator at all, which is questionable.
Also as Burlington is derived from Chobham, the Tri-Element plate itself is likely also comprised of a Plastic-Steel-Plastic composite panel, as shown below, so should additionally contribute to the effective thickness, and with a plastic Backing layer not produce spalling by itself.
I’d need to track down the attributable source but additionally there is;
Further the Swedish trials documents list protection values for the side of the Hull which are much higher.
So effectively the skirts should be able to stop in the ballpark of a 30mm auto cannon from the side skirt from what I’m seeing, that’s an interesting piece of info
Only the composite sections, though I also doubt that the regular skirts are only 6.35mm thick too, but I’ve got no evidence.