That’s already in the original data sheet. I made that one
But yes, the turret ring is arguably the biggest bug of this vehicle. Here hull underside slope remains consistent up to the turret basket, while the topside decreases slope upwards. Thickness should vary between 200 and 50
There is also gap between the hull ring and the turret ring, which is understated by a lot of people. Should look more like my drawing here. This would add another 19mm of armor to the whole turret ring by default, eliminating a lot of low caliber IFV APDS from being able to penetrate at more than point blank range.
As shown by this photo, the turret itself was conveniently blown off while leaving the attached ring and turret basket inside the hull. Turret ring and hull ring should be properly seated and 100% sealed
1 Like
Most technical drawings I’ve seen also show a slight gap though.
Here’s a comparison I made a while back:
(Open in new tab to get better resolution)
1 Like
Sorry, to clarify, I’m talking about a horizontal gap between the two turret ring models, not vertical.
I agree with you that the actual turret alignment issue is kind of a made up rumor. If you look at the photograph I sent, I am referring to the interior turret ring (in real life attached to the basket) in game attached to the underside of the turret armor module does not match the diameter of the hull turret neck.
In the destroyed Abrams photograph I sent, you can see the turret seats perfectly into the hull with no gap for spalling to enter through. This is the only photograph that actually proves this since the turret basket and ring is actually part of the turret, but was left inside the hull when the vehicle was destroyed.
2 Likes
Here is a more helpful angle. As you can see, the actual turret ring (green) does not match the diameter of the hull turret neck (yellow), allowing for spalling to enter regardless of penetration of the internal turret ring. So basically the purpose of having this issue fixed is, if the actual hull turret ring protection were to stay how it is now, the turret ring would effectively be 70mm of armor, rather than 50.8. Which, with the angle it is built at, would actually be enough to rule out most small caliber IFV and SPAA APDS shells. Of course this is still a minor issue in comparison to the lack of volumetric armor in the turret ring but it is still something. So, overall there are two issues. The inside of the turret ring is just totally modeled wrong, and it also needs to be changed to volumetric.
Now my original drawing above should make more sense.
1 Like
If you take a look at the hull ring all by itself, you can actually see how the turret will seat properly. Penetrating this module alone cannot result in spalling entering the fighting compartment, it must also penetrate the turret’s own ring. Theoretically speaking, this could result in a MUCH larger increase in armor protection, but I have nothing to substantiate that so I just stuck with Gaijin’s guestimate of 19mm
A more accurately modeled turret ring would still have a gap that you described, which the in game model doesn’t have, but it would be a weak spot closer in size to a Leopard-- so basically negligible.
1 Like
Here’s another image that might be helpful.
Yes that is a very clear image, that’s actually one of the ones I included in the report but it is hidden from view
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.