will edit later
Actually the part of hull are that strong because of fuel armor that gaijin add later.
1 Like
The parts covered by the fuel tanks range from ~430mm to ~530mm effective protection. The non-covered part is ~380mm.
Both however overperform because Gaijin gave it armour that it never had (BRL-2 was, once again, only used starting M1IP/M1A1).
But again, if M1 gets M833 it will be better than 2A4 in every single way - which is why at that point please advocate for the latter to receive DM33, simple righto?
(Half of this could of been avoided if Gaijin didn’t magically nerf 2A4s hull armour into oblivion).
This is M774 vs Leopard 2A4
This is M833 vs Leopard 2A4
So muh has change rite
Bonus M829 vs Leopard 2A4
So nothing change (or barely) incase of M774 and M833 vs Leopard 2A4
If anything it that Leopard 2A4 need its armor fix or reduce BR. not handicap M1 Abrams ammo
2 Likes
As far as my source goes
We didn’t know actual number for M1 Abrams hull armor. but we do know what inside M1 Abrams hull armor look like
people estimate its armor base on this. Becasue as far as i’ve seen BRL-1 source goes. it didn’t included factor like armor LOS , angle , etc for M1 Abrams armor (if it there i’d like to see)
For M1 Abrams turret reveal by CIA document in 1982 (1982 no M1IP nor M1A1 in service yet)
400mm vs KE and 750mm vs CE
As for M1IP / M1A1 / M1A2 hull
At a place with no fuel tank should be about 350mm vs KE
Reminder that the M1A1HC and M1A2 have non-du improved armor outside of the Swedish trials (which are now rather dubious overall but thats besides the point) as the M1A1 AIM procured by Australia is cited to have it’s hull armor brought up to the M1A2 standard, which, should not need to be a required change if all of those M1 variants had the same actual hull armor.
I would expect the M1IP and M1A1 and possibly the M1A1 HA share a non-du hull of lower constructional quality than the M1A2, with the M1A2 having a hull quality above 350mm KE, as the M1IP is known to have a hull quality at or around 350mm KE.
I would also wager the M1A1 HC and the future FEP could also have this hull improvement along with any future M1A2s.
2 Likes
I think they just search for a tank at a given BR that has the best round and then claim: “best round, gib to me as well”, “proof of bias”, etc.
Meanwhile, they will often ignore many disadvantages those high-penning tanks suffer from.
But tread lightly, these types of threads are filled with people that demanded IPM1 to get M900 and to stay just 0.3 BR above 80B, 2A4, M1 and the company.
Only thing I like more on 2A4 is spalling, but that’s kinda given since it has 120mm gun.
In many of those areas M1 will only have a slight edge over 2A4 so it’s not a complete blowout though, like when you compare it to some other 10.3 tanks.
Also, I’ve noticed front fuel tanks casually eating shots, while not even requiring you to expend your FPE to get rid of it.
Wait, I thought only Russian tanks are overperforming, or that’s what I’ve been told lol.
I recently started playing 10.3 with US, and from reading stuff people wrote on the forums I expected a paper thin vehicle, but so far they’re actually pretty well armored.
But I guess, people overinflating stuff is pretty common.
In your dreams. I’ve made a thread about this on the old forum as well and got jumped on by pretty much every Freeaboo in existence.
When I made a thread about US stomping 10.7 with M1A1 and M1IP I got laughed at as well, then both went to 11.0 shortly after.
I recently started playing 10.3 with US, and from reading stuff people wrote on the forums I expected a paper thin vehicle, but so far they’re actually pretty well armored.
For some reason people try to shoot the highly angled UFP on Leopard 2s, then die, and complain “gaijob how leo 2 no die???!!!”. That plate has shatter mechanics.
That document is for the M1IP (“one version of the M1 turret armour” - > it is dated to 1982, two years after M1 had already entered service). This is confirmed btw because we have the SR(L) 4026 from the Brits now where M1A1s turret armour is rated as 460mm RHAe vs KE in a 20 degree arc (this would roughly equeal ~400mm in a 30 degree arc). In case you haven’t noticed, frontal arc protection for M1IP and M1A1 is exactly that.
M1IP and M1A1 had identical armour. Both had improved armour over the M1(105)mm. All we basically need to do is look at M1 vs M1IP turret difference (350mm arc versus 400mm arc), then subtract that difference. Boom, very first M1s hull armour.
Well I guess loads of people will have unrealistic expectations when it comes to their favorite vehicles.
Those threads were peak cringe if you ask me, alongside discussions about Leopard I being bad at 8.0 or something equally dumb.
From my testing, only ~50% of that plate will actually stop rounds, so shooting at an area around the drivers hatch is actually one of the easiest ways to OHK 2A4 and it works every time, at least from 20+ shots in testing with 105mm DM23 (which is a worse round than M774 they complain about).
Are you testing it via the protection thingy? Cus when PSO came out, me and mah friend took the 2PL and PSO and compared both, the only area where (mind you) DM53 could go through was the driver hatch and the small area around it, nowhere else.
We did it in a custom fyi.
I used that custom match where you can fire at loads of different tanks, and was able to penetrate that plate anywhere that’s on the right from the mantlet pretty reliably. Though I can’t be for certain how much of the actual plate is pennable, that ~50% was just eyeballing.
Was just testing a claim that 2A4’s mantlet is not reliably penned by M774 (which is false) and that it’s LFP can resist M774 for the most part (which is also false).
Well, based on 2A5/6s test;
I’d say ~80% of the plate is actually immune.
Ah, i see. It made sense now
which mean this is what CIA meant all along
Then we would have to rely on estimate on M1 Abrams turret armor .
Lowest are 325mm vs KE for XM1 presumably XM-1 GM because XM-1 Chrysler met it’s requirements.
350mm+ vs KE for M1 Abrams cheek seem reasonable. But i’ll check in game later. atm didn’t have access to my PC.
For Turret cheek it is obvious. As turret cheek LOS are increase when compare M1 Abrams to M1IP , M1A1
Hull LOS stay the same though.
Did any source state any change in the hull armor from M1 to M1IP or M1A1 ?
Here what i found US Army technical report document state that M1A1 had “additional armor on the front slope of the chassis” improvement over M1 MBT . This could mean either UFP or LFP.
If it meant LFP. Then M1 Abrams LFP ingame are overperform.
But If it meant UFP. That mean M1A1 and later variants had thicker ufp than 38mm. while LFP might stay the same
This is interesting. Need more source to clarify.
For M1A2. If i remember corectly. They try to improve them by putting DU armor in both LFP and turret cheek. But due to weight and cost problem thus only turret armor has DU .(though there are 5 M1A2 that has DU in the lfp )
So basically M1IP , M1A1 , M1A2 have the same LFP protection. M1 Abrams “may or may not” be the same.
No, what is seen on that particular picture is the armour for the M1A2 for Sweden, however it’s hull armour was by all means identical to the US vehicles, due to lack of DU (there was basically no need to change the hull armour there).
The ± 30 degree arc is for the turret only.
For M1A2. If i remember corectly. They try to improve them by putting DU armor in both LFP and turret cheek. But due to weight and cost problem thus only turret armor has DU .(though there are 5 M1A2 that has DU in the lfp )
They never cited weight as an issue to using DU armour in the hull, to put it simply, said armour was never considered beyond a few testing vehicles.
Instead US was looking towards ceramic armours, creating the so called Tandem-Ceramic Armour which would improve protection against KE threats by ~33% and CE threats by ~25%.
When this armour was mounted to the Abrams exactly however, is not really known.
I might be going on a tangent here, but here are my results from spading M1 Abrams.
I’ve did it in 86 battles, with 64% WR and 2.7 KPB / 3.7 K/D, so the overall experience was really good and I never really felt I was handicapped in any way while using it.
Yeah, post-nerf M735’s performance isn’t really anything to speak of, but once you get to M774 it’s more than fine. It might not be the best round, but will surely do the job done.
Only thing I hated about M1 is it’s engine noise, absolutely aggravating.
Yes i edit M1A2 diagram to made that picture (because this diagram already show ± 30 degree arc line for turret ). I didn’t put hull armor value there as i don’t have specific value for hull armor.
So i only put turret value (As you said M1IP) from CIA source there.
But if Hull armor are the same as you said. Then M1 , M1IP , M1A1 , M1A2 have the same LFP protection. Which is good to know
Well as i look further in the old forum for more source
Page 23
They state that “the entire Block II package will bring the tank’s weight to over 72 tons. This exceeds the Army’s 69.5-ton weight limit.”
And they said it might increase logistical problems as well as create problem for tanks suspension system .
1 Like
This however isn’t about DU based composite for the LFP, as I already stated.
It true that in document i posted. They didn’t state anything about DU armor in the hull.
However they state that there are multiple block II modifications purposed .
I think it safe to assume that some of the purposal would included DU armor in the Hull. (or at least consider)
But still we don’t know for sure
(tbh there are a lot of page missing. Judge from missing page number. Probably due to classified information)
conclusion i still don’t know the reason why they don’t try to put DU hull armor into M1A2. if weight are not the problem.
1 Like
