I could think of several possible answers, all of which are of course complete guesses:
Perhaps there’s a very limited amount (singular digit) of M1’s equipped with DU side armor.
Perhaps because the areas are adjacent, and the removal of side armour exposes the DU layer present in the frontal armour.
It also states ‘‘Any’’ instead of ‘‘Solid’’ under ‘‘Chemical and/or physical form’’, this implies it is in some way different from the ‘‘Solid’’ frontal armour packages. Contamination does not necessarily have to be DU and only DU I would think, I could imagine other heavy metals/materials being harmful as well.
(Original M1 turret, I know, just trying to illustrate how the removal of side armour could expose the front armour packages as well)
Which brings me back to my original point, ‘‘A.’’ is listed as involving two things: Removal of front armor (DU) and removal/installation of side armor (non-DU).
Given the way that’s formulated, I would assume the 275000 kg of DU is dedicated exclusively to the front armor packages.
If they have only limit number, they would set a limit on quantity, like the 6 limit we saw on M1A1 with hull DU in the SUB1536.
That already covered in SUB1536 with " For repair and/or decontamination of battle damaged M1 Abrams Tanks (including removal of non-intact depleted uranium heavy armor packages from M1 Tank System turrets) and other Combat Land Systems, and packaging for authorized transfer/disposal of the non-intact, bulk depleted uranium and associated waste materials, contaminated with depleted uranium."
SUB1602 clearly stated it’s for “contamination resulting from removal of side armor turret in M1 series tanks.” Wich has no ambiguity.
And DU has seen present in Abrams turret since M1A1 HA, if such excuse do exist we should seen SUB1602 being applied from the late 80s not 2013.
This is a NRC license regarding the DU usage under the Department of Army, item 6 “Byproduct, source, and/or special nuclear material” clearly stated it’s about DU and DU only. So forgive me if I have no idea where’s this novel idea comes from.
Plus battle damage DU can be seen in many non-solid form, including liquid and dust.
No the license is pretty clear, which is removal of old non-DU side armor and installation of new side armor. You can make the “limit number” case with 2013 license but in 2016 they clearly applied for load amount. And it only covers the removal of frontal armor, not installation, but for side armor it’s both removal and installation.
Regardless i dont think everything after the A1 have the same hull used in the M1, DU or not DU they would have increase protection. But doctrine said they use in hulldown position so hull protection increase is false! Doctrine this doctrine that if u have logic in your brain you would know that hulldown isnt always available, look Gulf War as an example, if hulldown is so good then every tank just put full armor and crews in the turret no?
I say buff it, make it resist 3bm46 or some shit atleast for the sep and above and resist 3bm42 for model like AIM, HC, A2
1989: A GAO Report shows plans to implement additional armor once planned weight reduction programs are carried out (over 3 tons’ worth of savings) from FY1990-FY1993/1994
1992: Swedish Trials with non-DU armor (that was explicitly stated to be worse than the domestic package)
1992: BRL Report with a proposed hull armor package with 35% better KE and 25% better CE protection (this is the most direct estimate of how much more protection the Abrams’ DU armor should have)
1997: The first NRC document (that I could find) showing the 5 Army School DU hulls is made
1999-2001: Greek Trials, where the Swedish Trials package was explicitly stated to be worse than the domestic packages and that the Abrams armor package offered during the Greek Trials was on par or better than the 122B+'s armor.
FY2004/2005: A new Frontal Armor Package shows up on Budget Justifications with a blank code, and notably doesn’t say “Turret” specifically. Production date estimates are given.
FY2005, FY2006/2007: The Frontal Armor Package still has no code, but now has no listed estimated production dates
February 2006: The NRC limit of 5 DU hulls is still in place
August 2006: The NRC limit on DU hulls is removed, just in time for the FY2004/2005 vehicles to be finished
FY2008/2009: The Frontal Armor Package gets a code, but still no listed production dates
FY2013: A Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System presentation states that the M1A1SA has “steel encased depleted uranium for increased frontal and turret side armor protection…”
2017 M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, Owners’ Workshop Manual: States that the M1A1SA has “steel-encased depleted-uranium armour (‘Heavy Armour’ - HA) on the front hull, front turret and turret sides.” It also says that the DU armor coincides with the “‘Common Abrams’” modifications, which could imply that all post-M1A1-SA Abrams (in their combat configuration) have DU hulls. It also says that the SEP has third-gen DU armor, and that “the M1A2 SEPv2 includes everything applied to M1A1 SA and M1A2 SEP…”
TLDR:
The DU-armored Abrams in game do not have DU armor modeled
The turrets of all DU-armored Abrams in game should see an increase of 35% KE and 25% CE in protection
The SEPv2 should have a DU hull
The M1A1HC and SEP should likely get DU hulls as well
An event (or just tech tree) DU-hulled M1A1 should be added
I still find it funny how people say m1hc and up have DU in game when their armor values are from swedish trials that explicitly were non DU and worse than the DU armor
missing AIM over here, AIM also recieve heavy armor on the hull(definitely not DU tho, the upgrade was heavily focus on chemical protection, does not mean it didnt recieve any KE protection tho)
im trying to find the doc on dtic about the armor of the M1>A2 being the same composition(not layout or armor package generation) it does not mention SEP or AIM having the same armor so its definitely that SEP SEP V2 AIM would have better hull armor than other tank and Gaijin would need to acknowledge generational composite upgrade
I hope they fix it soon. All they have to do is create blocks with the equivalent volume to the mass of DU. (We know the added mass) Then divide it by the 3 volumes it would be placed. They already have the height and width, and the thickness would be what’s left.
Looking forward to the latest rounds and the SEPv3.
No idea why Bradley hasn’t got access to it’s ERA either.
Apaches are missing about 8 features and functions too.
You understand that the SEPv3 will not differ in any way from the M1A1 with a 120mm gun. The Gaijins still have all Abrams with the same armor thickness. The only difference is the thermal imager and the size of the gun.
Probably, but SEPv3 has physical external geometry different from the others so the remodel will offer opportunity to address the armor values.
The Turret ring nerfs are a bit harsh given other tanks don’t receive them at the same time too. I’m hoping it’s in advance of some buffs. Better rounds, better armor models.
Then there will be no difference between the M1A1 HC and M1A2. It will be one tank. Now if Gaijin makes real armor for the Abrams, then it will make sense, but everyone has the same NERA, the only place where the NERA has weaker armor is on the first M1.
Besides, TUSK is not useless, it very often saves from “Vikhr” missiles and from 2S38 and from cumulative shells. So if you remove TUSK you will simply weaken an already weak tank. I do not see any advantages in this at all.
You are wrong to think so, play at the top rank on M1A1 HC and then you will see the difference. TUSK has good protection, very often even shells get stuck in it.
1- The DU armored Abrams in-game currently have DU armor modeled.
This is proven by comparing M1A1 AIM to M1A1 HC.
2- This was a proposal in 1992, proposals aren’t applied to production vehicles in War Thunder.
3- This is still conjecture. SEP2 was produced prior to August 2006.
4- This one is definitely myth.
SEP2 didn’t have DU hulls in the first “block” of production, let alone SEP or M1A1 HC, with M1A1 HC being from the 1990s.
5- ?
@Alpharius11348
The M1A1 AIM armor is based on the Swedish trials.
The DU turret Abrams have 20 - 30mm more armor in-game.
I support fixing the armor values if proven incorrect. [Which I suspect they might be for years.]
Proposals won’t do that.
Dates after a year or production won’t do that.
The lack of unclassified numbers is why Gaijin guesstimated 20 - 30mm of extra armor above the Swedish trials [M1A1 AIM].
I use the M1A1HC as a backup up in top tier so I can already tell you it’s dead weight.
As for your Vikhr statement the only Vikhrs it will be stopping was bad shots into the hull side armor.
A lot of hope for some for 4 extra tons of weight. I would rather keep my mobility.
But I’m not going to keep going back and forth with you over an opinion. End of the day Gaijin should give the option to remove the TUSK so those who don’t want it can remove it. Thankfully they have already said they are looking at it.
