Huh?
Not having any good counter arguments and only having shitty ones? not my problem.
Currently that is my opinion as well. A big portion of the stuff I’ve found is in this comment, which is basically a timeline: M1A2 series...turret armor - #9 by SpeclistMain1
Summarized:
- 1988: M1A1HA with DU only in the turrets
- 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
15 Likes
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
8 Likes
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.
If you take off the TUSK kit you’ll end up in the M1A1HC. It’ll just look ridiculous.
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.
It’d rather have a meh looking but better performing tank than a good looking but worse performing one.
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.
It’s dead weight.
2 Likes
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 Like
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 rather have the same tank 4x than having to use a tank that is just worse because it has to carry a dead weight useless era package.
Lmao I’m spamming X to doubt.
I have over 400 games in my SEPv2 and I can count the amount of times it did anything on 2 hands.
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.
No it could get stuck in it. But that isn’t because of the TUSK it is because of a shell getting Gaijined at the end of the day it’s just well I hope a bug happens to save my life.
1 Like
it also increases profile making it much easier to spot behind a ridge line and offering more places to overpressure with HE frag shells
No, they are not. The “DU armor” in the game is based on non-DU export armor that was explicitly stated to be worse than the domestic packages and the packages offered during the Greek and Turkish Trials.
Armor: M1 < M1A1 < Swedish Trials export Abrams’ < M1A1 AIM <= domestic DU packages for the first gen (at least)
The M1A1 AIM and M1A1 HC use non-DU armor numbers from the Swedish trials, and therefore do not have the correct protection.
A proposal DU armor which shows the increase in protection DU adds, and therefore should be used to increase the armor of the current M1A1HCs/AIMs and M1A2s.
The production estimates for the new DU hull package were not stated going into FY2004/2005, so the DU packaged SEPv2s likely arrived after that (after all, the US army doesn’t produce DU packages for every single Abrams, they do it for the group of them that will be in combat).
Multiple post-2006 sources suggest otherwise (check the post I linked in the comment you replied to).
At the very least a DU-hulled Abrams should be added as it would provide the US with a tank with armor on par with the 2A7s and T-90M, even if Gaijin doesn’t want to give the SEPv2 (and likely the SEP and M1A1HC) its DU hull.
600mm KE * 0.35 =/= 20-30mm
2 Likes