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.
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.
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.
I would agree. There have been several times where the TUSK 2 package on the turret has saved me from being 1 shot by helicopter ATGMs. It’s not like T-series where you just completely negated all damage(and somehow not even completely strip the ERA…) and the pieces generally come off as an entire line of modules instead of only the one that is hit… But it does increase survivability.
You give up a decent amount of mobility for what is essentially just a random skillcheck. You give up an active advantage for something situational that relies on people suffering from skill issue.
Why does no one suggest removing the T-90 or T-80 relic for the sake of mobility? It just seems to me that the Gaidzins should strengthen the dynamic protection on the Abras and other vehicles.
it was closed due to the belief that the Abrams suspension had not been upgraded, despite this bug report (written the same day as the statement from devs) containing sources that prove that the suspension was improved https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nMSA2BTBlnFg
Fully expecting this to happen
Ive looked at it in the dev server and neither the turret or the hull have improved composites
The turret only has an extra 150mm plate on the top level which provides protection but is far from the next gen armor its supposed to have
