Damn those pesky government’s having tight security on their classified information XD
7 Likes
In that case can’t this be passed as a suggestion instead of a historical report? We know the hulls have been changed over time, the report itself gives that information and there are even images of several SEP variants carrying simulated weight on the hull, we just don’t know the amount of armor because for obvious reasons it’s classified.
Even through logic itself we can assume that they wouldn’t have increased the mass of the hull if it did not improve the armor capability.
The current M1A2+ Series performance is absolutely abysmal, there’s no way on earth that the internal statistics of the M1A2 SEP are anything nearly as good or better as those of the T-80BVM. Other nations got over 600mm of protection on the hull, while the M1A2s can be broken through by a Mango.
In terms of balance this decision does not make any sense and in terms of incentives it demotivates the entire US player base to grinding for a sidegrade of the M1A2 SEP (actually a downgrade for those who don’t like using the TUSK package).
If the M1A2 SEPs aren’t fixed now they will never be fixed, it will be the same story with the M1A2 SEP V3, and considering how Gaijin views Russian appliqué armor as the peak of modern protection I doubt the M829A3 or A4 would change anything in the future.
14 Likes
We also know that the current armor values are based off the Swedish export package which was worse than the DU package. It’s kinda crazy to think that sepv1 and sepv2 are using some export package that was worse in protection and created before the two tanks ever existed.
9 Likes
honestly a properly modeled/fixed 2A7V with DM53, Strv 122B+, BVM/90M with 3BM59 and a SEPv2 with 600-650mm vs KE on the LFP and either M829A3 OR spall liner would make a great set of tanks for 12.0 or 12.3.
2A7V and 122B+ would be the all rounders, T-90M would be the best armored MBT with good survivability and the SEPv2 would have the best firepower with still respectable armor that can’t just be lolpenned by a third person shot.
2 Likes
Aren’t these values for non du lfp for M1A2?
I just took a random value. I personally doubt that is the values for a non-DU hull armor LFP, but of course there is no way for me to know this for sure.
I just took the value for the LFP that it currently has (~400mm vs KE) and applied the ~50% protection increase that DU seems to give in game on the turret cheeks of the M1A1 HC compared to the normal M1A1.
Honestly, it sounds like they want people to leak stuff, in order to “prove” certain things lol
How else do you prove it…
2 Likes
I found a UK document in the National Archives which implies that DU armour was “fielded” in the M1A1 version. Other interesting information:
- The original version of DU armour (that was fielded on the M1A1) offered the best KE protection of any available armour system at the time, but the CE protection was considered “inadequate”
- German D Type armour offered better CE mass efficiency of any other armour system, but KE efficiency was equal to Chobham armour
- The Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) helped the US develop an improved version DU armour which demonstrated comparable CE mass efficiency to that of Germany D Type armour.
The document also included detailed armour diagrams / performance breakdowns for the M1 Abrams, which the US had provided to the UK. Unfortunately they were marked as “special access” and were not included in the version of the document available to view at the archives.
Summaries of the information are available in other documents though. For example the M1A1 turret front is stated to be 460 mm KE / 700 mm CE in this document. This also appears to demonstrate the poor CE efficiency of the original DU armour. The Abrams has better KE protection than the Leopard 2, but worse CE protection.
12 Likes
Here’s another page which states the M1A1/A2 use DU armour:
As mentioned in my last comment the section of the document containing the detailed armour performance is unfortunately not available at the archives.
4 Likes
That documentation refers to DU armor for the turret. hull is did not use DU armor until 2006
1 Like
Fair enough. I thought people were arguing about whether DU was used at all (as it is not listed as part of the turret armour composition in X-ray view).
1 Like
But here are secondary sources @_David_Bowie @Smin1080p @Conraire
Tom Clancy puts the baseline non-SEP M1A2 at 800mm. Still better than the nerfed export non-DU version we get in game.
I see. So they’ve already established that the SEP has vehicle body DU armour and they’re looking for its armour value.
Regardless, Gaijin has refused to improve the hull armor over the course of the Abrams lifespan. In real life, there were numerous armor upgrades to hull.
What about the secondary sources I’ve linked above?
This seems to reinforce my suspicion that the M1A1 HA/HC and up has improved hull frontal armor over the M1A1 using advanced ceramics and has the same hull front armor as the CATTB.
Hull design
- Thickness
“As of 1989, the frontal armor of the M1 tank has risen to 1000-1200mm RHA against shaped charge and 500-600mm against kinetic energy projectiles”.
-
1989 fits on the M1A1 HA development time line.
-
1989 fits on the Component Advanced Technologies Test Bed development time line.
-
M1A1 HA hull front armor weighs (Unknown) Very likely it is the same as the CATTB.
-
Component Advanced Technologies Ted Bed hull front armor weighs 4,060lbs.
-
M1A1 hull front armor weighs 3,115lbs.
-
CATTB’s hull front armor was not increased over a M1A1 which can’t be the normal M1A1, because we know how heavy the M1A1 hull front armor is, and the CATTB’s hull front armor is 30.34% heavier than it, so it likely points to the M1A1 HA (1989).
-
On the AMC 1990 TECHNOLOGY EXPO about the Component Advanced Technologies Test Bed (CATTB), a new advanced ceramic armor was demonstrated to the public.
7 Likes
At this point it is probably more accurate than Gaijin’s representation of many things.
The IS-3 entry covers the IS family of tanks as a whole. The data tile lists all of the IS variants.
Haskew is a respected historian. I’d still take his overall work over the reviews of random Amazon users.
But it’s been made apparent that Gaijin will selectively follow its own rules when making adjustments to things. Stinger official documents put it at higher Gs than it likes? NERF!
Official documents showing the implementation of improved armor packages? “We can’t be sure it’s an improvement!”
Someone sends the wrong data and conflates a prototype ammunition for the finished version, without double checking the accuracy or authenticity of the claim and the associated data? “FULL SPEED AHEAD, MY DUDE! WE’LL INCORRECTLY NERF THE SHIT OUT OF THAT AMMO!”
The rules only matter when you want them to, I guess.
11 Likes
Given the arguments on their side, we will not get any significant improvement for Abrams. The developers’ blog will be focused only at explaining to us why they do not accept our sources. Think about it, if they wanted to improve Abrams, they would just improve it and not create a devblog. I’ll be glad to be wrong.
13 Likes
The amount of backlash they will get is going to be crazy.
12 Likes
Bradley spall liners are coming next week
13 Likes
I really hope Gaijin accepts whatever official estimates they’ve been given.
Cause boy oh boy the rules for changing armor is causing a lot of stress.
Especially for Leclerc players in another topic.
3 Likes