Not true, in fact going off of publicly available documents it seems that pretty much every version of the Abrams fielded from I think 2006 (might be 2008) onwards had DU installed in the hulls.
At the angle the drawing is on, the main face with DU isn’t even visible.
Are we even certain that variant uses DU in the hull?
The hull was most definitely upgraded, but I don’t recall seeing any concrete claims about it featuring DU.
Please do share some sources and correct me if I’ve missed it.
2006, test vehicles were given DU hulls, which is information that would be used for the SEP3 project.
You even provided those documents, so not sure why your post is not addressing them correctly.
Yes, documents that allowed DU into Abrams hulls was just prior to SEP3 production.
based off gaijins own rules this should count towards the sepv2, as they have stated on multiple different times that they add the best case variant of a vehicle (t80u getting thermals even though it was a prototype, or the 2s38 existing), so why cant an american vehicle get a buff that would match its hull armor to something close to the 2a7/strv 122b+, it has a week spot in the turret ring (which has been proven to be mismodeled multiple times) so it wouldn’t be that game breaking
Not the VA!
Have you ever dealt with their lies before? I’d imagine not.
T-80U got thermals outside of prototype, and 2S38 is an unsold production vehicle not even a prototype.
You wanting America to get an exception to the rules is notable.
I want tanks to be as accurate as possible, which includes my favorite American MBTs.
That does not mean I want Gaijin to give exception or estimate based on no hint of information.
And I can’t let my frustrations about the secrecy of Abrams have me blame a game developer for not doing something.
so first off i had meant the t80b, which received a thermal package in a prototype but was never actually produced with them, second off i have not been able to locate a single reference of the 2s38 being in full production at the moment due to the war.
with the T80B receiving its thermals we have precedent of vehicles receiving upgrades not present on production vehicles for balancing reason, and with the M1A2 Sepv2 being America’s current top tier tank it would make sense for them to either decrease its BR due to it performing extremely poorly thanks to its lack of a proper round and weak hull front armor, or for gaijin to give it a buff in the form of increased LFP and maybe even the mythical A3 anti ERA round if they’re feeling generous
Drop-in observation thermals is different from entire fire control systems [T-80BVM/Abrams], which I meant to bring up as well.
On top of that, armor rules were specified in their own article.
Right now, M1A1 is at 11.0 with the capabilities of a Leclerc MBT.
M1A1 HC is the armor of Leopard 2A5 at 11.3 due to its bit worse round.
And of course we know the 11.7s of USA retain that armor with a better round and of course the reload.
Abrams are not hurting, they’re just not Tiger 1s of 11.7; which I only bring up due to a word you use right… here.
Balancing argument doesn’t work when Abrams is stead-fast above average for 11.7s in cross analysis.
So I use the argument of accuracy, which means I every now and then scour for photographs and unclassified documents for 10 - 30 hours while listening to music, podcasts, etc in order to make an attempt to substantiate that hypothesis of mine.
Things I know: DU is on production SEP3 forward [there is no forward anymore].
Improved composite armor is on SEP 1 and SEP 2.
So what do I need to prove that?
1- I need photographs of the array [always declassified, just copyright protected sometimes].
2- Unclassified documents that illustrate array changes.
3- Numbers of equivalent protection from unclassified documents.
Any of those.
The HC is 11.3 because it has a slightly worse round, slightly worse survivability and no CITV compared to the 2A5.
We already had confirmation, aside from the amended documents stating infinite DU hull licenses, we have documents from budget cuts basically directly confirming hull armor:
Notice how it specifically says the side turret armor was upgraded against CE attacks - if the frontal armor isn’t specificed for the turret OR what type of ammunition, it is safe to assume the whole frontal portion (hull AND turret) were upgraded against both CE and KE attacks.
From 1997 (iirc) to February 2006 there were 5 test hulls, but in August 2006 the limit on hulls was removed. Around this time, there was a new designation for the Frontal Armor Upgrade, which appears to coincide with the removal of the limit. So, from late 2006 onwards DU could have been installed in the hulls (since not all versions of the Abrams had DU hulls installed at all times, the armor packages switched around when an active Abrams went into the shop). 2006 is not “just prior” to SEPv3 production.
The document is dated 2006, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the vehicles with DU armour were produced in 2006.
They’re also given to training schools, it doesn’t claim they were testbeds.
Nowhere does it state these were used as a basis for the SEP v3 program.
First problem is that the M1’s upgraded with DU concern M1A1 variants, and thus the M1A2, M1A2 SEP and M1A2 SEP v2 don’t benefit from it.
Second problem is assuming it would magically see a 80% increase in RHAe dispite the much lower LoS thickness of the array in comparison to the turret cheeks. I severely doubt the hull would reach anywhere close to the same values as a Leopard 2A7V.
T95E1?
XM803?
M60 120S?
HSTV-L?
CCVL?
LOSAT?
XM975?
MBT-70?
ADATS?
XM8?
XM-1 GM?
XM-1 Chrysler?
M247?
It absolutely would not, because it’s still better than a Challenger 2, T-72B3, or any other 11.3 tank.
Instead, BR’s should be decompressed with the Leo 2A7V, 2A7HU, Strv 122 going to 12.3 and the T-80BVM, M1A2 SEP, Type 10, etc. going to 12.0.
False.
Frontal armour means turret in this case (or possibly improvements to multi-hit durability). If the hull were upgraded then it would specifically mention that as it does with the SEP v3.
Other armour upgrades which are mentioned are relative to the M1/M1A1 vehicles which served as the basis for the upgrades.
Wrong, T-80BV gets it because it was on one of serial tanks, T-80U gets them with T-80UM upgrade which wasnt a prototype.
If they are to remove thermals it will lead to T-80BV getting huge frontal armour upgrade.
Currently T-80BV is frontally worse than T-64BV, tank that goes before it at 9.7. With armour upgrade that it can get if you take thermals off it will be 292 armour, except it wont be so bad against HEAT thanks to ERA.
The limit was removed in the mid 2010s.
2006 was the limit.
Honestly reading that reads as only turret they don’t specify the side portection until later aswell so turret would apply to both front and side.
SEPv3 Does not use DU armor.
1992 production T-80Us were given thermals as a standard.
Gaijin has a habit of mixing up tank variants, though, specifically to cater to modification progression and BR flexibility.
The T-80B is an amalgamation of 3 different T-80B variants, though is kept that way as each modification changes the fundamental specifications of the vehicle… Some mods are even variant-specific, like the thermals… Only ever applied to 1983 T-80BVs, which used an entirely different hull armor array that we do not have in-game.
If we did, it would be equivalent to the T-80U in hull protection, and warrant a BR increase.
The 2S38 does exist… Hell, it’s existed for over 6 years now, the fact that people still cry about its existence is astonishing.
Great question, let’s ask America.
Strat is to capitalize on the various play styles offered by US aircraft options and build a lineup with the hstvl m1a2 SEP and other 3 free slots should be whatever airplanes you like. Good options are f16c, new f111, av8b+, maybe A10C, f15c for air superiority, AH-1Z now that it has agm114k, maybe the bombcat if u like it
