I really hate how we have this. I would trade this T-80 for the T-80BV of ‘85. Same for the T-80U, rather just either make it a T-80UM or add it as a separate vehicle and have the T-80U as its standard variant. Off topic, my only post for this.
Applique armour. Shown on (among others) the Leopard 2 IVT during the early '90s.
Germany didn’t field the applique armour on their domestic Leopard 2’s until around two and a half decades later.
Countless programs were curtailed or cancelled altogether in the '90s with the fall of the Soviet Union, including many of the programs dedicated to upgrading the M1A2/replacing the Abrams platform.
By the 2000’s we saw a focus around upgrading the survivability against IED and insurgency threats, and surprise surprise, we’ve got plenty of sources explaining in detail what survivability improvements were carried out on the M1 Abrams series of vehicles.
Now that peer-on-peer conflict is becoming worryingly more feasible, suddenly the SEP v3 is concretely stated to have received composite armour upgrades specifically, when they weren’t mentioned before.
The word ‘‘Secondary’’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Also, I’ve always said the SEP v2 might’ve possibly received upgraded hull armour, just without the use of DU.
I’ve not been presented with any concrete evidence that supports that argument however. If you want to convince anyone here that the SEP v2 featured improved hull protection, you’ll have to provide sources which support that argument.
So far the sources you’ve provided have been thoroughly debunked by myself and many others.
My analogy just flew over your head entirely, didn’t it?
1 Like
Which one?
1979 would be terrible even for 9.3 - 9.7 standards,
1983 is effectively what we have in-game, but with better armor… So you’d be upgrading it as it is now.
1985 would be FAR better than what we have now, with better armor and retaining all other upgrades.
The T-80U we have in-game is a T-80UM, primarily a 1990-1995 modernization model.
There were either 1985 or 1987 models upgrade, ours is based on a 1985 UM, upgraded to technology given from 1990-1992.
Can you send some?
Nice addition there, haven’t seen something this explicit before. Thanks!
Only issue is that the only things mentioned are “Frontal armor” and “turret sides”. Do you have any more information on what is included in “frontal armor”?
Is it turret cheeks? Hull? Breech comp?
They did in the mid-'80s. That increased hull armor from ~350mm to ~400mm
Unless you’re talking about a further 3rd generation of BRL patterns
But the 2A7V doesn’t use the armor package shown in the Swedish Trials for Germany, since its armor package was based off an earlier version, but the version that was ended up becoming the Strv 122 was made by Germany and was put into production (so less than a decade from the early 1990s). Additionally, the 2E which was based off of the 2A6EX (with the D-Tech hull, afaik) was produced from 2003-2013, which also isn’t multiple decades.
But none of which suggest the hull armor improvements were not done.
Like what? I’ve not seen any of my sources debunked.
If it remains a T-80B, then it should be a T-80B and not something that could be classified as a T-80BV.
Then they should change it to be a T-80UM, or remove all of the non-T-80U stuff on it.
The diction of “Frontal Armor” versus “Improved Turret Side Armor” (another upgrade within the same general GA designation) that is seen in most of the budget justifications shows that “Frontal” does not mean just turret.
They made one for the M1A2, which improved the hull 35% in KE and 25% in CE in comparison to the M1A1.
Budget Justifications (the specific year doesn’t really matter for this image, since it just shows the diction), the main website for them is this: Army Financial Management & Comptroller > Budget Materials
(Talking about upgrading M1A1s to the SEPv2 standard) “The front and side armor are upgraded and the tank is equipped with a Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station with .50-caliber machine gun operated from inside the tank.” https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/02/2002947944/-1/-1/0/PG%202014%20ISSUE%204%20WEB.PDF
M1A1 SA having hull DU: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2013/fy2013_Weapons.pdf
M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, Owners’ Workshop Manual - Says the M1A1 SA featured hull DU and that the SEPv2 featured all of what the M1A1 SA and SEPv1 had, and that hull DU was a part of the Abrams-family-wide Common Abrams modifications.
Cross-Sections: The M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank - Hull DU
(Can’t find the original image source) - Hull armor improvements
4 Likes
Sigh…
What does that have to do with Germany fielding Leopard 2A5’s and 2A6’s with inferior hull protection relative to the packages they had already demonstrated in the early '90s?
Classic case of moving the goalpost.
*Many of which suggest it was not done.
No mention of hull armor upgrades, yet it still specifically mentions other upgrades such as the turret side improvements which we also see represented in the budget allocation sheets:
[…] with funding from the Abrams PM office, developed new armor concepts, the most notable being one that incroporated DU. A team effort involving BRL, the PM office, the Department of Energy, and General Dynamics rsulted in this new technology being incorporated into the Abrams’ turret armor. […] developed a new side armor concept that significantly increased protection with minimal weight impact. This was handed off to the manufacturer, General Dynamics, and is in the latest Abrams model, the M1A2SEP’’
-Critical Technology Events in the Development of the Abrams Tank
‘’[…] and weight constraints prevent the addition of much of the planned armor until future weight reductions can be realized. Therefore, the Army’s belief that the Block II tank’s survivability will be increased may not be substantiated. […] the Army’s proposed tank continues to exceed the production cost ceiling of 3.037 million per tank set by the OSD and additional funding will be required if the Army is to meer it’s quantity objectives. […] the Army has determined that all armor cannot be added to the tank because of weight constraints. The model also assumed the existence of certain Soviet anti-armor threat munitions, the effectiveness of which were less than that currently predicted.‘’
-NSIAD 90 57
Armor upgrades were deemed necessary because of the projected Soviet threat into the '90s. Oh wait, but that threat disappeared, I wonder if that might’ve led to these upgrades no longer being deemed necessary and ended up on the cutting board, also thanks to the serious budget cuts during the '90s. (What was the initial plan again? 700+ F-22’s?)
‘’[…] The Abrams tank family (M1, IPM1, M1A1, and M1A2) has an improved hull armor envelope that does not contain DU. […]‘’
April 2000
-FM-8-283
Lol.
1 Like
Two tech tree tanks one being SPAA, great logic.
You are not a dev so thats only your way of looking at it.
SEP’s also tend to make vehicle lighter that doesnt seem to follow.
And then additionally NATO is just given more 11.7 vehicles, with USSR only ever getting two top tier MBTs, so if they start doing that the rule would be broken.
Other countries are allowed to have outright better or sidegrades to their MBTs at top tier, Russia only has one offensive and a defensive tank, not saying USSR is lacking vehicles but there is a pattern.
Now that, together with 1976 B version would probably end up 9.7 and would kinda be powerful if not OP, powerful than T-80BV on it’s current BR. Plus given it’s Gaijin and only vehicle without hull upgrade of 1982-1983 in a form of 16mm (T-72) or 30mm (plates (T-64A lacks it for being one of the oldest vehicles of high tier) current T-80BV (to nerf it’s armour, to make it weak a single or same BR’s exceptional firepower as well as having holes and gaps in the 30mm plate that rounds like DM-23 120mm or worse pass through like butter), T-80 or T-80B would probably still come in version of 1983.
2 Likes
I know this is just my personal opinion. However I would rather get a tank that actually offers something different/new over a nation’s other 11.7 MBT than just getting a straight up downgrade of the previous end of line MBT (CR3 TD and SEPv2).
I’m confused right now so do SEPV2 does have better hull or not
Could have, but there is no concrete evidence currently available which proves that to be true.
The SEP v3 most certainly does however.
SEPv2 would if you could just take the ERA off.
Plus if so your path is only suggesting and waiting for prototype Abrams tanks instead of waiting for SEPs with little to none gameplay changes. It’s like waiting a T-34 or Sherman to change porgressively gameplay wise.
CR 3 TD used to have more meaning, it has meaning now still, being with 120 Rh L55A1 instead of shitty 120MM gun it had before, having one piece ammo actually in a safe place for it instead of all over the tank, making hull shots possible to be ammoracks like on T-series, but it also had engine with a horsepower only export Chally 2 has.
Spoiler
Except someone doesnt even need a spall liner to refuse spalling (Centurions love to not spall)
Yeah either the TUSK II should be optional or the SEPv2 should have just been skipped in favor of the SEPv3.
SEPv2 without TUSK II would still at best be an uninteresting sidegrade, as it only adds the stabilized .50 cal compared to the SEPv1. But at least a SEPv2 without TUSK II would actually be worth playing I guess.
It still has a leopard style rack in the turret without blowout panels though. And it gained penetration at the cost of a slower reload.
It was a sidegrade before the engine nerf. Now it’s a straight up downgrade over the 2E.
5 Likes
Germany (in the form of KMW) did mass-produce them in the Strv 122, which isn’t moving the goalpost.
DU being incorporated into the turret =/= it not being installed in the hulls (either before this document was made, or after). Additionally, the Frontal Armor upgrade designation change and the removal of the hull limit was done after this report was published, and it lacks mentions of the DU hulls that were made before this since they have existed since at least 1997.
As for the improved side armor, this also just shows that they put on an armor that gave it better protection for negligible increase in weight, not that the M1A2 was so heavy as to be unable to handle a DU hull (which wouldn’t make sense, since we know M1A1s could handle it [after receiving the M1A2’s suspension, most likely]). The report also directly talks about weight-saving measures taken on the M1A2 (and M1A1 retrofits), including the improved suspension.
This directly talks about ~3.25 tons worth of weight-savings modifications with their “scheduled effective date” being the year of or the year after their first use. It is just speculation to say that these were not implemented, especially if the severity of the weight concerns are true.
This is before 2006, so it doesn’t disprove that hull improvements were rolled out in 2006. Additionally, I cannot find the actual document in question, so I can’t verify the context.
Moving it down to 9.7 would make a larger lineup, still.
I mean the US currently has only offensive tanks (and they’re nearly all the same), so Russia’s actually in a better position in that regard.
M1A1 HAs, M1A1 SAs, M1A2s, M1A2 SEPs, and M1A2 SEPv2s should have better hulls at the very least as their best armor package option (from 1997 for the M1A1 HA in the form of prototypes, and post August 2006 for the rest).
1 Like
Yes but it’s hull isnt a guaranteed blow up like on T series and blowout panels still seem to somehow stop explosion and sometimes fire even if struck on vehicles like Type 10/90 so always better with than without.
2 Likes
Might I add, while being at risk of going off topic, testing docs that Flame has suggest that L27A1 should have superior performance to M829A1… the problem is Gaijin doesn’t have a full set of figures for L-O formula and so assumes the mass and length are the same as the L26…
Gaijin just likes playing pick and mix with the CR3.
They’re all the same exact tank, just with minor upgrades that were added among its lifespan.
Whether or not it remains as it is in-game or is changed, its additions are simply anachronistic
It… Is a T-80UM?
I see
Change of armour throughout 1979-1983-1984 is not a minor upgrade.
1983 made 105mm DM23 not effective against T-80B, unlike 1979 T-80B, with T-80B getting same armour array (5 layer) as T-80BV making it much effective overall.
Did the German Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 feature the applique hull armour dispite it being developed? It’s a simple Yes/No question, so answer it for me, will you?
-
If it were placed in the hulls as well as the turret, it’d just say so.
-
Feel free to prove that it was installed in the hulls, again, you’ve still not presented any evidence for that case.
And it’s speculation to say they were.
Burden of proof still lies with you on that matter, not me.
Plenty of people claim the M1A2 SEP featured improved hull armour, that being a 1999 DOI vehicle.
I have the source listed right below, and it’s literally the first search result on Google.
We’re going around in circles again, you make claims that you cannot back up whatsoever, and then when I present sources that don’t align with your pre-established view on the topic, suddenly the goalposts get moved.
You’ve also still not shown any valid proof for any of your claims.
I’ll leave it here.
2 Likes
Yes? Also the Strv 122 did as well.
Unless it was part of the classified information, and the report was published before 2006.
Read these please: M1A2 SEP V2 doesnt have better LFP armour - #1807 by SpeclistMain1
The burden of proof is not on me, the Army explicitly states the weight-saving measures were planned to be implemented on a trade-off basis. The assumption one would make here, when we don’t have anything stating they were not implemented, is that the weight-saving measures were implemented.
Yes, but it seems like the pre-FY2004/2005 Abrams had an earlier Frontal Armor package, with the post-FY2004/2005 having a different version that includes hull DU. I looked through all of the budget justifications before FY2004/2005 and none of them mention the SEP having better armor, but in FY2008/2009 the frontal armor is directly mentioned with the SEP. Think of it as an “early” versus “late” model thing.
I don’t use google, but ok. Regardless, this still doesn’t prove anything beyond 2000.
1 Like
There was no Agava M1, oy Agava 1 and 2.
Your stand on Agava M1 exists purely on thermal sight complex name, but complex isnt just thermal sight itself, it could be any small change or just different way of mounting, just like 1A45/T.
You are the only person I ever saw Agava-M1 come from.
This scheme from museum shows additionally that Agava was first mounted on some T-72’s (probably A version), same museum also has Agava 1 and 2 by that very same scheme and no talk of Agava-M1 to start with.