you mean “too long, must be an encyclopedia, encyclopedias arent valid sources”
what is it from?
Can’t find the original source, looks official, but was uploaded onto SCRIBD, I’ll look for an OG source.
Person seems to be familiar with armor, has uploads on TUSK.
there are some interesting things in that which im not sure about, but dont want to say much more in case you do find a source
Going to run it though AI to see if there are any matches on the rest of the internet.
please find a source and I will happily add it on!
Looking for one right now!
1 Like
@Hike_DK @Alpharius11348 I looked at it some more and it seems this guy was throwing in averages from WT and Quora, sorry to have wasted your time again.
2 Likes
It’s all good, thank you for looking into it.
Don’t worry about time, we’ve got a lot of it
1 Like
all good
thats kinda what I figured from looking at the values, but didnt want to say it in case there was a decent source
2 Likes
FYI
just so you know in future
there shouldnt be much of a difference between tandem and non tandem for composite armor like that shows for the hull front
and the roof is just steel so should be relatively consistent across all of them (also its 38-40mm so the KE one is too low)
AI gave me the following sources, Y’all can check them out, but I’m running through the yearly DOT&E Annual M1A2 SEP V3 program docs, not much found, just that the floor armor was reinforced with NEA aswell as " changes in the material and dimensions of internal structural supports”. (might be slightly helpful). Anyway here are the following sources
- General Dynamics Land Systems — SEPv3 product page and press release (states “upgraded armor”,“protection package”, Next Evolution Armor). gd.com
- Defense Industry Daily — historical SEPv2/SEPv3 program overview mentioning armor upgrades andprotection changes across SEP variants. [defenseindustrydaily.com] https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/digital-abrams-the-m1a2-sep-program-updated-02834/
- Army-Technology — detailed SEPv3 project page summarizing survivability and armor/protectionimprovements and SEPv4 → M1E3 transition. army-technology.com
- DOT&E (Director, Operational Test & Evaluation) reports and annual reports — test/evaluation documentsthat reference survivability, protection testing and change requests for Abrams variants. Search the DOT&Eannual reports and program pages for Abrams entries. osd.mil
- US DoD / General Services contracting notices and GDLS contract releases — procurement documentsand contract announcements often list armor/protection upgrades for SEP deliveries (useful for dates andscope). defenseindustrydaily.com
- Defense/Aerospace press (Defense News, Janes/Subscription sources) — coverage of SEPv3/SEPv4armor changes, Trophy APS integration, and design notes (may be paywalled). defenseindustrydaily.com
What im saying is the 2A7V never got any of these magical upgrades you pretend it got. It got armor based on the swedish trials, but worse.
As a matter of fact, the M1A2 ingame got armor from the swedish trials, but better (particularly on the hull), so the M1A2 is armor-wise in a better situation than the 2A7V based on known sources, so dont go dragging the 2A7V through the mud on this, they most definitly arent getting special treatment.
As an aside though, I’m curious what people are actually expecting from the requested hull armor buff. I’m not saying it shoulsnt get it, but I think y’all are massively overstating what a hull armor buff will actually look like for the M1A2C in-game.
Current hull armor is roughly 400mm vs KE, at roughly 493mm thick (KE modifier of ~0.811) M1A2 SEP v2 turret was about 750mm with ~938mm, for a KE modifier of ~0.799, which put the sep V2 hull armor “without DU” as outperforming the turret armor with DU in-game (due to the aforementionned buff to the M1A2 hull armor vs swedish trials).
But for the sake of being generous in this, lets say they up the KE modifier for the LFP to 1.0, instead of its ~0.81, and you end up with 500mm of RHA vs KE, instead of 400mm. Just about the only thing that will change is you’ll stop stock shells like 3BM42 from tanks, but it aint gonna put a dent in top darts you’ll be competing with.
It’ll make a difference sure, but at WT combat ranges, and with any potentially realistic increase in protection we could see, its really not gonna make THAT much of a difference. Its not a matter of the M1A2C being competitive or DOA like you guys are pretending it’ll be, it’ll just be a kinda nice to have thing on the occaision some russian guy in a stock tank screws up and puts a round in your LFP instead of your breach or turret ring.
To ACTUALLY matter in WT combat ranges, the LFP would need to be buffed over 1.0 KE modifier. Something like 1.1 might help it tank 3BM60 and other “low” pen top tier darts at medium to long range (for WT, like 1km+). 1.2 would garantee stopping “low” pen top tier rounds, and maybe tanking a few low 600mm pen darts at range on occaision.
You just arent realistically going to be gaining much of an advantage at all with this hull armor buff you’re all saying will make or break this tank. You’ll gain a little extra safety vs bad shots with stock rounds. Thats it.
Otherwise, the tank is fantastic, and 100mm of armor on the LFP aint changing that.
ive not seen anyone here say this
just that it is insane that gaijin is trying to pretend that the abrams hull hasnt been improved even for SEPv3
We don’t have solid evidence of how much the turret improved either. They just picked and number and went with it. These programs happened around the same time so how would one be unclassified and the other still is? Gaijin knows if the LFP becomes as thick as the turret face the Abrams will immediately become like a 14.0 tank.
Right, so lets take the swedish trials hull number of 350mm (the 400mm in-game is already a buff).
1.35 x 350mm = 472.5mm and its mattering less than the 500mm i generously gave it.
To be extra generous:
1.35 x 400mm = 540mm and you’re getting close to the 550mm breakpoint, but still not quite there and you’re once again likely only really bothering mango slingers.
Like I said. Its be nice if it got it, its NOT going to make or break the tank. Most players likely wont even notice it.
if you take the 35% increase from the BRL report (for a armor package developed in the late 80s) you would get a LFP of ~520-540 mm RHAe vs KE
then if you add the ~60-100mm from the fuel tanks and the bulkheads that adds up to 580-640mm, which would make many top tier darts very ineffective if they hit a large majority of the LFP, vs it just being point and click on the hull for an easy pen currently
4 Likes
yes and you are getting that because you are looking downwards at the plate, if you look at it straight on it is 360-370mm
4 Likes
and you are forgetting about the massive fuel tanks and extra armored bulkheads behind most of the LFP (fyi there is a bug report for the LFP to get an extra ~30mm RHA in front of those too)