Does anyone know if the hull front armor of the M1A1 HA/HC and M1A2 was improved compared to the M1A1? Because the CATTB’s hull armor protection was not increased compared to a unknown model of M1A1, most likely the M1A1 HA, the report was published on MAR 1989 which fits with the M1A1 HA development.
It can’t be the base M1A1, because the CATTB’s hull front armor is 30.34% heavier, (3,115 lbs for the M1A1) and (4,060 lbs for the CATTB).
well I wrote a email to general dynamics…they have not replied.
I penned and OHK the BVM with M829 in the left of the breech. After all it’s still T-80B turret
Yeah but it’s inconsistent in-game. It’s one thing to go into the armor viewer and scroll around for pixel weak spots, but in game it’s not that easy. And even though there are some spots near the breach that are weak, there are just as many spots that are completely immune. Give the turret a little wiggle and the shot is likely to do nothing.
I misinterpreted what I was originally responding to, but my point remains.
Thanks
I had already known both acronyms, you’re here cherry picking non-issues on different topics.
Both of those links are images of the words “classified chart”… Quite informative!
Care to describe the differences between FMS and EAP, or no?
The point is that EAP is a type of armor that was given out to FMS countries. To say FMS armor is the same as “export” armor, though it doesn’t tell which generation of EAP it had been.
Did “Applicants are hereby notified that they are encouraged, to the greatest practicable extent, to purchase American-made equipment and products with funding provided under this program” cross you?
Okay. So here are the estimates I cited earlier. The book is simply titled “Tanks” by Michael E. Haskew. Published by Amber Books, First Edition printed in 2010.
Not sure how to get this to who needs it, or which mod needs to be pinged.
I think this is a more than reasonable estimate for 3rd gen DU package Abrams, since we’re stuck with the nerfed M1A2 export variant values estimates from the Swedish trial.
Its likely DU. The HC uses DU Gen 2 while HA uses DU gen 1
This guy seems to know his Abrams
Maybe try pinging more than one and ask them?
The hull of the CATTB is entirely different though. Its not a standard M1A1 hull, it was elongated and uparmored for the 3 person crew with the 140mm unmanned gun
The CATTB uses a modified M1A1 hull, it has some differences but it has the same length as the M1A1 hull, the turret is actually manned, i think you’re talking about the TTB.
CATTB Phase I used the basic M1 Abrams hull, while the Phase II used a modified M1A1.
CATTB Phase II hull:
That green on the turret ring is misleading as half of it is non-pennable.
SXTREME is on our side, my guy. Even tho he’s a Russian main, he’s pulling for us. He’s a solid dude!
Got it. I was confused by his choice of preposition.
It just sank in me that, uh… even if SEP and SEPv2 get their improved hull armor, if they use the 35+% figure, it won’t… really change all that much xD
It would go from 390mm KE to 526mm KE, which would mean it would be still punch through by every Top shell xD
That being said, it would gain immunity to; stock shells (DM33, 3BM42, L26…), mid-top shells (DM43, 3BM46) and, depending on the range and angle, maybe even 3BM60, but not in general.
Well, it would turn the fuel tank areas into immunity zones, so at least if you are hit on the fuel tanks shells won’t just punch through the armor, the fuel tanks and kill the crew xD
Also, if the turret armors are finally corrected instead of having the Swedish trials values, the cheeks would finally offer full 60º KE protection, unlike now.
I also hope they made TUSK an optional modification! Also muh spall liners.
That 35% figure came from a source that they denied in my original report I dont think they would use that value.
I agree, if they follow the sources provided the hull will have 600mm+ armor, which will stop all but the very best rounds at point blank.
Below is the Bug Report for all M1s to have a spall liner, much like the DU armor reports giving this your support increases its visibility and helps us get closer to an accurately modeled Abrams.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BcMSgWYhwd5k
You need another secondary source to go along with your first source i.e. both your 2nd and 3rd source are not sources that will be accepted in bug reports:
OEM Manuals (primary source):User manuals, repair manuals, factory manuals, operating manuals, technical manuals etc.Single source is required (preferred source).
Authored works (secondary source):Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships (‘coffee table books’), biographies, specialist books, “expert” opinion publications, industry magazines etc.At least two unrelated sources required.
Hopefully someone has another secondary source that can be added along with your first source.
There was a primary source submitted directly to the devs, however that will take them a little while. As it is, this was not my bug report, I want to draw attention to it however.
ah fair enough then
