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
Every variant of the Abram’s has gotten improved turret and hull and side armor.
Notice its weight increases without the TUSK in real life.
Honestly, I get clapped by every other nato tank in my sep 2.
They are fine. Especially the challengers.
Stop saying this. Every variation upgrade received improved armor!!! Except for the sep 3
There’s reason that M1A1 is inferior to HC, M1A2, and M1A1 AIM in-game.