That was an export M1A2 with a nerfed non-DU package. Nice try. Also, the SEPs received the hull DU. According to the decision made after the FONSI results of testing the hulls with DU, from the same document Gaijin cited. XD Since 2001 forward, they implemented the improved protection armor package described and tested in this document. Later in 2006, the license was amended to allow unlimited hulls. The decision to go forward was made in 2001. This covers the first SEP.: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
So all M1A1s going forward, as a part of the AIM and SEP program, would have this improved DU package with DU in the hull.
…and regarding your Swedish armor claims…:
…then consider that the M1A2 was later evaluated at the Greek trials. It got second place in the protection category. The only real complaint the Greeks had about the armor was that the roof wasn’t as protected as the Leo. This still nerfed M1A2 went against a T-80U, and was rated far superior in protection. :)
Well we do know that it never received DU in the hull from the nuclear comission outside of 5 test tanks that were donated to training schools, we know that there was a gap of several years between when the Detroit arsenal closed in 1996 and when the Lima plant started upgrading hulls in the 2000s, so I’d certainly lean towards SEP receiving no hull upgrades.
Anything to do with German WW2 props has been public info since the 50s, we have all their manuals. They just updated the flight model to be more accurate, before it was very arcadey because it was ported over from Wings Of Prey.
People keep saying this, it isn’t true. The Abrams, Leopards, and Leclercs are all based on their Swedish trials figures. The Soviet tanks are incredibly well documented, you can use the swedish trials, the greek trials, declassified info from the Soviet archives, hell western museums and even private owners own T-72s so you can just walk up with a ruler and start measuring.
No service M1A2 had DU in the hull, see above.
[quote=“Count_Trackula, post:1685, topic:51814”]
This covers the first SEP.:
nowhere on here does it say the hulls received upgraded armor.
Changing the laws around the use of DU does not mean it was actually fitted on production tanks. This document could easily just be in regards to the aforementioned 5 test vehicles.
The Swedish version did have the DU removed, that is true. Removed from the TURRET, because there was none in the hull. That’s why
There’s way more to that trial than you’re letting on here. The Abrams had the second best protection of the four tanks who’s protection was actually judged - The Leopard 2, the Challenger 2E, the Leclerc, and the Abrams. The T-84 and T-80UE were not rated in protection because they failed the accuracy trial and were eliminated earlier (both had brought training rounds that were inaccurate past 2km, everyone else brought real ammo except the brits)
What’s more important is that later, the Leopard 2A6 they ended up purchasing failed to stop 27 out of 30 shots of DM53 fired at it’s turret, and it was a bit of a scandal… In any case there’s a lot to get into there and I don’t think this points to the M1A2 receiving any form of upgraded hull. We don’t know how they rated the protection, if it was mostly looking at turret armour, etc etc. It’s just not nearly as well documented as the Swede trials.
Frontal armor upgrades happening from between the FONSI to the removal of the hull limit. The later budget form indicates that the frontal armor improvements are provided by the Department of Energy. More than 5 hulls have had this upgrade.
…and even if your denial and cope were true, and only 5 hulls had it, that would be enough to include them on vehicles in this game. Gaijin’s created vehicles on less basis than that in game.
Is there even a point? I asked @Stona_WT earlier, and received no response whatsoever.
@_David_Bowie , should we even bother with bug reports considering Gaijin’s handling of them?
Besides, they’re gonna want figures. They’ve rejected every set of figures we’ve given them. Yet somehow they’ve pulled figures out of their asses for different variants of these modified tanks.
Oh, also, the Abrams received an upgraded armor package in 96. Which means the Swedish trials definitely have no basis for representing Abrams protection.
This lines up with FONSI report in the initial document Gaijin cited, but ignored that it told them about this, LOL!!!:
“In 1996, a
design change to the armor package was made by the Army and cut-in to
production by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) via Change Request
XMPP-2083 in Oct 96 and effective with Job #1 M1A2 Phase II AUT. The
purpose of this revision to the Environmental Assessment (EA) is to
assess the environmental impact of the change from the original DU
armor design to this modified design. Additionally, although unrelated
to this armor design change, since the last EA, the NRC’s maximum
radiation dose limits for individual members of the public has been
change from 500 mrem per year to 100 mrem per year. This revision
assesses the new design against these new dose limits.
B. The findings of the draft EA of the M1 Abrams MBT Heavy Army
System support this FONSI. The assessment was conducted in keeping with
the Army’s environmental stewardship policy, to ensure that any
potential environmental impacts are fully mitigated. The EA supports
all related M1 Abrams MBT programs reviewed by the Defense Acquisition
Board.”
After reading the article about hull protection I just have one question: why all the refutation is based on the fact of presence/absence of depleted uranium inserts?
Well, yes, there is no direct evidence (like Manual for each M1A2 modification) of increased hull protection on the M1A2-M1A2SEPv.2, but there are indirect references one way or another.
First of all, the engineers had options at their disposal to increase protection without using depleted uranium inserts, so the depleted uranium argument is not very relevant.
Second, main article we discuss was only able to fight depleted uranium, but the part where it try to refute defense enhancement by any means (even without using depleted uranium) is actually very weak in terms of argumentation. The suspension of the tank was modified many times, moreover, this work was combined with attempts to lighten the vehicle at the expense of other solutions.
Has someone made a bug report on the side armor of the Sep 2 missing? I tried to make one but I may be banned from bug reports. Can someone make a bug report on this? The composite side skirts of the abrams should still be 65mm before the TUSK and after the tusk is installed.
The game has it as 7mm thick with tusk installed and 65mm without it.
They just forwarded Object 195 which has a 152mm gun.
It would reach some 900-1000mm pen in game.
Russia can and will probably get the first true lolpen round at top tier.
The only answer other nations have to it are 140mm prototypes which are much inferiour to the Object 195 (if it gets all its claimed / theoretical features since noone can confirm if any of those features actually work)
Side plates I’d agree, although it seems like the actual ARAT mounts themselves missing a good amount of thickness, which does make sense as you would want the backing plate to be thick enough to both hold the additional weight and prevent the blast from harming the mounting system.
Random question, anyone got any idea how much a M1A2 turret precisely weighs?
I know that HHI Corporation supposedly has a M1 Abrams turret stand rated for 37 tons here: M1 Tank Turret – HHI
Reason I’m asking is because I’ve been digging through NRC and came across some fun information:
Oasis’ License got amended 5 times. Amendments 2-4 as far as I can tell simply no longer specify the number of Abrams and adjust it to only storage? Amendment 5 appears to terminate Oasis’ NRC license as seen here:
One other amusing thing to note is apparently a pair of GDLS technicians nearly set themselves on fire working on the side turret armor of an Abrams on November 29th 2006.
