If only EFPs worked in game like they do IRL. Bloody anaemic TOW-2B with inferior performance to a hand-made weapon of ~160mm diameter with a glass liner and low detonation velocity explosives.
1 Like
That was dated 1992. This was even before the FONSI and stated goals of cutting the 1996 armor protection upgrade into AIM and SEP Abrams. SEP V1 is very much a part of this.
You could try Sim Air.
As a general aside…
Does DU even have a better modifier than RHA as it is?
The M1s with DU are based off of the Swedish trial protection values.
That’s the point; the SEP program came after the cancelation of both the m1a2 upgrade program and the ASM program. Sub-1536 is an official document that states, regardless of accuracy, that only 5 hulls contain DU at various army schools in 2006. It doesn’t matter if the DOE was wrong (in context of the Army), but it was probably referring to the program called Sep Increment 2 and that’s a definitive statement on the matter because technically the DOE should not be wrong even if a lot of other information gets redacted and you never see it.
No. You’re citing a 1992 document, the SEP program incorporated the armor package improvements of 1996. The document Gaijin cites even mentions the results of the tests and the FONSI statement to go ahead in late 2001.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-07-14/html/98-18674.htm
More about the plans to incorporate upgrades to the SEPs. M1A2 SEP P3I program cited in this document.:
The 5 hulls happened before 2006. Scroll down to page 21 in the document Gaijin cited, and you will see that the tests of DU in the hulls, already conducted, lead to the FONSI statement and cutting the armor upgrade into AIM and SEP Abrams as planned in 1998.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
We see here that these budget forms show Frontal Armor Upgrades happened well before 2006.:
Search M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) (GA0700) to see that this covers AIM, M1A2 SEP, and SEP Retrofit package.
We know that the armor was provided by the DOE, and that the turrets were always authorized to have DU in them without limits. The only thing the obsolete version of SUB-1536 that Gaijin tries to claim limits DU to 5 hulls (it doesn’t, it’s been amended and many hulls have received the upgrade) is show that the armor layout used from the tests resulting in the 2001 FONSI statement didn’t include the turret side armor upgrades, confirmed to have DU in them.
We have the budget forms showing DU armor going into hulls and the sides of turrets.
Again, search “Abrams Upgrade Program” and you will see that M1A1 and SEP variants received frontal armor upgrades and turret side upgrades, as identified as DOE armor in previous budget forms.
The DOE and NRC are not wrong about Abrams hulls being authorized unlimited DU use, like the turrets always have been. Since Aug 2006, the NRC removed any limits on DU in hulls.
3 Likes
Please, tell me in the where in the Aug 2006 version of the SUB-1536 license where the hulls are limited. Because here is a 1999 version in the same format, where hulls listed separately from turrets, and given an exact limit.
…and yes, these amendment forms are actually due to changes in the SUB-1536 license.
Then Aug 2006, hulls are authorized unlimited DU use as are turrets, categorized in the same line item.
1 Like
Can you please explain this to the devs so Gaijin can pull its head out of it 4th point of contact like you did with M735? Maybe it’s a language barrier thing, but they cited SUB-1536 completely wrong, and it proves the opposite of what they are saying.
12 Likes
Just because the limit was removed in 2006 doesnt mean they were upgraded then.
2 Likes
I would agree on the SEPv2 and below not having any LFP improvements, however the SEPv3 does have turret and hull improvements as stated in unclassified reports. Honestly I thought about this if the SEPv2 and below has LFP improvement there probably would have been leaks already confirming the matter.
Reminder that prior makes of the M1 before the SEP V3 specifically state new generation armor sets, but do not specify what exactly they change for security reasons.
The SEP V3 improvements make the same claims the prior upgrades made without much change in overall wording thus, if we hold them all to the same standards, its easy to believe that the SEP V3 has no changes either per others musing here.
2 Likes
Don’t forget SEPv3 upgrade program makes no mention of an upgraded suspension and per Gaijin, no upgraded suspension = no upgraded LFP armor.
2 Likes
Yep, cant upgrade the armor without making the ride stronger … even though the added weight from the other armor kits in other versions was added without such upgrades being done or protection improvements.
Come to think of it as well, do we have any proof that any of the recent T series tanks had suspension upgrades for their armor additions? Or are we just accepting that bolting half a vehicles worth of extra junk onto the exterior of a T-80 or T-72 in Ukraine does not effect them in the slightest.
5 Likes
He formed his opinion that there is no improved armor/DU/spall liner by only looking at primary sources, of which there are very little, rather than looking at the relevant secondary sources that pretty much all say that it has all of those things.
I do find it interesting he said the SEPv3 definitely had DU in the hull armor since I’ve been struggling to find any primary sourcing for DU hulls in general. Much less the SEPv3
I would like to know as well, because now people are tossing the statement around as fact due to the video and I’ve yet to see and reference of actual DU related changes in the hull or the turret arrays for the SEP V3.
Of course there is the generalized “improved survivability and armor” but its already been beaten to death that gaijin ignores those statements.
Considering the new armor upgrade is called NGAP (Next Generation Armor Package) there is the possibility that the new armor composition doesn’t use DU anymore. Either way it’s a pretty big upgrade since you can physically see that they had to extend the turret and hull further out to fit in the new NGAP package in.
9 Likes
Now now, we don’t know that. Maybe they simply had to extend the hull when they ditched DU to get the same effectiveness /s
Edit: Yes I’m that pessimistic.
1 Like