XDDD
“This a damn sentence”
2 Likes
The stretch your trying to prove is, insane.
I’m not trying to prove anything, I said “If this is true”
It probably is partially, in the sense of everything that is unclassified is available.
Also, I lowkey think you’re misreading it a little bit.
Maybe, maybe not. Just using what dimensions are already there, kinda like how I reverse engineer irl but not a whole lot to go on. I’d love to see what the internal dimensions are. I could probably machine a small scale model lol
I believe Turret cheek armor thickness is red line to red line in the diagram.
Where “B” is is the frontal vortices of the port turret cheek.
Also, 4500 is your total turret length, this being in MM, so, 4.5 meters overall length.
You can use the front to the center of the turret ring of 3.55 meters to then subtract roughly 1.77/1.88 meters to get total turret ring radius, times 2 is your overall diameter.
Ring is 2150mm if you check the hull diagram, that looks correct
Actually you’re right about the 4500, I thought that was 4600, make sense why the lines were a tiny bit off
1 Like
2150 is also simply the interior ring space, my calc on the (3.55-1.8) • 2 is the exterior diameter, then you can finally find your total ring depth.
That’s a very rough estimate however.
But then promptly model it incorrectly and ignore actual tech documents an photos 🤣
Indeed, but way higher than in game. I wonder what documents they got their initial values from since the side skirts and inner hull dimensions match the drawing dimensions
I’ve opened a ticket on the support site, if anyone wants to chime in, that’d be great
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HKkYw8JXaj5Y
I have so many questions:
-
It’s a Russian diagram that contains plenty of errors, why would you ever want to use a Russian source for an American vehicle? Similarly, you don’t use American sources for Russian vehicles. This is the whole ‘‘Kpz/MBT-70 actually used composite armour because the Russian sources said so’’ nonsense all over again.
-
Nowhere in these pages does it indicate the composite armour equivalencies. What exactly are you using from these pages that makes you believe the in-game M1A2 is under armoured?
-
Many of the thicknesses and angles of the M1’s outer shell have been publicly available for decades, why would you even need to reference some Russian guesstimates for these values when the true values have been easily available?
Heck, Gaijin even released an entire dev blog where they performed ultrasonic measurements for the M1’s outer shell.
What?!
Or, you know? Just not put out any values whatsoever?
Where are you getting this idea from that the US has ever publicized the armour ratings for their modern MBT’s?
2 Likes
-
I said if these drawing were true, so this is all hypothetical (read post number 1 again) I would trust Russian sources simply because if they did the work, it was in order to develop their own tanks to out perform their western counterparts. Why would Russia over inflate the Abrams armor numbers is my question to you?
-
I’m simply comparing in-game armor values to that diagram that I posted.
-
My comment about anything the DoD would public release went right over your head. I said as a tactic, the DoD would undervalue any performance numbers in order to have other nations underestimate the overall performance of any weapons system.
In-game says this is 38.1mm, diagram is showing 80mm
In-game says this is also 38.1. diagram is showing 70mm
Just a few examples.
The diagram can be scaled very close to 1:1 meaning you can equate some other values in cad
1 Like
They are not.
I personally don’t see much of a point in posting every random fabricated illustration that’s on the internet.
I recall the same discussion taking place over these Russian diagrams for the MBT/Kpz-70 vehicles:
Spoiler
And just like these M1 diagrams, they’re just nonsensical and wrong. Far better primary sources (from the countries of origin) are now available and thus there is no reason to discuss the potential validity of these dated and erroneous images any further.
This question relies on a massive list of assumptions you’re making, none of which you’ve established or proven yet.
No, I read it and addressed it with a question of my own, a question you haven’t answered.
Yes, and the diagram is nonsense.
2 Likes
If your diagram was proven my other members to be faulty why do you continue to try to use it?
How are people so dense on this platform?
1 Like
Proven by whom? I’ve yet to see conflicting evidence. Please link a source. You’ve heard that the data is wrong from where? I don’t care how many members disprove it. 100 people can say the sun is green, that doesn’t mean it’s true.
OR
So which is it? Did the US ever publicize armor ratings or did they not? You posted two different comments that contradict eachother.
1 Like
These diagrams are not pixel perfect :)
They are hand drawn and have large deviations. Unless they show a number, measuring by pixels is pointless
Agreed, not perfect but close to disprove some of the ingame values
Just the size of the pen they use to draw it makes it inaccurate by tens of milimters
Indeed, check this out though
The two arrows point to the outer diameter of the turret ring. Anything past that should be armor. That means there is alot more protection than is depicted in game
Effective should be over 700mm ± 50mm instead of 102mm
Lower effective should be over 350 ± 50mm instead of 36mm
1 Like