???
‘‘I would trust the Russian source more than the values that the US… has never put out’’.
Now there’s one heck of an argument if ever I’ve seen one.
M1A2’s are converted using M1/M1A1 hulls.
Internal composite armour is what changes between various itterations, not the outer shell.
Which uses… you guessed it, an M1A1 hull.
Okay, so don’t. I really don’t care what you think. You come off as an argumentative know it all.
Yes and the fact that they used the M1A1HC hull which became the standard for M1A2 builds. Do you know if the M1 hulls were internally upgraded? Do you have the specs of the HC hull? I think not. I know for a fact that the blow off panels and gps covers were upgraded to titanium.
M1A1 HC uses the same basic structure as the M1A1, just like the M1A2.
Even the M1A2 SEP v3 still uses the same outer structure, the UFP of the SEP v3 is 38.1mm and most certainly not 80mm.
There are indeed some changes in terms of weight reduction, but those neither concern frontal armour such as the UFP nor major changes to the shell.
You can’t say the HC uses the same basic structure without proof. Even if we assume a base A1 was used, you can still add laser cut panels to the interior and weld them in. It’s not difficult to add thickness in this way. This would also not change exterior dimensions.
Lets go about this via a manufacturing mindset. We can both agree that the A2 has a newer generation of composite armor right? How would they go about installing that? The only way I can think of is to physically cut away the outer armor of the Abrams in order to install the newer armor in both the turret cheeks and the front hull. What makes you think that the overall armor isn’t increased at the same time? This would still line up with the original diagram since we know that the side protection is 30mm and the side skirts are 65mm
I doubt the added equipment of the A2 accounts for the huge difference in weight alone. We’re talking 5 tons or 10,000 lbs between the A1 and A2.
This is getting tiresome.
All the various itterations after a certain point use the M1A1/M1 hulls as a basis for the upgrade program. This isn’t a secret and can be easily verified via countless sources. As I said before, even the most modern SEP v3 is built via this process.
I’ve now shown you numerous sources that support my position, it’s about time you start showing some sources that indicate the outer structure of an M1A2 differs from an M1A1, or that the M1A2’s structure underwent significant rebuilts and changes to it’s outer shell.
???
M1A1 HA (close match for the HC) weighs around 67.6 US tons, M1A2 weighs around 68.4 US tons.
Where exactly are you getting a 5 ton difference from?
And in case you’re talking about the standard M1A1, that doesn’t feature the Heavy Armour inserts, obviously it weighs less than both a M1A1 HA, M1A1 HC or M1A2.
You answered your own question. The standard M1A1 weighs in at 63 tons. You just said yourself the HC with the heavy armor inserts weighs in at 67.6 tons. This bring me back to my original point. You can’t use the data from Gaijin’s visit to the museum nor the data from the CATTB program because they used the standard M1A1 hull.
I don’t need sources, it’s common sense that there is a reason why the HC and A2 weighs 5 tons more than the A1 hence invalidating your claims that the gaijin/cattb data is of any use.
Obviously the reason why there is a 5 ton difference is because they reinforced areas in the Abrams. What makes you think the internal dimensions aren’t any different from the original Abrams? We’re talking almost 45 years of service
I dont need sources, T-90M has 1700mm KE UFP
ZTZ-99A has 1700mm KE aswell
Oh so a source from different model of tank is counted which completely disregards the 5 ton difference. Gotcha. I like how you guys math.
I will when you make a valid argument that doesn’t hinge off a picture you found online, or you find an actual reliable source.
Oh so a source from different model of tank is counted which completely disregards the 5 ton difference. Gotcha. I like how you guys math.
Thats not even math. And thats not what im arguing.
The photo I found initially was floating online. I then found the source of the photo from a long time running Russian magazine which is linked in the pdf. That magazine explains how the M1A2 is a better tank than the T80 and how their current munitions cannot penetrate the Abrams. It also goes on to give some general ideas of how much armor is present. That’s where the blueprint photo comes in. My argument is that since some of armor measurements in the blueprint photo are correct, maybe they were able to reverse engineer the A2. The armor plate being thicker in certain areas would line up with the added weight the A2 has compared to the A1 which is confirmed to be 63 tons (A1) 68 tons (A2). That’s all I’m arguing. Everyone else seems to think that there was no change to the hull armor over 44 years of service.
Furthermore, Necro argues that there was no change to the A1 hull vs the A2 hull. We know for a fact that the A2 received gen 2 composite and the Sep V2 received gen 3 with a graphite coating. You can’t just swap those out like they’re batteries. They’re built into the armor and the hull must be disassembled. I just made the point that maybe it’s possible the glacis and external armor plates were thickened at that time. No one has any data on that.
It also came to mind that since the overall weight of the tank has increased, maybe it was a necessity for the hull thickness to be increased since the turret is heavier on the A2. Evidence in the CATTB program shows problems with stress on a standard A1 chassis.
Makes sense that this is from 1990 and the A2 came out in 1995. Meaning that it’s possible the hull was reinforced with the research data. The magazine I posted is from 1998 which is chronological with everything.
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA228389.pdf
Aaaah, and here we have it. The true self is finally revealed.
I’ll just ignore any of your further comments from here on out then.
Modern Classified tanks were a mistake. Maybe in 50 years we will have a correctly modeled Abrams in game. Then again, plenty of very old widely available tanks are wrong in game xd
I expected as much from you. Completely ignores the point I made about the weight difference in order to exit the conversation. You were absolutely useless in the post anyway. Bye felicia.
Indeed, the standard M1 Abrams should have been the cut-off
Unless there is proof saying otherwise, the M1A1HA and M1A1HC both use the same internal structure.
The only proof that WOULD point towards that would be armor, in which external dimensions were changed to accompany HAP implementation.
And that’s explained perfectly by the replacement of the Improved BRL pattern to HAP-1/2… In the turret alone.
Damn, really outting yourself here…
Because the M1A1HC and M1A2 both use HAP-2, instead of the original BRL-2 layout.
I’m not disputing that those two are different at all. I am saying that the original M1 hull is different though. Data from the CATTB program suggests that the hull was structurally reinforced due to stress issues. Perhaps from that research they applied that to the HA/HC hull.
I highly doubt that they were able to add 5 tons of turret armor without having to reinforce the hull. My guess is they used some of the 5 tons out of that weight difference to increase hull rigidity.
I’m not disputing that
