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
I mean, the burden of proof is on you. You’re posting a diagram you found online that you yourself admit you don’t know what the original source is, and claiming it’s an authoritative source based on the language its written in. Not to mention it’s hand-drawn, so pixel counting doesn’t really work for finding the thickness.
By this logic, I could draw a similar thing for the T-90M, make it so the UFP is 2000mm thick, slap some official looking english text on it, and ask why gaijin isn’t giving the T-90M its true UFP.
1 Like
Based on some of the information already out there such as 65mm side skirts, 85" turret basket (2150mm shown in diagram vs 2159mm), 30mm side hull armor. A few of the numbers already match up then again you may be right.
I did find this browsing the web.
https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/M1A1_Abrams_American_Main_Battle_Tank_
1 Like
What could possibly be wrong with an un-annotated diagram from an unknown source referring to top secret material…???
2 Likes
Despite the .mil URL Odin is also not a very good source, it’s very much secondhand and a lot more focused on providing basic overviews of capabilities for wargames and such.
See post 1. Found the source
I asked you that question.
You’re the one claiming they did, so please point me to the US having released official, public statements regarding the exact armour performance of the M1A2.
I did not, you’re just not reading what I’m saying.
You’re posting a diagram that shows the armour thicknesses of the outer shell, you then claim this shows that the ‘‘M1 is WAY more armored than in game’’.
I point out that this diagram doesn’t even include any information regarding the composite armour values, which is the most important area of protection on an MBT.
The outer shell’s thicknesses are known and listed in declassified documents, but that doesn’t mean the composite armour inserts are known, they’re two different things entirely.
I then continued to point out that the armour values qouted in the diagram are wrong and out-dated guesstimates, and that better sources from the country of origin are available and make these diagrams pointless by comparison.
Both ultrasonic readings and primary source documents converge on the same armour values, hence there’s no need to involve some crappy foreign source.
That document claims the UFP is 80mm, this is just plain wrong as it’s 38.1mm in actuality, just as an example among many.
Spoiler
