Here’s where you’re wrong. I said would put out not did put out. I never claimed that the DOD EVER released anything official.
Also WHERE DID I EVER SAY M1A1. The title clearly states “M1A2” You are being argumentative just for your own satisfaction. Not only did Gaijin measure an M1A1, you’re using the hull from the CATTB program ALSO a M1A1 chassis to defend your argument. You can supply all the M1A1 ultrasonic readings and primary source documents you want, it’s still not a M1A2. I did not at any time in this post EVER argue that the M1A1 was wrong. Not only that but it’s already known the M1A2 was updated to be more armored than the A1. So yes, I do believe that the Russian information to be correct using the initial M1A1 armor values as a base, everything is upgraded armor wise on the A2
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.
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
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.
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.
