Because that’s how it is IRL based on currently available documentation.
Feel free to share said sources.
M1 Abrams: 55.7t
IPM1: 56.8t > Received extended turret cheeks with improved armour composition.
M1A1: 57.2t > Recieved M256 120mm gun.
M1A1 HC: 61.2t > Received steel-encased depleted uranium packages in the turret cheeks.
M1A2: 62t
M1A2 SEP: 62.2t
M1A2 SEP v2: 63t
M1A2 SEP v3: 66.8t > NGAP/NEA armour package that improved both turret and hull composites.
As you can see, the major increases in weight are paired with increases in turret armour protection, these changes are modeled in-game already.
I knew it was going to be something, it’s always something.
Everything’s to the same scale and as the same angle, if you have any evidence that supports your claim that the turret ring is modeled too large in-game, feel free to share it.
"Future Weight Reductions Planned In April 1989 , the Army implemented a weight reduction program in hopes of adding more of the desired armor packages . Major items in the tank being considered for weight reduction are shown in table 2.1 .
2.1 : Weight Savings Opportunities for the Abrams Tank
|Item| Weight savings objective (pounds)| Scheduled effective date|
Ammunition racks| 200 |Aug. 1990
Aluminum wire race ring| 630 |Oct. 1992
External suspension| 1,000 |Apr. 1993
Lightweight track| 1,000 |Apr. 1993
Composite items| 2,690 |Fiscal year 1993/1994
Ceramic skirt| 879| Apr. 1993
Other contractor proposals| 265 |Fiscal year 1993/1994
Total |6,664|
The Army plans to add portions of planned Block II armor on a trade - off basis as planned weight savings are achieved . However , most of the Army’s planned weight reductions are scheduled for development and are not expected to be realized until after the start of M1A2 production ."
so if we reference
And assume that the M1A1’s armor is proof against the referenced 125mm APFSDS shell
445~460 * 1.35 = 600~620mm against KE
Wow. there’s the link I guess for said claims right there.
First source: Those survivability enhancements were cancelled prior to going into production. They were found to be unsatisfactory and broke the weight constraints established.
Second source: Indeed, which is why the 1999 M1A2 SEP featured improved turret side protection.
Third source: Developed doesn’t mean adopted. There’s countless upgrades for the Abrams that were developed but never adopted.
Fourth source:
Firstly, what makes you assume that to be the case? Furthermore, what makes you assume the US went by the exact same threat analysis of Soviet APFSDS as the UK did?
Secondly, that’s a UK source, not a US one.
Thirdly, that source pre-dates the M1A1/IPM1 protection package by several years.
Some were, as is evident in the excerpts provided. But as specified Weight saving were identified and the intent remained to fit the improved SE II armor as weight reduction effort permitted.
Yes, and that’s why the word initially is in there right?
We know weight reduction efforts were undertaken and complete with the M1A2, who is to say exactly what the freed weight budget was spent on, it’s not like the Army specified what they were going to do with it, right?
The M1E1 P3I program was already underway by '78 The UK would know due to the UK-US Armor MOU, that got the US access to Chobham samples in the first place.
Is it not directly relevant to the XM1, now?
The deployment of said package, sure. But development, not so much; as these things take time to certify properly. And as far as I know '78 falls after '76 so it’s likely that the UK is aware of dealings of the other members of the Memorandum, especially since these are the dates things are formalized, the concerns would have been preexisting.
“In a 1976 Addendum to the 1974 MOU, both the United States and
Germany agreed to identify and specify areas of standardization of their
respective tanks to ensure compatibility and commonality of components. The
M1E1 tank program was initiated when the decision to use the GE 120 mm weapon
system was made.”
M1E1 Block Improvement Program was initiated in February 1979. Annex G (Product Improvements) to the MN was approved in May 1982. The program provides for incorporation of armor modifications
That would be an incorrect assumption. As of 1991, British documents state the M1A1 had 350 mm KE protection on the hull. Which also matches what the Swedish trials said about M1A2.
So the 35% increase would be against a baseline of 350 mm, and even then the 35% improvement was only being “considered”.
I don’t think I have that one, but will take a look when I get time.
I just played 10.7 USA and is was fun, even with the bmpt, it would be nice to have m833 and the turret ring removed but the Abrams is still a great vehicle, it is just skill issue.
And also they are farming off clickbot players inflating the stats even more which also drags down the stats of sep and sepv2 do to half of the team being dead with in the first 10 min.
The shape of the M1s front is not correct, the model was added before Gaijin went to the US to measure the tank. You can clearly see that on later additions that the roof is angled a degree or two more on A1+ tank models. The roof is currently too flat on M1 and IPM1 which means their “shot trap” is slightly too large.
Yes, the US did not allow the DU armour package to be exported so the turret armour was weaker. But there was no DU armour in the hull, so that did not need to be downgraded.
Yeah My back still hurts from playing the now 10.7 Abrams a bit too much since unlocking it. (this was quite sometime before Gaijin made the engine actually somewhat quiet at distance)
carrying quite alot of teams and realizing how bad alot of the players are since the introduction of the KVT.
speaking of which btw, the KVT for a long time didn’t have an expert crew in My lineup so I just had an extra M1 I didn’t want to spend over a Million SL on for about 6 months.
but for the rest it truly is a very good allround tank when leaving the turret ring out of the equation.
I’m now also going for the Type-90s / TKX and Type-10, which basically are a much more focused version of the M1’s most effective playstyle. I can’t wait until I have them.
Maybe the basket it´s weird, this is my option to turret baskets: Realistic loading mechanics: An alternative to the turret basket penalty?
But, USA teams are just bad, if gaijin won´t allow new ppl to buy top tiers, would help a lot to the game (cheaters, bad players, toxic ones, etc).
But, this is a non-competitive game (exept tournaments), Gaijin won´t care a lot.
