It is not that serious. Stop being an overdramatic baby.
1 Like
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7461/08-02-army.pdf
Pages 95-97 mention all the improvements on the hull and turret from the basic M1 to the M1A2 96 mentions roof improvements and 97 mentions spall liners better HP and a improved transmission
6 Likes
Even if it’s not a reduction of 3 to 5 tons of electronics, there was a reduction; modernization wouldn’t maintain analog equipment when a digital equivalent exists! And a question about the 500kg: it’s impossible for it to be 500kg of steel, I totally agree with you, but what if we consider an increase of 500kg of composite (sandwich) or even consider the hardness of DU compared to steel? I could have less material and more armor. DU is denser than steel, and for armor purposes, a weight-to-armor ratio shouldn’t be the deciding factor. I can have the same steel strength in DU, weighing less or the same.
It would be 12.0, but the premiums keep it below 12.3 because that would be rank 8 and they can’t sell ground rank 8 premiums
The third picture shows the Australian Abrams, but it’s not representative because it’s an export version
In this particular post, we’re talking about a 1500-pound reduction, equivalent to 700kg. This was replaced by extra armor? The standards to revise M1A2 SEPv3's armor NEED to be revised and calibrated - #2379 by Alpharius11348
What’s the source for the fiber optic upgrade? I’ve never heard of that
If anything, some army sources suggest the opposite
1 Like
Yes, I was a bit generic in linking this only to cables. I mean electronic equipment in general. I can increase the cable length, but I can reduce the weight of a piece of equipment, for example. But if I’m not mistaken, there’s a US program called NGREA (Next Generation Survivability Architecture).
All the potential weight reductions I see in that post were done in the turret, and those are already accounted for when subtracting turret weight from total weight to get the weight of the hull
This is not to say there weren’t any weight reductions in the hull of course
I also just realized that the weight reduction was only in the turret, and that raised another question for me: since there was a 700kg reduction, what did those 700kg become? Armor? Because if it’s armor, the tons of difference found and applied in the game today need to be reviewed; 700kg in the turret doesn’t just disappear out of nowhere.
1 Like
Regarding NGREA, we understand that the main mission was to consolidate dozens of these old and heavy cables, as well as the individual analog electronic boxes, inside the case, into unified digital slots. If a single short tablet cable weighs 4.5 kg, the total mass saved by eliminating the old wiring and metal boxes from the case is enormous. Could the mention of weight in the section you sent be a reason for the modernization and weight reduction? I think we would need more context from that passage.
You go American mains, maybe we can get the other nations MBT issues addressed too.
8 Likes
Check this out
5 Likes
Imagine if the BMPT was held to this level of scrutiny!!! 😳
2 Likes
Brother, trust when i say they don’t even read the evidence because it wouldn’t support their own personal ideas.
1 Like
Well, it’s getting a major nerf offensively speaking—their cannons are getting a LOT of dispersion—.
2 Likes
Bro, they made an entire devblog because US mains were getting upset about abrams armour…again.
This is the 2nd time they had to do this.
While yes this is true, several sources on the SEP program say theres internal improvements to the hull armor. What this hole post is implying is the hull armor is the same from the 1980s.
So we wait years for a copy paste sep v2 with aps when both tanks couldve gotten the aps? Great addition i must say. Great job, only took 2-3 years.
PREDICTION!
The M1A1 FEP will come 2 YEARS from now in addition with some other aps tanks.
Its a pattern, ounce every 2 years