Regarding the Hull Armor of the M1A2 SEP V3

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

A great contribution from @SpeclistMain1 ! Unfortunately they can’t post in the Forums because they didn’t play in a while, but I am here to give them a voice :P

@SpeclistMain1

(Btw let me know if me sending this message (or others, potentially) is wanted by you. I figure you’re just the best person to send things to in order to get added to the main Hull Armor thread or other threads.)
(Also I won’t be able to respond for a few hours at least.)

DU turret weight increase

@Stona_WT

For example, the switch to depleted uranium increased the weight of the M1A1 turret by 2.5 tons

This unclassified source (https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-90-57.pdf) explains some weight saving measures that were planned for the M1A2, which is evidence weight isn’t directly proportional to protection.

Proposed weight savings for M1A2

Swedish Trials, again :/

@Stona_WT

An experimental testbed with a possible increase in hull dimensions for the Swedish tender.

In the Greek Trials the package proposed to Sweden was worse than the domestic package since they didn’t want to export DU, so Sweden tried some very ad-hoc improvements (of which adding additional plates isn’t the only possible form of improvement, it’s just what Sweden did). I don’t have the original website link for the image, sadly.

“No confirmation of [hull improvements]”

@Stona_WT

In each instance however, no confirmation of these claims could be reasonably ascertained.

My own timeline of Abrams hull armor improvements: M1A2 series…turret armor - #9 by SpeclistMain1

Hull Seam

@Stona_WT

Another weld seam is visible on the hull

The source they link to doesn’t have the image, that’s really the only thing of note here other than saying that changes to armor can happen without changing the weld seam.

On the Scales

@Stona_WT

Changes in weight across various Abrams variants.

Again, weight-saving measures were done. Look at the timeline or the earlier GAO document. I think it’s also interesting to note the increase in weight from the M1A1DU to M1A1SA due to the M1A1SA’s “increased frontal and turret side armor protection”, the new (and unspecified) armor package in the budget justifications, and the removal of the DU hull limits in August 2006.

@Stona_WT

Weight placard data for the turrets of certain variants. Source :

Again, they don’t link the correct sources.

@Stona_WT

Weight was saved in one area while being added in another.

And now they literally admit that weight savings have been done.

@Stona_WT

A good example of this is that the transition to heavier torsion bars was accompanied by the replacement of steel road wheel arm brackets with lighter aluminum ones, which partially offset the added weight. The SEP V3 also received massive tow pintle hooks, reinforced brackets for mine protection, and new APU armor, all of which increased the weight.

@Stona_WT

Looking at the combat weight data compiled for various Abrams variants and the weight of their turrets, the estimated change in hull weight is roughly 500 kilograms. Within the fixed finite dimensions of the hull front and working with such a limited weight budget, it is impossible to achieve a tangible increase in protection to a degree where modern kinetic weapons would be negated.

Not showing the specific calculations and estimated component weights here is very disingenuous. Using the turret weights to say that the hull couldn’t have had weight savings to account for additional armor isn’t logical. The source they mention also proves that the lightweight tracks were implemented, which means at minimum half a non-metric ton of weight savings.

@Stona_WT

In order to protect the hull from APFSDS rounds that emerged after the mid-1980s (while retaining the same hull geometry, which is a fixed restraint), the entire available space would have to be filled with thick steel plates or other heavy fill materials. This can be calculated, and a package would have added no less than 2 tonnes, and no such increase is present.

Even going off of just the GAO report from earlier (assuming only 50% of the ceramic weight-savings went to the hull, and not including the ammunition racks or aluminum race ring), 2.04 metric tons of weight-savings were possible for the base M1A2 hull.

@Stona_WT

Adding several tonnes of weight in this area critically reduces the service life of the first road wheels, torsion bars, swing arms, and other components of the suspension structure. For such an alteration to be logistically possible, engineers would have to redesign the entire suspension system, and provably no redesign was undertaken.

Again, that assumes that no weight-saving measures were taken to compensate for the additional armor. But, the funny thing is that the Abrams’ suspension was overhauled when going from the M1A1 to the M1A2 (and for upgraded M1A1s, like the M1A1 SA).

Critical Technology Events in the Development of the Abrams Tank: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA476340.pdf

FY 2013 Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System:

Weight Budget

@Stona_WT

As the exact particulars of this work are not defined, the only assumption we can make is that the modifications made to the armor package must have been made within the specified weight budget, and within that budget, protection against modern kinetic energy penetrators is unachievable.

Gaijin cannot assume that weight-savings were not done, as they obviously were. The minimal “assumed” change in hull weight from the turret-only DU Abrams to the first group of likely-improved-hull Abrams’ (the M1A1 SA, SEPv2, and potentially SEP, with the SEPv3 featuring a second, further improvement to the hull) just shows that they have similar hulls - not that no improvements were done, only that the improvements were shared amongst the M1A1 SA and SEPv2.

@Stona_WT

The main focal point here is that while improvements against kinetic rounds could have been made in theory, the provable constraints of the space would mean that even though protection could be improved, it would be impossible to improve it to the extent that the armor would be able to defeat rounds it previously couldn’t within typical engagement ranges. Therefore, spending the extra weight budget on this kind of protection, while possible, would not lead to any tangible improvement to justify the alteration.

This directly contradicts the earlier statement that “the entire available space would have to be filled with thick steel plates or other heavy fill materials.”

@Stona_WT

Any alterations to the armor have to be logistically and functionally justifiable. Because of this, it is much more likely that any potential improvement in protection would be geared more towards defeating shaped charge (HEAT) threats, which in real life have been the primary threat to tanks over the past 40 years, in which improvement would be tangible within the constraints.

The alterations to the armor are both logistically and functionally justifiable. The BRL report shows that it was technically feasible to produce DU hull armor, the various documents showing weight-savings (including the source Gaijin themselves use in this post) show that weight-savings were possible, and Gaijin themselves state that newer, more effective APFSDS rounds emerged after the initial generation of Abrams:

@Stona_WT

In order to protect the hull from APFSDS rounds that emerged after the mid-1980s (while retaining the same hull geometry, which is a fixed restraint), the entire available space would have to be filled with thick steel plates or other heavy fill materials.

Conclusion

@Stona_WT

This improvement is in line with what the engineers would be able to achieve without redesigning the entire vehicle from scratch.

Redesigning the entire vehicle from scratch is unnecessary. Gaijin’s own sources in this very devblog explain how >2 metric tons of weight-savings were possible when going from the M1A1 to M1A2.

TL;DR:

1. Increases in armor protection is not directly proportional to weight increases.
2. Weight-savings have been proposed and implemented many times, the it is a terrible assumption to say that no weight-savings were done on the hull between the M1A2 and SEPv3 (or the M1A1 to M1A1 SA and M1A2 SEPv2).
3. There are several sources explaining improvements to the Abrams’ hull armor, specifically on the M1A1 SA and M1A2 SEPv2.
4. A lack of transparency on the exact calculations made regarding the change in hull weight (after literal years of denying Abrams hull armor improvements) is very telling on how Gaijin wants to treat the Abrams.

[CofCof]

But of course there are otherwise the game wouldn’t be any fun if all the vehicles had their own faults. Imagine playing as a Tiger, driving 100 metres and then the transmission giving out? Or the air-to-air missiles failing just as they do in real life, or the AIM-7E having the same effectiveness as it does in reality?

[Metaltank1990]

Holy essay this’ll be a long read…

[MotorolaCRO]

@Hike_DK

I’m still looking into how to get some gov agency to look at Gaijin for this

Lol.

[imightbmantis]

Ok respectfully who cares about all this, talk about the Abrams’ armor here or don’t talk at all

[CofCof]

Because it’s complicated. What would you do if you were in the gaijin’s shoes? Accept that it’s better and come up with nonsensical numbers, or keep it as it is, which is already excellent?

[ZVO_Vityaz_V]

An important point: after an impact, you lose the protection of the Relikt armor in the hit area, unlike the main composite armor which will remain. The Relikt and Kontakt 5 are heavy ERA armors specifically designed to defeat APFSDS to destroy the penetrator points so they cannot penetrate the vehicle’s main armor, and to keep the vehicles lighter. This allows them to continue following the Soviet/Russian tank doctrine of heavily armored tanks at the front for direct frontal attacks, keeping them lighter since these vehicles have an advantage in Eastern European terrain.

[GxneralEagle-live]

TM 9-2350-255-20, CHAPTER 7, SECTION II - SUSPENSION MAINTENANCE:

The vehicle hull ground clearance must be checked during scheduled intermediate inspections or whenever front-end overload conditions are suspected. Standard clearance is 19.0 inches (48.2 cm)

Torsion bars exhibiting permanent set (settling) that results in a hull ground clearance measurement of less than 17.5 inches (44.4 cm) at the front station armor plane shall be classified as unserviceable. Continuous localized overloading accelerates static material fatigue, necessitating immediate removal and replacement of the affected torsion bar assemblies.

[Flacklichef]

Between the M1A1 and the M1A2 SEP V2 are almost 10 tons of weight difference in Game but they have the same Armor, where did this Weight go if not the Armor? why are you only talking about much less?

[Metaltank1990]

Okay? So torsion bars have to be maintained. We all knew this one.

[ZVO_Vityaz_V]

Tank weight is not only armor…

[GxneralEagle-live]

trying to deflect that I’m right just quit

[Metaltank1990]

@Conte_Baracca

It mounts to the front tow points and rests a panel against the LFP. It is in every way worse than that an added armor would be for weight distribution. The time spent on the ground is insignificant in operational deployment.

The TWMP and the Dozer Blade are legitimate examples of long-term increased strain on the front suspension commensurate with added armor. The logistical argument made by Gaijin is grossly overstated. However, the argument that “special armor” doesn’t exist on any operational Abrams outside of the five used for training is a legitimate argument.

Refer to the above.

[NoodleCup31]

fyi it was in this post but let’s not go off topic.

Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

[image] Hello everyone. We’ve noticed that many of you had questions regarding spall liners on tanks and armor in general. To avoid any misunderstandings, we’d like to briefly answer some of these elements below. The effectiveness of the M1 Abrams [image] We’ll soon be releasing a dev blog on the hull armor for the M1 Abrams series of tanks, where we’ll explain why we believe that hull armor was not reinforced on prod…

[Tech-Tree-F-14D]

I’m not here to argue. Honestly most vehicles need an overhaul. Including Soviet ones, Soviet ones however get the quickest bug fixes.

My poor Merkava is just one of many.

[CofCof]

Get that Russian bias out of your head the problem is the whole game, but even more than the vehicles, it’s the game modes.

[Tech-Tree-F-14D]

So you don’t think the Soviet tree has the quickest bug-fix turnaround?

[CofCof]

No

[Tech-Tree-F-14D]

I’m not saying they are always better. I’m saying they get preferential treatment that impacts the game negatively.

[Tech-Tree-F-14D]

You would be mistaken.