hes talking about the ERA, and the ERA alone should stop 25mm APFSDS at 500m, which would result in also being able to stop 30mm APDS (from the BMP-2M) at point blank, not the whole side add-on.
Spoilered for off-topic
Which in itself is a problem as the current armor isn’t even based on a DU armor package.
Yes, it was. August 24, 2006 NRC document:
Every post-2006 Abrams can have DU turrets and hulls.
Must by why the 2014 amendment (which is synonymous with “making it accurate” (or, to be literal; it’s an addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation)) actually contradicts that by clearly stating DU is only in use with the turrets, huh?
Can have does not equal does have, at the same time, the 2014 version also declared that DU was only cleared for the turrets.
On that note, the 2006 version, which as you claim “has removed the limit on use of DU within M1s hull”, comes with an enclosed application, so more than likely it’s referring to the 5 hulls the previous document had talked about (hence “renewed” and not “amended” as was the 2016 form…).
3 Likes
Spoilered for off-topic
It says a new type of heavy armor was added. This could mean many things:
- Pre-DU Abrams (M1, IPM1, M1A1) → Turret-only DU packaged M1A2
- Pre-DU Abrams (M1, IPM1, M1A1) → Turret-only DU packaged M1A2, meant purely for ballistics testing
- DU Abrams (M1A1 SA or later), but turret only → M1A2, but with a better generation of turret armor
- DU Abrams (M1A1 SA or later), in turret and hull → M1A2 with a better generation of turret armor, but still has the earlier generation of DU hull armor
The fact it says “new heavy armor packages” (as opposed to adding just any form of heavy armor, which had been around since 1988) leads me to believe it’s either the third or fourth option, with the fourth option seeming more likely due the removal of the hull limit in August of 2006.
The wording is rather odd, but the limit is the only thing that has been changed between the two. Going off of the letter that was sent with the license, it looks like the Army let the February license expire in March and then after a period of five months they renewed (i.e. activated again) the February license with the limit removed.
I mean it explicitly states “several additions and modifications have been made to [the] NRC license,” of which the only changes made were the removal of the hull limit and the exclusion of repair or maintenance.
No they don’t, and you’re off topic.
DU hull is SEP 3 forward, which explains the dry weight increase of around 3 tons.
Vs the negligible mass changes of M1A2 - SEP2.
1 Like
That’s correct, it’s referring to first-generation NGAP/NEA, a DU-based armor meant to replace HAP of the third generation that was in use ever since the SEPv1 entered service back in 1999, and it had been installed in what I call “M1A2 SEPv2 mod 2” that entered service in 2014.
What it also states right below what I had underlined (which, it appears, has made you hyperfocus on that while ignoring the rest of the paragraph), is that the new armor is only authorized to be installed in the turrets, but not the hulls. A bit strange, isn’t it?
I mean it explicitly states “several additions and modifications have been made to [the] NRC license,” of which the only changes made were the removal of the hull limit and the exclusion of repair or maintenance.
Which is why I don’t consider the 2006 renewal form to be of any help with the Amendemnt no.7 missing, and no.8 contradicting it.
Clearly, between August 2006 and December 2014 (amendment no. 6 renewal and amendment no. 8, respectively), something must have changed for them to go from “Alright, you may use DU in yours hulls now” to “No, you can’t use DU hulls anymore”.
1 Like
Transferred to another thread (check notifications)
How is it possible these (usually same) people take over every thread and i have to read about abrams hull armour even on t-14 armata suggestion thread.
same documents, same arguments and same counter arguments about 5 DU hulls and turret neck over and over again XD
13 Likes
When did it break down? As far as I’m aware it was a untrained crew who caused it to come to a halt.
4 Likes
That’s exactly what happened if you study the video, I’m pretty sure its even backed up by the manufacturer themselves, it simply was operator error.
3 Likes
Maybe - but the manufacturer has also said there will be no combat with the T-14, it is, literally, too expensive to risk in combat, so is for parades only!!
Even Medvedev concurs!:
1 Like
At least we’ll have this beast in War Thunder eventually
Nice you spread such disinformation.
By that rationale, Leopard 2A8 can’t be added.
Disgusting post.
4 Likes
He is not wrong the T-14 isnt fully finished and just recently it was finished since the engine is now is working correctly and a lot of the info are just guesses
diffrence is 2A8s have entered mass production T-14s havent…
What do you call mass production?..The first 18 pieces in 2025 for Germany…The T-14 is already much bigger…
4 Likes
the 15 unfinished prototypes dont count there is only 5 finished ones, and at the rate the T-14 is going that thing is gonna be finished too late
To be fair that… literally doesnt matter for WT.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Educate yourself there is over 250 orders already. With way more expected to follow on. How many T-14s have been ordered? Even better the first Production Vic’s will come next year. 2A7A1s will come this year. How many APS equipped production Vic’s are in Russian service?
3 Likes