Theres also the acknowledged bug report of Mk.3/2F/TES Era that it could defeat 120mm APDS as 60°
Which would mean that the dinky 30mm protection it currently has is completely wrong.
Compounded by the fact that TES ERA is only 30mm because of a translation error that they refuse to fix.
Like i said, plenty of known situation that show where the annoyance towards russia comes from
Someone should create a suggestion for the T-15 Armata with it’s different combat modules.
It stop 30mm with it own hardplate, not ultilize any reaction effect.
I’m inclined to believe the SEP v3 will have slightly better armour for both hull composite and turret composite armour if/when it comes to War Thunder.
The only way I could see Gaijin not implementing it is by claiming they don’t know the exact values, but they have showed sources in the past that concretely state the SEP v3 received upgraded protection for both hull and turret.
we showed /proved gajin that the leo 2a7v has at least as much armor as the strv122 if not more but here we are gajin prefering to use 30 year old armor test and giving germany the worse tested german variant
In terms of armor gajin wont do anything if you dont find documents speciyign exact values
If Gaijin releases the SEP v3 on the dev server with the same armour values as the M1A1 HC, I can guarantee there’ll be another mass negative review wave on Steam.
Sorry, what? The “limit” on DU hulls was not removed in August of 2006, more like… April of 2016:
2006 NRC doc(s):
2014 NRC doc:
2016 NRC doc:
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.
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…).
It says a new type of heavy armor was added. This could mean many things:
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.
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”.
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
When did it break down? As far as I’m aware it was a untrained crew who caused it to come to a halt.
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.
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!:
At least we’ll have this beast in War Thunder eventually
