T-80B should be buffed or its br lowered

[Jεcka]

@SpeclistMain

I meant how do you know it was Sweden rather than the US?

Maybe cus the Swedes state that themselves, lol.

^ This was written by Richard O. Lindstrom, he works for FMV and was part of the commission for choosing the new Swedish MBT.

1990s tanks shouldn’t match it either.

“Trust me bro, big bugdet, US of Hamburgerios da best!!11”

Totally, which is why Leopard 2 TVMs protection exceeded that of the M1A2 massively. Because DU is such a magical material ain’t it, oh wait we have British data showing ~650mm RHAe KE in like a 20 degree arc roughly, much less than Leopard 2A5s turret, kek.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@FurinaBestArchon

Maybe cus the Swedes state that themselves, lol.

Could I have a specific source (url) for this? I looked for an hour for sources on the Swedish Trials and found little to nothing more than I’ve shown in my own posts.

@FurinaBestArchon

Because DU is such a magical material ain’t it, oh wait we have British data showing ~650mm RHAe KE in like a 20 degree arc roughly, much less than Leopard 2A5s turret, kek.

The British could be bad at utilizing DU, especially if a non-DU M1A2 has more protection than a British DU-turreted tank.

[Jεcka]

@SpeclistMain

The British could be bad at utilizing DU, especially if a non-DU M1A2 has more protection than a British DU-turreted tank.

Are you even sentient?

Could I have a specific source (url) for this?

No, I’ve already explained that you were wrong on all levels - multiple times, I don’t feel like handholding you through this anymore.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@FurinaBestArchon

Are you even sentient?

British DU armor is worse than export M1A2 armor → The US has never exported DU armor → It must have better protection, as it certainly doesn’t have better health outcomes than just steel → US DU armor therefore is better, otherwise they would not put it on their tanks.

@FurinaBestArchon

No, I’ve already explained that you were wrong on all levels - multiple times, I don’t feel like handholding you through this anymore.

Yeah, cool. You literally only said I was interpreting the Swedish Trials document that Gaijin shared, I explained why I had interpreted it to mean the Swedish-specific export armor because I could find nothing else of substance to provide more context, you provide a source I was not able to find even after an hour of searching then don’t tell me where it’s from (I have already looked up Rikard O. Lindstrom [umluat on the o] and could not find anything useful).

Additionally, the second bit of the document you showed literally said the export version of the M1A2 was tested - so the non-DU M1A2 armor, which is worse than the domestic armor.

[Jεcka]

@SpeclistMain

British DU armor is worse than export M1A2 armor → The US has never exported DU armor → It must have better protection, as it certainly doesn’t have better health outcomes than just steel → US DU armor therefore is better, otherwise they would not put it on their tanks.

That’s the British talking about the M1A1 HC, a tank with identical armour to the M1A2 - not theirs.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@FurinaBestArchon

That’s the British talking about the M1A1 HC, a tank with identical armour to the M1A2 - not theirs.

Firstly, I think this statement is rather apt:

Gaijin and modern NATO armor

You are welcome to think that the USA allowed an Ally to publish actual data on fielded tanks. I can only reiterate that the performance of the DU armor remains classified.

Anyways, I wasn’t able to find anything that suggests the British tested DU-equipped Abrams. I’ll paste the sources I’ve seen from the British talking about the Abrams:

British Commentary on Abrams

Primary -

• Unsure on what document this is from - Suggests that the M1A1 DU armor was the best in terms of KE protection, and that the US did not want to share their DU technology until Britain’s new tank decision was made (and likely did not, seeing as the Challenger 2 was picked) - Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams - #453 by Victor_eu

Secondary -

• Replacing The Chieftain Article, based on Chieftain Replacement Options - Programme Costings and Appraisals - Only mentions the M1A1, not any DU armored Abrams, of which the US would not export anyways - Replacing the Chieftain - The Tank Museum
• Challenger Main Battle Tank 1982-97 (New Vanguard) - Apparently reports M1A1 KE values of 1000mm - Community Bug Reporting System

[Jεcka]

@SpeclistMain

Firstly, I think this statement is rather apt:

Irrelevant:

They had in fact tested an M1A2 (or at the very least, were given data about its armour’s capability…).

Suggests that the M1A1 DU armor was the best in terms of KE protection, and that the US did not want to share their DU technology until Britain’s new tank decision was made

Your own statement contradicts “your” (Flame’s) sources;

“We will help US develop their DU armour further to be comparable to early D-technology armour module in terms of mass-efficiency against CE attacks” - I dunno about you, but the IMPLICATION is crystal clear that the UK did in fact have access to US’s armour technologies - that is in fact, confirmed within the very same snipet (no.4), where they state; “Project Sandwich started in April 1989, funded by CERN & MGO (EM), and has been a resounding success. It offered the opportunity to the US to achieve the CE protection levels needed for M1A2 without releasing its DU armour to Federal Republic of Germany”.

Furthermore, the document is based on information from late 1980s, before the Leopard 2A5 or even the Leopard 2 TVM (the one that the M1A2 lost to in Sweden) were created.

What were they’re comparing that (DU) armour to? Stuff like C-technology, a composite originally birthed in early 1980s (~circa 1982), meant to be comparable to the 2nd generation non-DU composite fitted to M1(IP) & standard (1985) M1A1 (and it in fact, outperformed said DU-less armour).

Like I said earlier, you’re grasping at straws to make HAP armours to be substantially better than they really were.

Challenger Main Battle Tank 1982-97 (New Vanguard) - Apparently reports M1A1 KE values of 1000mm

Good thing we have more accurate sources, ones that are actually primary & not some made up fantasy for children who lack the knowledge to distinguish between imaginary numbers, and what was actually possible with the armour technologies of late 70s & early 80s.

[CodeNameColdWar]

@FurinaBestArchon

They had in fact tested an M1A2 (or at the very least, were given data about its armour’s capability…).

This is very interesting source however i want to know if it is actually 650mm vs KE at 20degree or at 30degree like Sweden source. That alone would change so much.

[Jεcka]

@CodeNameColdWar

This is very interesting source however i want to know if it is actually 650mm vs KE at 20degree or at 30degree like Sweden source.

Likely to be ±20 degrees, as the same arc was used for the M1A1.

[CodeNameColdWar]

welp unless it’s mention or more source show we ain’t sure.
If British test it. it would likely be ±20 degrees as they seem to do that with M1A1
However if they just get Info/number from US it would likely be ±30 degrees as US like put in their source. (like in export M1A2 sweden diagram or CIA report that show 400mm vs KE for IPM1/M1A1)

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@FurinaBestArchon

They had in fact tested an M1A2 (or at the very least, were given data about its armour’s capability…).

Again, you are assuming they are not testing an export M1A2 and that the US would actually give correct data. At the very least, it needs to be shown that what they tested was actually a DU Abrams. I can’t check that because it is only available as a physical archive in England.

@FurinaBestArchon

Your own statement contradicts “your” (Flame’s) sources;

“Consequently, there was a possibility that the US would turn to FRG to develop further CE armour technologies for M1A2 in a reciprocal exchange of their DU technology. This approach would have contravened UK’s long-standing bilateral MOU with the USA, put in place in the mid 1970s. However, in the short term the MOU will not be compromised as FRG has made it clear that “D Type” technology will not be shared with any nation until post the British new tank decision.”

Sounds like the US told the UK they wanted to make US DU better protected in CE, but the UK didn’t help them out. This has nothing to do with the KE protection of the US DU, which was said to be the best available when the M1A1HA was introduced.

“Project Sandwich started in April 1989, funded by CERN and MGO (EM), and has been a resounding success. It offered the opportunity to the US to achieve the CE protection levels needed for M1A2 without releasing its DU armor to the FRG.”

This suggests the US never discussed the M1A2’s (second-generation) DU with the UK, at the very least before 1990.

“The US desire to introduce a new MOU based on reciprocity, allowing the bilateral exhcnage of technology on all AFV armors in addition to the 1979 MOU, came to fruition in March 1990. This new MOU has already assisted in improving strained relations in this sensitive area. These exchanges will enable UK to share US technology and so keep abreasy of developments in armour technology, thus ensuring that a degree of overmatch against the…”

This against suggests that the US didn’t share their DU technology, otherwise it one, would’ve been mentioned, and two, the US didn’t seem keen on sharing their DU tech in the first place (so the “US desire to introduce a new MOU based on reciprocity, allowing the bilateral exchange of technology,” would most likely not include DU, even if they say “all armour”).

@FurinaBestArchon

Good thing we have more accurate sources, ones that are actually primary & not some made up fantasy for children who lack the knowledge to distinguish between imaginary numbers, and what was actually possible with the armour technologies of late 70s & early 80s.

Again, there needs to be proof they are testing a DU-equipped Abrams.

[Jεcka]

@SpeclistMain

Again, you are assuming they are not testing an export M1A2 and that the US would actually give correct data.

An export M1A2… that didn’t even exist yet because it was originally created for the Swedish Trials that happened ~3 years later? Why would UK be helping US develop DU armour (as they state so themselves), if it isn’t actually DU?

You’re resorting to mental gymanstics now. This is all said in the snipets YOU posted, do you even read your own sources?

At the very least, it needs to be shown that what they tested was actually a DU Abrams.

Your own source…

Spoiler

Sounds like the US told the UK they wanted to make US DU better protected in CE, but the UK didn’t help them out. This has nothing to do with the KE protection of the US DU, which was said to be the best available when the M1A1HA was introduced.

???

The hell are you intepreting? US wanted FRG to help them develop a more mass-efficient armour for their HAP-2, in exchange they’d release the KE components to Germany - > UK didn’t want that, new MOU is signed
|
v

This suggests the US never discussed the M1A2’s (second-generation) DU with the UK, at the very least before 1990.

CLEARLY they did, seeing as UK had began a development of an improved variant for US after both witnessed D-technology’s efficiency (and said armour was at a very early stage of development itself).

This against suggests that the US didn’t share their DU technology, otherwise it one, would’ve been mentioned, and two, the US didn’t seem keen on sharing their DU tech in the first place (so the “US desire to introduce a new MOU based on reciprocity, allowing the bilateral exchange of technology,” would most likely not include DU, even if they say “all armour”).

“The US desire to introduce a new MOU based on reciprocity, allowing the bilateral exchange of technology on all AFV armors in addition to the 1979 MOU, came to fruition in March 1990.”

Lets get this bread guys;

• UK & US sign a new MOU in which they agree to share alll armour developments (very easy to understand)

“nooo, they only meant all non-DU armours!!11”

US only introduced HAP-1 i.e 1st generation DU armour into service in 1989 with the M1A1 HA, not too long after they test an improved variant (HAP-2) with UK’s help, then, loo’n’behold a year later they sign a MOU agreeing to share this development (they themselves stated all developments will shared, arguing against that is just making yourself out to be an idiot).

Again, there needs to be proof they are testing a DU-equipped Abrams.

You didn’t read the contents of that report at all, have you? Because it’s talking about the non-DU, bog standard, vanilla looking ahh M1A1 found at 11.0. There is not a single mention of it being DU equipped, and what I did was prove that the normal M1A1 most definitely did not have anywhere near ~1000mm KE RHAe.

So far you’ve proven to be;

• disingenous in your interpretations
• unable to read your own sources (while acting like they support your cause)

Wanna add something else to the pile?

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@FurinaBestArchon

An export M1A2… that didn’t even exist yet because it was originally created for the Swedish Trials that happened ~3 years later?

If the M1A2 doesn’t have DU, it would be an ‘export’ Abrams, as only domestic models have DU.

@FurinaBestArchon

Why would UK be helping US develop DU armour (as they state so themselves), if it isn’t actually DU?

You can develop something without knowing exactly what the other group’s armor is like, the US could have just given them a general range of CE values and said they wanted better.

@FurinaBestArchon

The hell are you intepreting?

I was going through it paragraph by paragraph (where the third paragraph was saying that information between FRG and the US wouldn’t happen until the British new tank decision), and again the US could’ve just said something to the effect of “our armor is not performing well enough in CE, can you design something more in line with the German armor?” Therefore, not requiring much information on US armor at all.

@FurinaBestArchon

CLEARLY they did, seeing as UK had began a development of an improved variant for US after both witnessed D-technology’s efficiency (and said armour was at a very early stage of development itself).

They literally say, “It offered the opportunity to the US to achieve the CE protection levels needed for M1A2 without releasing its DU armor to FRG.” This suggests that releasing information on its DU armor was a major concern for the US, where again they could’ve just said “our armor isn’t up to par in CE terms, can you make a structure to match D-Type?”

@FurinaBestArchon

they themselves stated all developments will shared, arguing against that is just making yourself out to be an idiot

Why would the US’ stance go from “we don’t want to share the specific KE specs with anyone,” to “we will share all our armor specs with the UK”? Especially since Project Sandwich seems to be a British-led initiative (“It offered the opportunity to the US to achieve the CE protection levels needed for M1A2 without releasing its DU armor to FRG.”) and other MoU’s imply there are some restrictions on information regardless.

[Jεcka]

@SpeclistMain

If the M1A2 doesn’t have DU, it would be an ‘export’ Abrams, as only domestic models have DU.

Polish M1A2 SEPv3s use the same armour as US M1A2 SEPv3s, you can throw that logic out of the window.

Then again, explain to me how this non-DU M1A2, with an older generation FMS armour (because the Swedish revision armour was created specifically to improve on their older version), performed better than a newer one? You’re still pulling at straws of what they stated in the documents.

UK knew of US’s DU armours already, and they were the most trusted ally, why is to hard to comprehend that US wouldn’t mind sharing data on it with them? They were already sharing their DU penetrator technology with UK (L26A1 used the same staballoy as M829A1, and L27 used the same 2nd gen staballoy as M829A2).

You can develop something without knowing exactly what the other group’s armor is like, the US could have just given them a general range of CE values and said they wanted better.

“Guyss, develop this for us and in exchange we will give you nothinggg”
or
“Hey, mind helping us develop this armour further? We will sign a new MOU, and share all the details with you afterwards”

Choose one.

where the third paragraph was saying that information between FRG and the US wouldn’t happen until the British new tank decision

Then you clearly did not comprehend what the third paragraph meant, since it was talking about releasing data on D-technology armour that FRG made, not DU armour.

This suggests that releasing information on its DU armor was a major concern for the US, where again they could’ve just said “our armor isn’t up to par in CE terms, can you make a structure to match D-Type?”

All this suggests is that UK didn’t want Germany to have specifics on US’s DU armour, not that they didn’t have those themselves.

Why would the US’ stance go from “we don’t want to share the specific KE specs with anyone,” to “we will share all our armor specs with the UK”? Especially since Project Sandwich seems to be a British-led initiative (“It offered the opportunity to the US to achieve the CE protection levels needed for M1A2 without releasing its DU armor to FRG.”) and other MoU’s imply there are some restrictions on information regardless.

Here, underlined the most significant bits for you, maybe now you will be capable of understanding what they mean. All means all, so really, all you did was prove me right.

At this point I’m debating myself whether it’s worth my time arguing with you any more than this, because you clearly are dead set on not changing your mind no matter what I say, or what evidence I provide, seeing as:

• you misinterpreted Swedish data (assumed that M1A2 + MEXAS was the US M1A2); then argued you didn’t based on your lack of knowledge
• you could not comprehend British data (assumed it was about US releasing HAP-2 to Germany, when it was in fact about Germany releasing D-technologie to US & UK)
• you’ve been constantly pulling at straws in hopes you can latch onto something that may possibly support your position of HAP-1 & 2 being much better than described by UK
• you’ve been wholey incapable of reading your own supporting sources (M1A1 report you linked)

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@FurinaBestArchon

Polish M1A2 SEPv3s use the same armour as US M1A2 SEPv3s, you can throw that logic out of the window.

Got anything from the 1990’s, the decade that we’re talking about (/gen)?

@FurinaBestArchon

Then again, explain to me how this non-DU M1A2, with an older generation FMS armour (because the Swedish revision armour was created specifically to improve on their older version), performed better than a newer one?

The British could have used different angles than the Swedish? Or better test rounds? The standards in general could have been different, but I also don’t remember the Swedish Trials testing to be (notably) worse than the British tests.

@FurinaBestArchon

UK knew of US’s DU armours already, and they were the most trusted ally, why is to hard to comprehend that US wouldn’t mind sharing data on it with them?

Because they never exported their DU, in fact didn’t the US specifically say that no British people could enter/work on the turrets of DU-equipped Abrams? I can’t remember exactly what this is from at the moment, but I believe it was in the Gulf War.

@FurinaBestArchon

They were already sharing their DU penetrator technology with UK (L26A1 used the same staballoy as M829A1, and L27 used the same 2nd gen staballoy as M829A2).

Penetrator tech is different from armor tech, though. Especially since the US penetrators fielded during the Gulf War had a hard time taking out Abrams’ armor when they needed to scuttle (or whatever the tank-related term is) them.

@FurinaBestArchon

“Guyss, develop this for us and in exchange we will give you nothinggg”

I’d assume they would get paid, in addition to maintaining their closeness (since Project Sandwich seems to have been started by the British).

@FurinaBestArchon

Then you clearly did not comprehend what the third paragraph meant, since it was talking about releasing data on D-technology armour that FRG made, not DU armour.

The US wouldn’t have shared their DU information with the FRG without the FRG sharing their D-Type armor, meaning that (from this paragraph) there was no divulging of DU tech on the FRG front until the British new tank decision was made.

@FurinaBestArchon

All this suggests is that UK didn’t want Germany to have specifics on US’s DU armour, not that they didn’t have those themselves.

Yes, so the UK could not have had information on the (KE protection, at least, of the) new DU armor.

@FurinaBestArchon

Here, underlined the most significant bits for you, maybe now you will be capable of understanding what they mean.

Saying something and what making sense are two different things, the US going from not sharing much information with anyone to divulging everything within the span of a few years does not make sense.

@FurinaBestArchon

• you misinterpreted Swedish data (assumed that M1A2 + MEXAS was the US M1A2); then argued you didn’t based on your lack of knowledge
• you could not comprehend British data (assumed it was about US releasing HAP-2 to Germany, when it was in fact about Germany releasing D-technologie to US & UK)
• you’ve been constantly pulling at straws in hopes you can latch onto something that may possibly support your position of HAP-1 & 2 being much better than described by UK
• you’ve been wholey incapable of reading your own supporting sources (M1A1 report you linked)

• From information Gaijin provided and I was able to find, there was no reason to assume it wasn’t US-designed or co-designed
• The US would have had to release HAP-2 to Germany as a reciprocal exchange
• There’s been nothing to suggest otherwise
• The M1A1 report was behind a paywall, I cannot access its text

[Jεcka]

@SpeclistMain

Got anything from the 1990’s, the decade that we’re talking about (/gen)?

Already did, the British snipets which contradict your belief, and which you’ve decided to dismiss when they don’t agree with you.

The British could have used different angles than the Swedish? Or better test rounds? The standards in general could have been different, but I also don’t remember the Swedish Trials testing to be (notably) worse than the British tests.

Source.

The US wouldn’t have shared their DU information with the FRG without the FRG sharing their D-Type armor, meaning that (from this paragraph) there was no divulging of DU tech on the FRG front until the British new tank decision was made.

That is not what that paragraph says, you’re completely twisting the meaning to suit your agenda:

It’s the UK that was afraid US would turn to Germany in order to have them help improve HAP-2s design, and they assumed in exchange Germany would be given access to DU armour technology - there is NOTHING in here that states US was making moves in this direction, but the rationality behind UK’s action is that they’d be abandoned in favour of Germany, henceforth Project Sandwhich was initiated to prevent that. They actually even state that it was only a possibility.

The other part is about FRG refusing to divulge information about their D-technologie armour until after the Brits decided.

Yes, so the UK could not have had information on the (KE protection, at least, of the) new DU armor.

“They didn’t want Germany to know, not that they had no idea themselves”
“Yea they didn’t know”

Mental gymanstics are your most developed ability, aren’t they?

Saying something and what making sense are two different things, the US going from not sharing much information with anyone to divulging everything within the span of a few years does not make sense.

Right, so this confirms that you will resort to cherrypicking when the source doesn’t agree with your view on things, which is funny because per the 1979 MOU, UK & US were already full in on sharing all the armour info - but magically with the advent of DU armours, the 1990 MOU wouldn’t include that technological advancement despite being about all AFV armour technology.

• From information Gaijin provided and I was able to find, there was no reason to assume it wasn’t US-designed or co-designed

Oh I dunno, how about using deepL or any other machine translator to convert M1A2 “svensky skydd” from Swedish to English? Cus it means M1A2 “Swedish protection”, literally.

• The US would have had to release HAP-2 to Germany as a reciprocal exchange

No, that’s your (incorrect) interpretation.

• There’s been nothing to suggest otherwise

At the same time, there’s everything to suggest otherwise, and so far you’ve had not supplied anything that would show discrepency in UK’s numbers apart from your own ignorant belief that they’re simply wrong because they have to be, following your instant turning to using argumentum ad ignorantum.

[Beeschurger]

@FurinaBestArchon

Polish M1A2 SEPv3s use the same armour as US M1A2 SEPv3s, you can throw that logic out of the window.

While I agree with like 90% of things you said, isnt there an issue with exporting DU anything due to Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as it is the case with M1A1 AIM, which, to my knowledge, dont have DU armor package?

[Jεcka]

@Beeschurger

as it is the case with M1A1 AIM, which, to my knowledge, dont have DU armor package?

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1102697665931784232/1223631116590649404/Screenshot_20231004_220629_YouTube-1.jpg?ex=661a8e48&is=66081948&hm=9ef724d52224c98c6a6064a6d26baa78bb68b94488a0083e67796157abc011e9&=&format=webp&width=1613&height=909

Actually (I was) wrong, it is a Polish M1A2 SEPv2, not the Aussie AIM. Letter U on the turret denotes the presence of Depleted Uranium within the armour.

[Mulatu_Astatke]

Well, I briefly looked into the source behind that M1A1 report. Here is the paragraph in question from the book.

Spoiler

Also, two glaring issues

1. The author, Simon Dunstan co-authored the book Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler. Where - from what I can tell - the authors of Grey Wolf “make a powerful case for the Führer’s escape to a remote enclave in Argentina”. The book was also attracted some criticism: “2,000 per cent rubbish… It’s an absolute disgrace. There’s no substance to it at all. It appeals to the deluded fantasies of conspiracy theorists and has no place whatsoever in historical research”
   So the author doesn’t seem to be the most valid source.
2. The book was published in 1998. That same year the Hellenic trials occurred and found that the Abrams’ protection was inferior to the Leopard (I believe it was the same offered to the Swedish?). And if I recall correctly, the Americans believed that the Abrams offered to the Greeks was supposed to exceed the armour found on Leopards.
   The book doesn’t mention anything about what the “US sources” were.

Also, the author worked in the British MoD’s propaganda department during the Cold War it seems.

Spoiler

[Beeschurger]

Fair, however, is it possible that the marking remained while the DU got removed (since to my knowledge, AIMs are refurbished from models that had DU) or do they change these markings?

Just asking, I am not familiar with the procedures or finer details.