T-80B should be buffed or its br lowered

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@Panther2995

İ dont see any similiar Numbers between 3 pictures, is this what you call evidence? Also i specifically asked number comprasion from the time when M1 Abrams was added, purposely avoding vital point is always your best thing looks like.

Do you see any incriminating numbers? What do you want me to show you, a stat pertaining to spall generation?
There isn’t a stat for that… Its only 2 stats for its armor are shared by other MBTs, with its generic quality being comparable to the Leopard 2 and its cumulative being comparable to the Leclerc.
Seeing as I had to prove it for you, I don’t even expect you to understand what you’re looking at.

You gave a nondescript list. You did not “ask” for anything.

@Panther2995

Except Abrams family is more famous then those tanks and its one of the core family at top tier, not surprised you did ignored that part.

You can say it’s however famous you want, so was the IS-3. The M48 got its volumetric instead of it, even though it was a far less sought-after tank.
The Abrams, like many other tanks, is still yet to have fine details added.
I didn’t ignore anything.

@Panther2995

İ posted countless reports at the end my reply, seems like you didnt eben bother to read, how shocking…

I did read them, they had nothing of substance. Believe me, anybody but absolute beginners will learn nothing whatsoever from tanks-encyclopedia.com.

@Panther2995

Didnt realized you could read minds oh wait you cant actually, you’re just making conspirecy theories and throwing empty claims, another cheap bait.

I’m not reading minds. I’m listing the things you’ve said, then stating a common trend throughout all that partot the same statements. I’ve seen your links countless times, and your arguments even more.
They’re laughable.

@Panther2995

Didnt Show a single hard evidence except some Numbers,now where was your evidence smart guy?

“B-But you only showed integral game files!!1!1 That isn’t evidence to the M1’s performance!!”
I showed you a Blockx file of the Abrams’ composite armor figures. If you don’t believe that’s evidence, it’s clear you’re only begging the question and refuse to see truth.

@Panther2995

Truth hurts doesnt? Seems like you to ignore hard evidence when someone throws it at your face.

You sent me 2 wikipedia-esque “.com” sites and one book that uses third party sources as its citations.
That isn’t hard evidence.

I showed you direct game figures from the modeling files of the Abrams and 2 other tanks, showing figure similarities and the blatant lack of spall modifiers.

@Panther2995

Much better then your empty claims considering i dont see any source from you, btw where is the source about T80B’s thermal sight? İm still waiting and let me remind you dont confuse T80BV source with T80B, i assume you can do that much.

The source about what thermal sight.
Wait until this guy heard about how the T-80BV is a T-80B… Let alone 1983-1985 models of T-80B and T-80U using Agava and Buran series thermals.

Or, hear me out, stop trying to derail shit.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@Panther2995

İts does from time to time and when it does it increase spalling.

That’s due to the firewall surrounding the fuel tanks, not the fuel tanks themselves.
Look at any other tank with internal fuel tanks… They don’t spall.
Look at any tank with exterior fuel tanks, penetrating a bulkhead… They spall.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@MyceliumActivist

According to the Swedish trials the hull is still overperforming, yes

The Swedish trials are pretty accurate, seeing as it was an export package and then corrected to accommodate for domestic armor packages.

I remember seeing somewhere in the Issues list that it’s higher than the Swedish trials due to some statement saying that the domestic package was to be [X]% better.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@TheArcticFoxxo

The Swedish trials are pretty accurate, seeing as it was an export package and then corrected to accommodate for domestic armor packages.

Not correct, the US has never exported DU armor and had no intention of doing so (or at least I haven’t seen any reason to think they did from what I’ve seen on these forums). Suggesting that the DU only increases protection by 1-2% (which is what I believe the increase is in game, iirc) is ludicrous when in the BRL report on heavy armor they were talking about increases in 25% or more.

[Necrons31467]

@SpeclistMain

Suggesting that the DU only increases protection by 1-2% (which is what I believe the increase is in game

In War Thunder the IPM1 and M1A1 turret cheeks are ≈501mm, DU armoured M1’s are ≈726mm.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but why do you think that’s a difference of 2%?

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

Swedish trial non-DU armor being ~700mm and DU armored M1’s being approximately 3% more than that (as you mentioned).

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@SpeclistMain

Not correct, the US has never exported DU armor and had no intention of doing so (or at least I haven’t seen any reason to think they did from what I’ve seen on these forums).

That’s exactly what I’m saying… The Swedish trials used that of EAP models, and thus the armor value was compensated for in-game as it is meant to match that of domestic packages.

@SpeclistMain

. Suggesting that the DU only increases protection by 1-2% (which is what I believe the increase is in game, iirc) is ludicrous when in the BRL report on heavy armor they were talking about increases in 25% or more.

And this is what is currently in contention.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@TheArcticFoxxo

The Swedish trials used that of EAP models, and thus the armor value was compensated for in-game as it is meant to match that of domestic packages.

The EAP models would still not be as good as the domestic to quote the Major in charge of the Swedish new tank program: “‘We have a specification for a special level of armor protection, but the specification does not include depleted uranium.’” Additionally, (going off of the same source: Inside the Pentagon Vol. 9, No. 14 [April 8, 1993], pp. 1, 10-11) it was said that “Army and GD officials say the armor planned for the Swedish tank with be as capable as its competitors’ armor. Neither European tank is equipped with armor made of depleted uranium, a byproduct of…”

Essentially, the US made an armor meant to be competitive with the non-DU European tanks’ armor, which has no bearing on how good the DU armor is (especially when the BRL was talking about protection increases in 35%).

[TheArcticFoxxo]

Is anybody saying otherwise?

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@TheArcticFoxxo

Is anybody saying otherwise?

You:

@TheArcticFoxxo

thus the armor value was compensated for in-game as it is meant to match that of domestic packages.

^^ No change in protection from Swedish Trials (even Swedish export models)

@TheArcticFoxxo

And this is what is currently in contention.

^^ Why is it in contention? The DU hull proposal (which from what I can tell was likely added to the M1A2) increase hull protection 35% in KE terms and 25% in CE terms, that’s straight from BRL.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@SpeclistMain

You:

@TheArcticFoxxo

thus the armor value was compensated for in-game as it is meant to match that of domestic packages.

This… doesn’t say otherwise?

@SpeclistMain

^^ No change in protection from Swedish Trials (even Swedish export models)

The hull armor is ~25% over in KE and ~10% over in CE than what the trials had shown.
The turret armor is ~20% over in KE, and spot-on with CE protection. Turret sides are unperforming by ~15% RHA equivalent, though that’s an iffy thing to model effectively with how sharp of an angle was tested IRL.

@SpeclistMain

^^ Why is it in contention? The DU hull proposal (which from what I can tell was likely added to the M1A2) increase hull protection 35% in KE terms and 25% in CE terms, that’s straight from BRL.

What can you tell that shows that the M1A2 “likely” had the DU hull array? It’s pretty well shown that there hasn’t been any change from the ceramic array of the hull.

[Necrons31467]

@SpeclistMain

Why is it in contention? The DU hull proposal (which from what I can tell was likely added to the M1A2) increase hull protection 35% in KE terms and 25% in CE terms, that’s straight from BRL.

There’s no mention of the upgrade incorporating DU.

‘‘A BRL hull armor design has been developed and demonstrated which provides 35% more KE protection and 25% more SC protection than the present M1A1 hull armor; this armor is under consideration for a vehicle-upgrade program.’’

We also know that this upgrade was very likely not implemented.

‘’[…] However, the Army may not meet it’s Block II survivability goals until well into the tank’s production. […] and weight constraints prevent the addition of much of the planned armor until future weight reductions can be realized. Therefore, the Army’s belief that the Block II tank’s survivability will be increased may not be substantiated.‘’

‘‘Estimates show that adding the entire Block II package will bring the tank’s weight to over 72 tons. This exceeds the Army’s 69.5 ton weight limit. […] The Army plans to add the remaining portions of the Block II survivability enhancements only as corresponding weight reductions are achieved.’’

And lastly, we also know that survivability enhancements aren’t only related to armour improvements.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@TheArcticFoxxo

This… doesn’t say otherwise?

It does, because they are the same as the Swedish Trials armor, where even the swedish export armor was designed to be competitive with the non-DU armor of the european tanks (i.e. any addition of DU will make the armor better).

@TheArcticFoxxo

The hull armor is ~25% over in KE and ~10% over in CE than what the trials had shown.
The turret armor is ~20% over in KE, and spot-on with CE protection. Turret sides are unperforming by ~15% RHA equivalent, though that’s an iffy thing to model effectively with how sharp of an angle was tested IRL.

In game, the M1A2’s hull armor is missing ~210mm CE protection in the hull (I had to use a 125mm ATGM rather than a 127mm ATGM since I couldn’t find any, at least quickly) and 100mm KE in the turret - it’s missing protection even from non-DU Abrams numbers. As for the hull KE, the Swedish Trials didn’t actually test them (at least not in the document Gaijin provided).

@TheArcticFoxxo

What can you tell that shows that the M1A2 “likely” had the DU hull array? It’s pretty well shown that there hasn’t been any change from the ceramic array of the hull.

There’s only been evidence that the M1A2 through to the SEPv2 have had similar hull protection/materials, so if M1A2 had DU hulls the rest of the M1A2 variants did.

@Necrons31467

‘’[…] However, the Army may not meet it’s Block II survivability goals until well into the tank’s production. […] and weight constraints prevent the addition of much of the planned armor until future weight reductions can be realized. Therefore, the Army’s belief that the Block II tank’s survivability will be increased may not be substantiated.‘’

‘‘Estimates show that adding the entire Block II package will bring the tank’s weight to over 72 tons. This exceeds the Army’s 69.5 ton weight limit. […] The Army plans to add the remaining portions of the Block II survivability enhancements only as corresponding weight reductions are achieved.’’

There were weight reduction programs on the M1A2.

@Necrons31467

And lastly, we also know that survivability enhancements aren’t only related to armour improvements.

“and weight constraints prevent the addition of much of the planned armor until future weight reductions can be realized. Therefore, the Army’s belief that the Block II tank’s survivability will be increased may not be substantiated.”

“The Army plans to add the remaining portions of the Block II survivability enhancements only as corresponding weight reductions are achieved.”

Sounds like armor means survivability from these sources.

[Necrons31467]

@SpeclistMain

In game, the M1A2’s hull armor is missing ~210mm CE protection in the hull

It isn’t.

@SpeclistMain

(I had to use a 125mm ATGM rather than a 127mm ATGM since I couldn’t find any, at least quickly)

So you took a completely different weapon system, and then concluded that the M1’s armour is underperforming?!

BRL127mm SC penetration capability: 318mm @ 60°.
The in-game M1’s match the documented protection requirements perfectly.

@SpeclistMain

and 100mm KE in the turret

Based on?

@SpeclistMain

There were weight reduction programs on the M1A2.

There were, about 680kg, which made room for the additional weight of non-armour related additions like the CITV, etc.
Later on, the M1A2 SEP featured the turret side armour improvements as per the budget allocation sheets.
No other armour improvements were carried out as per available documentation.

@SpeclistMain

Sounds like armor means survivability from these sources.

Armour = Survivability enhancement.
Survivability enhancement =/= Armour.

Every book has letters, not everything with letters in it is a book.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@Necrons31467

It isn’t.

~200mm missing.

@Necrons31467

Based on?

~100+ missing.

@Necrons31467

Later on, the M1A2 SEP featured the turret side armour improvements as per the budget allocation sheets.

This armor had little to no impacts on weight, it is did not impede armor improvements elsewhere. From what I’ve seen, the M1A2 was 70 tons before weight reductions, and the new tracks alone brought it down to 69.5 tons.

@Necrons31467

Armour = Survivability enhancement.
Survivability enhancement =/= Armour.

The source says specifically that the weight constraints prevent the addition of the planned armor, and that caused the Army’s belief in the Block II tank’s survivability to be increased may be on shaky grounds. They directly say the reason they are concerned for the survivability is because of the armor. Yes, survivability can include other things, but in this case they mean armor.

[Jεcka]

@SpeclistMain

~200mm missing.

That’s with Swedish produced version of MEXAS-H add-on;

~100+ missing.

Again:

I take it you’re confusing colours here;

• red means “penetrable”
• green means “impenetrable”

In your pictures the top images i.e “svenskt skydd” are with MEXAS-H add-on armours, below them is the normal M1A2.

M1A2s turret was penetrable to a 700mm KE threat (simulated using DM53/LKE II prototype during the trials).

[Necrons31467]

@SpeclistMain

~200mm missing.

Refer to what Furina said.

You’re just misinterpreting sources.

[Panther2995]

İnteresting, never knew Sweden actually tested M1A2 with add-on armor.

Do you have other pictures that shows how Abrams does look with Add-on armor?

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@FurinaBestArchon

I take it you’re confusing colours here;

• red means “penetrable”
• green means “impenetrable”

In your pictures the top images i.e “svenskt skydd” are with MEXAS-H add-on armours, below them is the normal M1A2.

Yes, I know. The “Swedish protection” armor, which was designed to be competitive with the non-DU European tanks of the competition, rather than the original non-DU export armor that wasn’t as good. The “Swedish protection” armor, which was designed for the competition and for export (so therefore it is worse than the DU domestic M1A2), has ~200mm more KE protection in the turret and ~100mm+ CE protection in the hull missing:

The domestic, DU-having Abrams has worse protection than the non-DU export model made for Sweden.

[Jεcka]

@SpeclistMain

The “Swedish protection” armor, which was designed for the competition and for export (so therefore it is worse than the DU domestic M1A2), has ~200mm more KE protection in the turret and ~100mm+ CE protection in the hull missing:

Again, it’s with MEXAS-H add-on armour as shown in the pictures I included, both hull & turret. This wasn’t an armour configuration created for “export & the competition” it was created (read: take German armour, put it on M1A2, see if good) to bring the M1A2 up to Leopard 2s standard of protection, and it still failed at that.

The M1A2 we have in the game is modelled after the M1A2 that was offered by the US, not after the Swedish modified one, it has nothing to do with “M1A2, svenskt skydd” because it doesn’t have the add-on armour modules.

We do not have that version of the M1A2 in the game, you’re comparing two completely different standards, and as such, grasping at straws.

The “Swedish protection” armor, which was designed to be competitive with the non-DU European tanks of the competition, rather than the original non-DU export armor that wasn’t as good.

The 1993 FMS (EAP) was never designed to directly compete with “non-DU European tanks”, it just could never hope to match the Leopard 2 TVM the Swedes chose in the end (hence why “svenskt skydd” came into existence, it was Swedens attempt at seeing if the M1A2 could be improved using MEXAS to the same extent as the Leopard 2, it couldn’t, as TVM offered greater armour protection over a greater arc). It was designed as an alternative to HAP-1 & 2 armours that US at the time was reluctant to export to non-trusted allies (such as Sweden, who wasn’t part of NATO).

As for whether EAP = HAP-1 & 2 in terms of capability, I’ll just refer you to @Necrons31467