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.
1 Like
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
- 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. - 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.
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.
So nothing concrete, ok.
Britain used different angles for the APFSDS back during this time, why not their armor testing as well?
That’s what I was saying.
The whole deal with Project Sandwich was to help with CE protection (and only the CE protection) for the new Abrams armor so that Germany wouldn’t get the specs in an actual reciprocal exchange (so KE tech and CE tech). Nothing there suggests that the UK had knowledge of the KE tech in the new Abrams’ armor, nor would Germany getting the US’ DU tech be an issue except for two possibilities: they solely didn’t want the 1979 MOU broken, or (the more likely case) the US’ DU tech was better than the UK’s DU tech. Additionally, since the UK was obviously better at CE protection, the only real way their tech could have a deficit is in KE protection.
I’d like to see a source for that.
Heavy armor (whether DU or general high-density materials) was researched as early as 1977 under a secrecy order.
I did use DeepL, and what about “swedish protection” suggests it must have been made by Sweden rather than an export package the US made specifically for Sweden?
It literally says “there was a possibility that the US would turn to FRG to develop further CE armor technologies for M1A2 in a reciprocal exchange of their DU technology,” which would make sense as Germany was not in the position of keeping the UK from the US’ armor.
There has not been a single source provided that shows the UK knew the correct KE specs of the M1A2 armor.
“I don’t like the evidence presented, so I will dismiss it!”
Britain used different angles for the APFSDS back during this time, why not their armor testing as well?
Nice, a conjecture born from the lack of evidence.
That’s what I was saying.
Lol what. Did you even read the paragraph presented to you? It was UK’s, and UK’s only, fear that US would divulge HAP armours to FRG in exchange for their help with designing better CE arrays - your argument was that US definitely share it, but there is no mention they’d ever do that. It was your own speculation, created to support your own narrative.
The whole deal with Project Sandwich was to help with CE protection (and only the CE protection) for the new Abrams armor so that Germany wouldn’t get the specs in an actual reciprocal exchange (so KE tech and CE tech).
It was started in order to withhold data on HAP from the FRG - so quit it. Aside from that, Germany would’ve need US’s CE technology, theirs was significantly superior. The rest of your paragrap is bla bla bla honestly.
Heavy armor (whether DU or general high-density materials) was researched as early as 1977 under a secrecy order.
Irrelevant. 1990s MOU specifically states all armour, yet you’re still continuing to argue that apparently, this was the one technical advancement that wouldn’t be shared… because? Uhh, your own wishful thinking, that’s it.
It literally says “there was a possibility that the US would turn to FRG to develop further CE armor technologies for M1A2 in a reciprocal exchange of their DU technology,” which would make sense as Germany was not in the position of keeping the UK from the US’ armor.
Here’s the definition of the word possibility;
Once again, just because UK thought there was a chance it would happen, doesn’t mean US had plans on doing so - that is your and your only speculation.
There has not been a single source provided that shows the UK knew the correct KE specs of the M1A2 armor.
Your entire argument here has been that HAP armours must be better cus I say so, you’ve presented no evidence supporting that being the case, in fact your only supportive piece of evidence just so happened to be a secondary source - a book (from 1998 & by an author who co-championed a title about how AH escaped to Argentina, lol) about the 1985’ version of the M1A1, and on top of that - the same author just so happened to have worked for British Propaganda ministry before as well, so lets get this straight:
- UK defence MoD = bad
- UK propaganda ministry ex-worker = good
I’m done. Blocked, nothing I say or share will result in anything resembling a productive discussion, since you’re not interested in the evidence & arguments put forth (partly due to your own lack of understanding of what they say, and partly due to your bias for US vehicles), everything you’ve done so far can be compared to Gaijin’s own “nu uh” and “I don’t believe it” whenever they don’t wanna admit they’re wrong about something.
2 Likes
Yes they need buff because seem Russian main lack of skills to use it lol
2 Likes
This is some kind of balancing as well?
So it`s alright?
I had a good time with it and I’ve played alot of 10.3 tanks. It has ups and downs just like the Leopard and Abrams tank.
Hnnnnnnggggghhhhhhhh T-72B3 2.6 KDR, that is actually pretty impressive bro
I guess I won’t bother to respond, then.
Is this guy ACTUALLY clearly angling the camera downwards to increase the angle on purpose?
I can’t believe no one called him out.
3 Likes
no no no well maybe yes…
2 Likes
When using protection analysis, you’re supposed to aim the camera at the center of the hull (vertically) if you’re aiming at the hull and the center of the turret (vertically) if you’re aiming at the turret. It’s just how you get accurate data.
(S)he doesn’t seem to be doing that.
The impact angle in the screenshot is 68°, that means it’s correctly shown.
Here’s an explaination why 95% of people mis-use the armour analysis tool because they get the camera angle incorrect:
5 Likes
100% true. Although, a 10m shot will have a downwards angle that will more significantly reduce the effective thickness of the UFP.
All 3 examples in that image are wrong.
1 and 2- No gun is mounted that high.
3- No gun is mounted that low.
You AT MOST put your gun between the tip of the barrel and the roof of the hull.
You do not go below the roof of the hull, and you don’t go above the breech of the gun [this one needs to be stated as T-80’s gun is angled down by 1 degree in its resting position].
This is really down to simple geometry and basic maths.
The math is explained in the image itself, if you take issue with it, I’d suggest doing the math yourself and you’ll come to the same conclusion.
2 Likes
not 100% true , because all tanks are not the same height its like if you Abrams looking at a t80 You have an extra 2 ft over a t80 the closer you are to the t80 the gun will start pointing down.
Yes, you’re right.
That’s why I said ‘Although, a 10m shot will have a downwards angle that will more significantly reduce the effective thickness of the UFP.’
This especially is the case if your tank is much higher, so the angle will be much greater at 10m with Abrams vs T-80 hull at 10m than Abrams vs Abrams hull at 10m.
So, unless you are shooting the tank at 0m in protection analysis, 500m+ the angle should be effectively 0 degrees, and you should aim your camera to be at 0 degrees to where you are trying to hit.
These lines are techinically not straight, so they will converge to one point (which is where the breech of your hypothetical tank is), but they’re effectively parallel to one another at 500m+
2 Likes