Armor with urban survivability enhancements, not armor that is urban survivability enhancements. And using ATP 3-20.15 as the ultimate technical source is uh funny to say the least.
Please show me anywhere that calls RPGs “direct fire weapons” but not a tank. Let’s use your favorite source shall we?
Paragraph 1-4 “ Success in large-scale combat operations hinges on the decisive actions of tank platoons such as: their ability to react to contact, employ direct fires, maneuver, and fight to destroy, defeat, neutralize, or repel an enemy”
Tell me, are the direct fires a tank platoon employs RPGs, handheld AT? Of course not, it’s the main gun. Because that’s what a tank is. A direct fire weapon system.
I concede that direct fire can include a RPG in some parlance, at the extreme low end. But the frontal armor of the Abrams can withstand RPGs since its inception. You willfully taking the most negative definition.
It’s not just hull. It’s an armor package that includes “turret and hull”, is specifically not the blast improvements, underbody protection, or reactive armor, was tested externally under the auspice of NEA, and then placed in a production tank for full scale live fire testing. The only place in the hull where you can place an armor package that isn’t reactive armor or underbody is the armor cavity in the LFP.
That is a fair point, yes - however this document is one of the few that explicitly states what kind of combat-situations the armour is designed for and it goes in line with the additional protection against IED’s and mines.
Would you have another source that specifies the type of threat/combat area that the armour package was designed around?
I literally said that it fits the description “just as well”. I did not try to imply that tanks wouldnt count as direct-fire weapons.
That REALLY depends on the type of RPG/handheld anti-tank weapon. The base M1 Abrams hull most certainly cannot defeat all modern RPG’s/handheld anti-tank weapons.
I am aware that the turret is listed, however this topic isnt exactly about that, is it?
I still disagree with the idea that it can only be the LFP, again the hull has many more areas (internal bulkheads for example) that could be upgraded armour-wise.
With other nato partners going for increasing all-round protection against CE threats (see: Leopard 2A4 upgrade kits for example), i don’t see a way to discard this possiblity alltogether without any sources directly contradicting it, or such proving frontal armour improvements to the hull.
Used photoshop and copied the overhead image of the SEP v3 to the Click bait in game. Using the X-ray model of the armor, I know that the 101mm plate is BEHIND the weld line, closer to the driver. Using a diagram of the armor from the original M1, I estimated the NERA and the 31.75mm plate in front of it to take up ~360.15mm of space before reaching the 101mm plate. Assuming the 101mm plate was moved back in the SEP v3 with the weld line, I came up with 46.25mm of space added (if the weld line is ~16 inches back on the v3 and ~14in on the earlier models).
If the space were to be filled with a DU plate, we need the volume.
We know the width, the length should be between 75-80 inches, but estimates say 77 inches (6’ 5").
I do not know what the height is, but lets assume it’s ~1/3 the length.
Assuming we have 1000kg to work with, a DU plate with the same length and height would only be ~40mm thick. However as I mentioned, I calculated the extra space to be 46.25mm. If we use that number, we get 1,124.9kg. Assuming the RHA additions on the turret weigh in at 800kg combined, that leaves us with 275.1kg for internal work, which is very generous.
I have no idea how to really translate this into a bug report without concrete measurements of that weld line and the height of the plate, but I can use what I have and roughly estimate it.
From the front of the hull to that weld line? I only ask because this image of a SEP v3 shows that weld line at about the rear 1/4th of the metal fenders that cover the tracks.
In game and from other images I’ve seen the weld line is about half way on the fenders.
thats interesting, because in game the armor is 493mm thick including both front and back plates
its not impossible that the top section extends further than the armor itself to make assembly easier but it is interesting to note
If the X-ray in WT is correct, the 101mm plate sits behind that weld line, meaning there’s only the 31.75mm plate and the NERA in front of it. If WT is correct on stating the NERA is 360mm, that means there’s only 391.75mm. If it’s now 600mm according to Jackvony, that means the SEP v3 AND v2 are missing a ton of armor. Whether that’s missing RHA, NERA, DU, or a combination is to be determined. I personally think the v2 filled that space in with NERA and the v3 replaced some of that NERA with DU.
I don’t think you killed the joy at all, you legitimately just proved the SEP v2 along with the SEP v3 are both missing armor (provided the 101mm plate still sits behind the weld line).
I’m not sure how y’all are measuring the WT model but I can assure you this is measured to the weld line.
It’s the same on every Abrams since at least the M1A1 (but almost certainly since M1). M1A1 measured below (this is a measurement to the back of the weldline instead of the front so it’s slightly longer):
If you agree that NEA refers to both turret and hull armor like budget document says, then NEA is specifically described as armor packages that are installed in place of previous packages in the armor cavity. So then, the only place in the hull that can fit a self contained composite armor package is the LFP armor cavity.
