I am certain you’d be able to quote the one listing the LFP?
I mean that would literally be the breakthrough we need for any related report, wouldnt it?
you see the word HULL right there after turret what was the only turret upgrade the sep 3 got so one can assume it applies to the hull as well
4 Likes
the issue isn’t if its been upgraded, its the actual specs or anything that can be used to guesstimate the specs (afaik)
2 Likes
The hull is 1/1 with the Swedish trial lmfao.
The 350mm hull armor value is achieved by looking at the hull with a 25° angle. Though I understand reading might be hard for some. Looking frontally at the tank is what would be 0° angle in Swedish doc numbers, hence why it’s 400mm of protection.
The 25° angle is given in the Swedish doc to simulate an Abrams peeking up a hill and presenting a somewhat flat LFP to an enemy.
2 Likes
Agreed
1 Like
i know we know its been upgraded but figuring out what the exact amount the upgrade part is what has us all stumped rn
2 Likes
then whats this point in this looping conversation?
your source only states it got hull armor upgrades, it doesn’t specify against KE and continues to go on and mention mine blast, reactive armour* and such. Almost everything it does specify is chemical and can all go under “hull armour upgrades”
*reactive can be KE, but again it doesnt specify that
except the DOTE reports explicitly mention ballistic tests of KE threats against ammo compartments (not specifying hull or turret ammo so likely for both hull and turret)
4 Likes
The hull doesnt solely consist of the lower front plate, you know that, right?
and on top of the swedish trails the abrams used was the m1a2 which is 62 tons the sep didnt enter service till 1999 and it gained an addition 3 tons the sep 2 weights 67 tons ended up with the sep 3 weight being 69 tons the sep 2 with a trophy weights 69 tons as well so its safe to assume the sep 1 or 2 received increased hull improvements over the base m1a2 hull and the sep 3 upgrade just improved that upgrade
2 Likes
then they can specify that source since the source they gave doesn’t really prove their point (LFP stronger against KE != “hull armor upgrade”)
except we know the hull sides and belly were not thickened significantly due to photos of them under construction and the fact that if they were it would be easier to produce entirely new hulls than upgrade existing ones
and again over all structure is implied to be lightened along with the belly armor/mine plates
so we know a lot of the hull weight gain was going into hull frontal protection, and again images show that UFP also isnt increased further confirming that the LFP was improved with denser composites
and increasing density of composites near universally will increase KE protection
6 Likes
I think you should reach @Hike_DK’s bug report draft instead of falling on the same source-demanding loop that’s been going on for the last 700+ messages.
5 Likes
i wasn’t planning on staying in this loop, ive sent like 3 messages:sob:
2 Likes
and on top of that that draft does not include any of the known weight reduction measures that were taken
By the by,
Willing to go back on that erroneous claim and admit you were wrong now that proofs have been posted?(the very document you quoted proving you wrong)
Or are you simply going to go at it like nothing happened and keep spreading misinformation?
1 Like
because the source i posted groups the turret and hull together and separates all the other hull improvements you listed it would be worded hull improvements such as and then list mine protection and so forth but the turret and hull are conveniently listed together and the only real upgrade the turret got was total armor improvement containing both chemical and ke
I love how many people say the hull is over preforming like that, because they looked down at it in protection analysis and gave it an extra 10-15 degrees of effective angle
when if you look parallel to the ground it provides ~360mm KE protection
4 Likes
Btw guys i think this is positive:
1 Like