no one has claimed absurd lfp ke mm tho at most and being generous its like 550-600 range and thats being generous but gaijin isnt going to add this amount for balancing purposes most people here want atleast 500 or 480
4 Likes
so 1mm of extra KE
1 Like
People: The 2015 Abrams upgrade with confirmed hull upgrade should stop the 1991 3BM46.
Him: Absurd levels of lfp protection
I swear, you can’t make this stuff up.
4 Likes
600mm is literally <50mm short of the ingame Leopard 2A7V’s Upperfront plate
given the arguments people are making for relikt stopping m829a3 the SEPv3 hull should stop the T14s APFSDS rounds
but I guess when people say something like that for a US vehicle they get laughed at, despite other countries players saying that stuff all the time
3 Likes
did you not read the being generous part thats most likely its irl number and we know gaijin intentionally bumps down the numbers because at the end of the day this is a game and requires balancing like i said most people here want 500-480 mil lfp so it cant be penned by sub top tier darts and this upgrade only applies to like 3 abrams tanks and all said abrams tanks are atleast above br 12.3
2 Likes
Here’s a couple more bangers:
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/army/2017m1a2sep.pdf?ver=2019-08-19-113849-990
“ The Army continued developmental and verification testing to characterize the performance of the M1A2 SEPv3 NEA against multiple operationally realistic threats. DOT&E is working with the Army to utilize data from ongoing test phases to support its FY20 final assessment of M1A2 SEPv3 survivability against existing and emerging threats.”
Hmm so we know from budget documents that the new armor (NEA) includes “turret and armor upgrades” and now we see that it was tested against operationally realistic threats. I wonder what operationally realistic threats are? Maybe a KE around you think? And hmm they will provide the final assessment the M1A2 SEPv3 survivability by FY20. To that they will do full scale live fire tests. Great, let’s see what they say about those tests: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/army/2019m1a2sep.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115346-283
“ In FY19, the Army completed FUSL testing to assess the survivability of a combat-ready tank against IEDs, mines, and direct- and indirect-fire. The FUSL test series included 20 tests on 3 production-representative tanks.”
Now what is the direct fire threat to a tank?
Yes the army is not going to say “we fired at xx-round at xx-spot on the Abrams” publicly on the internet. What they have said is they built a new armor package, that package included hull and turret armor, and to test that package they did operationally realistic tests on the armor components and then full up live fire tests on an production level tank to confirm the performance against direct fire weapons. Common sense should full in the rest, if your bias wasn’t already overriding it.
13 Likes
your forgetting the weight saving measures that where also implemented
2 Likes
40 years no upgrades seem legit
2 Likes
Again as I probably said 50 times by now, these are primarily for EID/Mine (which additional measures are taken against) and CE-threats.
Handheld anti-tank weapons?
RPGs fit that description just as well.
indirect-fire would, imo, refer to artillery-fragments & bomblets.
Ah yes, me disagreeing with the idea that vague sources listing “armor upgrades to hull” suffice to prove a KE armour improvement on the LFP means that I am biased. Whatever, that’s your assessment.
Again, gaijin-staff have been very direct about what kind of information is required for them to accept a report on the armour improvements.
Running circles around sources that do not meet this criteria (and no, not everything is classified - we already have statements directly referring to specific parts of the survivability upgrade) does not get anyone anywhere.
I am not opposing gaijin increasing the armour of the SEPv3, even if its the LFP.
What I have a big issue with is people here claiming they already provided sufficient materials for a change (which they didnt) and that SEPv3 is being treated worse than other vehicles in the past, when that is simply not the case.
Everyone else has been held up to the same standards for bug-reporting the armour of other modern MBTs, see: Leopard 2A7V or SPz Puma armour reports and what kind of sources they provide and which kind of estimations are being accepted.
What is effectively being asked for here, is receiving preferential treatment in the reporting-procedure by having gaijin do random number generator on the LFP due to a lack of the necessary sources.
And yes, I am fully aware of gaijin doing questionable things with russian vehicles (and made several posts showing, a.o., their hidden platings and other preferential treatment), but usually those changes do not come from Bug-Reports, but rather from internal shenanigans.
I have absolutely no problems agreeing with you if you can provide sources that explicitly mention the areas to have received improvements that you mention.
“Hull” is, in my opinion, simply too vague to make out which specific part has received armour upgrades.
I dont think this argument works in this topic tbh, there are just too many examples you could throw it at where it wont apply whatsoever.
Germany didnt upgrade the gunner’s thermal imager (WBG-X, introduced late 70s/early 80s) until Leopard 2A7V
They didnt ever increase the side-composite coverage on the service-leopard 2’s either
Marder (yes it is still in BW service) never got a stabilizer, despite it being the most requested thing by crews since the mid 70’s
It is in these:
• https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/army/2020abrams-m1a2.pdf?ver=8YvBd9qRklJDXHFaAtPGKA%3D%3D
•
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2022/army/2022aps.pdf?ver=rNoujZUlPp4ID3p01RsLwQ%3D%3D
•
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2021/army/2021abrams-m1a2.pdf?ver=GtX_kx2HgBm1nTngq-WIbA%3D%3D
•
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2023/army/2023abrams-m1a2.pdf
•
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/army/2019aps.pdf
1 Like
Yeah upper 500 is pushing it, but I dont think 450-520 would be unreasonable at top tier.
Also, unlike most mbts the abrams lower front is like… the majority of its armor profile frontally.
so, if we cant have better hull armor for lack of information, you agree to remove the extra weight it add?
btw, gaijin has already stated that estimations are acceptable for post-war vehicles, and thats exactly what people are trying to do here: confirmation, through multiple sources, that the hull received upgrades. we also have documented weight increases and images of the hull welds showing a larger/deeper LFP. taken together, this should be sufficient to justify estimating a revised armor value for the LFP.
if you are demanding an exact armor value, from an official document, then you are effectively asking for classified information, which is obviously unrealistic and doesnt contribute anything constructive to the discussion.
2 Likes
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.
6 Likes
Btw aren’t the XM1’s supposed to have smoke grenades?
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
