I’m not going to deal in absolutes as I wasn’t there, brother. If you know something I don’t, please share. I am simply making an observation with the available information. And cross referencing that to what is modeled in the game. Also, as I mention in the comment, there are CIA reports (declassified) that confirm tungsten rounds being used by the Iraqi’s during the Gulf War. Also, it is known that they were already using 3BM12 rounds which are a steel penetrator.
1 Like
That’s where your mistake lies. Comparing a T72A to old ammunition that wouldn’t even penetrate itself with an M1A2, the T72s were exterminated because they couldn’t even fight at night or penetrate an Abrams. Using this fact to justify the T72’s inferiority to an M1A2 is unfair. On the contrary, use a T72B3 instead.
And I know your topic is about the Abrams’ armor, but there simply isn’t a single reliable official source confirmed as true that indicates the Abrams received chassis reinforcement. The only way to fix that is with the SEPV3, but even that would be penetrated equally in the same places by all tanks, but perhaps it would be safe from smaller calibers.
I hope the US gets this SEPV3 so they stop complaining, and that all other nations get more tanks too, and that BVVD changes its mind about keeping the GRB maps the same monotonous, boring, and repetitive thing, otherwise I’ll definitely stop playing GRB.
I want to know how the Australian Abrams are doing in a certain Eastern European country, the cope with the M1A1SAs is that they downgraded the armour to remove the DU, but the Australian Abrams already use an export non-DU array that has the same single hit protection as a M1A2 (since DU only improves multi-hit protection) so anything that kills them would kill anything short of a SEP V3.
You recon they would stop? Or just complain about it too?
1 Like
Honestly, I have no idea. Maybe I’m afraid it will fall into Russian hands? I don’t know, I’d rather not comment before a moderator shows up and nukes us.
They would probably still complain that something is wrong and some crew member would leak some secret document because their ObRoOmS isn’t good enough.
3 Likes
Abrams does not have alot of armor at top of the tank if i am not mistaken. It would still be easily destroyed by drones target it from behind or top. Even SEP V3 would face same as only hull and turret protection was increased and i don’t think they improved the roof armor. While most of Abram have been destroyed by FPv drone but one has been destroyed in tank to tank combat IIRC in Ukraine. It would be interesting to see if something changes with Australian AIM. At the end i would just like to say Abram is not invincible and can still be destroyed
1 Like
Yeah, it’s a risky topic, but I am entirely referring to the technical performance of the tank, not any political aspect of the situation, still probably best left well enough alone.
I think that’s true of most tanks there. Tank combat is starting to go the same way as air combat, moving into BVR and electronic warfare.
Basically, the problem with all tanks currently is that all it takes is an explosive charge or an RPG grenade targeting the engine, and that’s it, the tank is out of combat. Then the crew would exit the vehicle and fight for their lives in a place full of drones, and recovering the vehicle would be difficult since more drones would come to finish destroying it. Tanks will change a lot in the future because of this. I also wouldn’t rule out them being relegated to a second-line role as indirect fire, and only being used for attack on an important objective since they still provide enormous firepower and psychological advantage.
like this, Will we start seeing vehicles like this? Well, I don’t know, I just know they look ugly but they’re effective.
https://youtube.com/shorts/b1D8X9mrP-g?si=yd7aW863tu7_nXsP
When the topic is Ukraine, the moderators are already watching me :D
Fair enough, I wont tempt you then!
1 Like
Maybe they might use cope cage or something else. But for now it might just be cope cage.
From a Gaming perspective I’m simply pointing out the flaw that the M1 Abrams is not modeled correctly. The Front Hull armor is equivalent to 600+ of RHA equivalency however this is not modeled in game. I’m not complaining, just a disappointing factor. I have Played all high tier GRB trees, well the main ones at least. I’m making this argument with the least amount of compromising information as possible. I know the truth about these tanks, and what they are made of and the engineering behind them but trying to make a point with little public information is difficult. My argument point here is simple. T-72 tanks are modeled in game. M1A1 tanks which is earlier than M1 Abrams, Sustained multiple hits from these tanks. In-game the best round they have is the 3BM-22. This is modeled in-game to penetrate the front hull of the M1A2 which in conclusion would be in accurate. See where I’m going with this. Bottom line I believe upping the M1A2 and later variants front hull armor to its more accurate 600+ would provide not only satisfaction of this formidable tank, but a more balanced gameplay, but that’s just my belief, we don’t have to share that viewpoint.
2 Likes
Another round of American players deluding themselves into believing the Abrams can do everything. Remember the “spall liners inside the armor layers” debacle?
1 Like
It’s not that brother. I understand it’s just a game; it’s the angle of approach I’m taking. However, if you think that the front hull armor is represented correctly then that’s fine. This is simply my observation. The Abrams is not a miracle tank, however I have played against it in War Thunder, if you believe in real life that this tank is not a tank to be feared when facing it head on then you are delusional my friend. However, in game the main tactic from other tanks is to pop out on the tank because they know they have a bigger window of penetration to hit and are not afraid of losing that fight head on. Playing USA Tree requires skill in my opinion, Playing USSR is boring because of that, same with France and China. I mean it doesnt affect me none if it gets changed or not, i mean game is always changing and i with it
1 Like
you need to prove that number, some concrete source for that
And what would satisfy that for you? Will I need to shoot a real Abrams front hull armor with its own sabot round record it and show it to you? or would you then make an argument that the US M829A3 is weak? Historically tanks have been tested to defend against their strongest round, to ensure it can handle adversaries, what makes you think the Abrams was not tested in the same way?
you make this argument because you know as much as I, that the US does NOT declassify its most advance technologies easily or lightly. It’s why my argument takes the approach that it does, because in the end this is just a game and I don’t NEED to be right.
no need to be an ass about it
yes exactly
you cant prove it because there is no way to prove that protection level
even if we don’t know the hull numbers we can still get an armor buff by simply converting the turret ring to volumetric and making it thicker to withstand autocannon rounds
1 Like
Yes, I believe and agree that the Abrams needs better modeling, but I don’t understand how some people think it would be able to withstand high-caliber cannon fire.
It’s a better choice; it would be safe from being penetrated by 30mm cannons, etc., but it would still be penetrated by 105mm, 120mm, and 125mm cannons.
1 Like
M1A2 we know for certain did not receive hull armour improvements.
Also: Holy AI slop post batman.
Who claimed this?
Seriously, who thought the M1’s front nose plate was a simple steel plate?
What sources?
Furthermore, the turret protection saw a significant step up in protection with the addition of steel-encased DU modules, we know for a fact that these modules weren’t utilized on neither the M1A2 nor M1A2 SEP.
No, they don’t.
False.
(X)M1 protection requirements were as follows:
To resist Soviet 115mm APFSDS within 60° frontal arc at 800-1200m, with XM579E4 used as the threat simulant, which achieved 322mm of LoS penetration at 60° of obliquity.
Further source states the turret front of the M1 Abrams only achieved 400mm against KE threats and 750mm against CE threats:
- ‘PROPOSAL FOR INTERAGENCY INTELLIGENCE MEMORANDUM ON SOVIET ARMOR PROGRAM’
British assessments/estimations of the M1A1 stated a 390mm frontal armour protection value, and the M1A1 utilizes an improved turret armour solution compared to the standard M1 Abrams, so it’s beyond unlikely that the base M1 Abrams achieves 450-500mm.
That source is terrible.
Steel Beasts is not a source, it’s significantly worse than War Thunder when it comes to armour modeling.
More AI slop.
We really need updated rules for all of this AI spam going on.
1 Like
Declassified British documents from when America were trying to sell them the Abrams state that the M1A1’s hull armour was 350 mm KE. And the declassified information from the Swedish tank trials also states that the hull armour of the M1A2 was 350 mm KE. The hull armour in game meets / slightly exceeds 350 mm of KE protection so as far as Gaijin are concerned the M1A2 and earlier Abrams are likely correct already.
It is possible that later versions of the M1A2, like the SEP, have better hull armour, but finding evidence / reliable protection figures for those will be very difficult.
1 Like