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
Granted the Swedish trials used an export model but like you said unless concrete numbers/diagrams are found Gaijin won’t do anything. (Which ofc is still classified)
1: Don’t use AI
2: Abrams doesn’t need any buffs, especially to its hull armor. Turret ring armor is really the only thing it “needs”.
1 Like
As mentioned on the most recent DU armor thread for the Abrams, it’s a bit absurd there’s an assumption that the hull armor was never improved until the SEP v3, but no one knows the values of any improvements. I completely agree the turret ring needs to be volumetric, but even a slight increase to the hull array’s effectiveness would be welcome.
If it could stop DM33 and 3BM42 that would be alright, but stuff like 620mm+ KE would be absurd.
1 Like
I believe the 620 figure would be a lot more accurate for the SEP v3, but not for earlier variants. But yes stopping 400-450mm pen APFSDS would be welcome on stuff like the SEP v1/v2
1 Like
I cant address each comment, but im not here to have to be RIGHT, so if you believe that you are without a doubt then this post is not for you. Bottom line is there is no concrete legal evidence of the M1A2 and later variants armor makeup. What I mean by that is there nothing absolute, just assumptions. Wouldnt be the first time Gajin has used that to take action in game. I KNOW what these tanks are capable of, I work with them, shot them, and tested their armor and Guns. Im not here to indulge my sensitive information. I am making an argument for the tanks sake, the game doesnt do the tank justice is all. These tanks are formidable plain and simple, and anyone who says they would take this tank head on with any other tank is absurd. Now with that out of the way, im not asking the M1A2 to have its front hull armor impenetrable, because it’s not, but it definitely should not be being pinned by T72s. If you think the US Military is using outdated Armor makeups i dont think you know what the US does for a living, they spend more on War than most other countries combined. Now, outside of personal politics and beliefs, because i wont respond to them. Im focused on the game, plain and simple, it needs to update the front hull armor to resemble closer to 600, would that affect a lot of tanks current that can pin its front hull yes, but that still leaves the giants window of pin underneath the turrent so other players dont lose much. It would force you to adapt if your a USSR main, no more rushing out from your cover. Either way, im not die hard on this topic, im good with all trees, been playing since 2013
1 Like
Ai wasnt used brother lots of useless research. Fun to know something other dont though. Appreciate your input
1 Like
Many people with your experience have used your exact argument, and all of them have fallen on deaf ears. Even if you provided exact numbers that somehow became declassified Gaijin probably wouldn’t change anything.
2 Likes
I know brother, its unfortunate. But aye you can always play USSR if you want mindless gameplay. No hate to the USSR mains, but High Tier is stupid easy, and in the end its a game so personal feelings dont matter. I would trust an Abrams in combat before a T90. Thats just because of the personal information i know thats not available to others. Especially when we are watching whats happening in the world right now. Just wish that i could have more of a challeng when playing the USSR or France trees
1 Like
Unless some photos of the captured M1A1SAs in Ukraine come out, specifically showing their armor arrays in detail (and material composition), nothing is going to change.
2 Likes
I work for a living so sorry for any typos or proof reads. Title tells you im talking about the M1A2 and later variants. No AI used to type this up, however its my first post in this forum, appreciate your feedback. Lastly, the 3BM22 does in fact penetrate all Abrams hull armor, but ill have to show you when i get home buddy
1 Like
The export armour package offered to Sweden was because the US didn’t want to export the DU armour. As there was no DU in the hull on the M1A2 it seems likely the hull armour was unchanged.
I wouldn’t call it absurd for numerous reasons:
- Fall of the Soviet Union removed the primary pacing threat from the M1 Abrams.
- Peace Dividend resulted in major budget cuts throughout the entire US military, this included cancellations of multiple M1 upgrade programs.
- Constant budget contraints prevented numerous of the proposed upgrades.
- Conflicts against non-peer adversaries required different protection solutions to be prioritized, such as belly plates, ARAT, ARAT II, TUSK, etc.
- Weight constraints prevented at least portions of the planned/proposed armour upgrades from being carried out.
Slightly doubtful.
The overall volume of the front nose plate was not increased as far as I’ve been informed, that means they’re working with fairly limited room to play with.
The Leopard 2A7V required a significant increase in hull armour volume for the massive increase in protection to be realized, it’s doubtful that the Abrams would attain such protection figures without any increase in volume.
Keep in mind that increasing the volume on the Abrams was already a proposed solution back in the early '90s:
This is also how the Swedes planned to improve the hull armour:
Spoiler
#Doubt.
As far as I’m aware 3BM-22 was not used in Desert Storm, so I don’t see how that’s relevant.
3BM-9 and 3BM-15 appear to be the primary threat projectiles during that conflict.