He’s missing the fact that the 105mm Abrams don’t spall as much as 120mm DM23 that the Leopard 2A4 gets (hence nobody is complaining), but I agree with mostly everything else he says.
erm guys the abrams is underwhelming and underperforming gaijin pls buff
why is a t80 able to pen my turret cheek from this angle? russian bias game. I get killed from this angle all the time!!
2 Likes
Lol
1 Like
I see people make this claim all the time.
Yet somehow this claim is never backed up with any evidence.
From what I can see, the spalling for both shells is identical:
3 Likes
I’m guessing you’re right.
Can you try it out with other armour pieces? (Such as the right turret cheek of M1 Abrams.)
From what I can understand, barely penning an armour plate (which the M774 round tends to do more so than DM23 due to DM23 having better penetration) leads to less spall, which may be the reason why people believe that 105mm M774 does less damage (spall included) than 120mm DM23, and not that 120mm DM23 actually does more spalling.
Transferring here.
There were multiple weight-saving measures throughout the M1A2 variants. All this is saying is that the M1A2 through SEPv2 have similar DU turret and hull armor.
That doesn’t negate my argument, though. This still applies:
That’s under the assumption that they didn’t use DU hulls, which is unfounded.
The US government says A2 - SEP2 don’t use DU hulls.
And the hull armor only got improved, which means conventional materials in a different config.
2 Likes
Source?
We know it’s been improved through conventional and DU means, yes.
Crazy claim, dawg. Whats your source?
It wasn’t meant to “negate” your ‘argument’ (since it was intended to make you think about why A is allowed but not B, despite the claim being that the hulls have been permitted the use of DU as a whole, hence whether the armour is of new generation or not, does not make a gram of a difference) so please do refrain from special pleading. Anyhow, the “removal” of the usage limit on DU hulls (which, as previously mentioned, is contradicted by Amendment no.8, whereas Amendment no.10 and newer clearly mention both the hulls & turrets having the okay to use DU) does not equate with them having actually been used by the Army. The NRC license is a simple “yes” or “no” to the use of radioactive material, nothing else to it.
That’s under the assumption that they didn’t use DU hulls, which is unfounded.
The same can be said about an assumption that they had used DU hulls before No.8 came into effect and before No.10 properly got rid of the limit for the production of SEPv3s and SEPv2 mod 3s. Is there evidence to confirm that M1A2s starting from 2006 began receiving new hull armour, which by the way, doesn’t come from teritary sources.
Material License sheet, December 16, 2014 states:
‘‘Maximum amount that license may possess at any one time under this license A. As needed […] A. and B. Installation of new heavy armor packages to M1 Abrams tank system turret and ballistic targets and for display. […]’’
Budget Justification sheet dated 2017 also states:
‘’[…] The M1A2 SEPv3 (ECP 1A) incorporates turret and hull armor upgrades for enhanced crew survivability’’
This is the first time any hull upgrades are mentioned across the years, if the SEP v2 featured hull armour upgrades I see no reason why they would not have mentioned it as such when there doesn’t seem to be any secrecy around the SEP v3 receiving such upgrades.
This source also states other upgrades to the internal armour protection such as the turret side improvements, which is corroborated with other sources.
3 Likes
At worst all this means is that for a period from December 16, 2014 to July 7, 2016 (Amendment No. 10) the DU-hulled Abrams were being repaired and/or were having maintenance done.
We see tons of “Frontal Armor” improvements throughout the earlier budget justifications.
And those are all explicitly stated to be relative to the M1/M1A1 which form the basis for the upgrade programs.
And I qoute:
‘‘This program upgrades M1/M1A1 tanks to the M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) configuration. Therefore, for each M1A2 SEP produced, there will be a corresponding decrease in the Army’s M1/M1A1 inventory. The Abrams Upgrade Program will upgrade the tanks, survivability, automotive power pack, computer systems, and night vision capabilities. The M1A2 […] The M1A2 SEP has improved frontal and side armor for enhanced crew survivability. The M1A2 SEP is also equipped with the total integrated revitalization (TIGER) engine and upgraded transmission for improved automotive reliability and durability.’’
Later versions with the M1A2 SEP v2 and v3 again mention improvements such as TIGER and a CITV:
Obviously the CITV wasn’t first implemented on a SEP v3.
TIGER was already carried out on the initial 1999 M1A2 SEP, reinforcing the fact that all upgrades mentioned are relative to the M1/M1A1.
This is why frontal armour improvements are mentioned, because the base M1 and M1A1 have significantly inferior frontal protection due to them using the old mid '80s composite packages.
4 Likes
None of what you quoted means that DU cannot be used in the hulls, the improvement in the hull can mean DU.
1 Like
I’m not sure what you mean.
I never said the M1A2 SEP v3 can’t use DU hulls, are you confusing my reply with someone else’s?
3 Likes
I’m talking about how the Frontal Armor package is explicitly stated to be sourced from the DOE, meaning that the package (which includes the hull) has DU.
1 Like
Everyone getting one death leavers in their team bro in 7 out of 10 matches we all having half the team having 2 deaths and no kill, which is technically worse than having one death leaver since two deaths means they feed the enemy more sp, and drain your team tickets more, but still doesn’t stop someone from getting a good kdr in their Abrams, I mean outside of sun city or advance to the toilet, most maps with bumpy surface allow you to hide your hull, you can sit back and easily kill 2-3 enemy on average, by the time their 3bm60 comes in you already reverse back to cover with your 3800 kph supersonic reverse speed bro or you take a hit to the top of your turret which hardly a critical hit for the most part lol
Turret cheeks = Frontal armour.
Nobody is claiming the turret cheeks don’t have DU.
If you have a source which states the M1A2, M1A2 SEP or SEP v2 use DU hull armour, please share it.
3 Likes
Yeah because frontal armor ONLY EVER means turret cheeks. You clearly CHOOSE to perceive this this way.
1 Like
Compression. Tanks like the 2a7V and T-80 BVM should be a higher BR than they are currently. They should be more like 12.3. with that change. The Abrams wouldn’t suffer quite as much. So would the ariette and challenger. Etc
3 Likes