Why does it seem the M1 abrams is extremely underwhelming?

[Necrons31467]

@SpeclistMain

Yes, the best the US was willing to export. Which is worse than the DU armor fielded on domestic tanks.

I haven’t seen any indication that the armour package that was tested in the U.S. and it’s evaluation sent to Sweden is drastically worse than a domestic M1A2’s armour package.

@SpeclistMain

This is an estimation, not based on actual data.

Please feel free to share sources that show my sources are wildly off the mark, and what the true values should be.

@SpeclistMain

and likely vastly underestimate the capabilities of US tanks.

This reeks of significant levels of Cope.

You want/need it to be true, therefore you believe it to be true, regardless of the fact that there is no underlying evidence to support that position.
In fact, there’s multiple sources which heavily hint to a contrary position.

---

You’re also giving me the strong impression that you overvalue the importance of armour protection based on gameplay in video games.
IRL other aspects such as the ability to spot a target first & hit a target first are of much greater importance than raw armour, many of the elements which make the M1A2 such a good tank IRL aren’t simply relevant in War Thunder, whether that be Battle Management systems, GPS, FCS, the VCSU, general visibility, crew comfort, intuitive layout/controls, etc…

@SpeclistMain

First, second, or third generation DU ring a bell?

Refer to my previous comment.
This has to do with multi-hit durability, and armour fatigue is not modelled in War Thunder, thus moot point.

@SpeclistMain

You mean ricochets all APFSDS into the overly exposed turret ring to oneshot the M1?

Tell me you didn’t watch the clip without telling me you didn’t watch the clip.

The most powerful APFSDS round in the entire game cannot consistently penetrate the M1’s UFP at point blank range.

[CinnamonToePunch]

@Necrons31467

The M1A2 SEP has improved frontal and side armor for enhanced crew survivability.’’

Armour improvements are relative to the M1/M1A1 vehicles.

Contradiction.

@Necrons31467

All M1’s from the M1A1 HA onwards feature DU armour, and as I’ve already stated this is also represented in-game.

Turret only, even though this source doesn’t say “improved turret front armor”

[CinnamonToePunch]

@Necrons31467

Tell me you didn’t watch the clip without telling me you didn’t watch the clip.

The most powerful APFSDS round in the entire game cannot consistently penetrate the M1’s UFP at point blank range.

Fuck your clip, you very clearly shot at the most angled part of the armor as some kind of point. However, you still even penetrated sometimes. Had you shot ANY HIGHER on that plate you’d have penetrated quite literally every time.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@Necrons31467

I haven’t seen any indication that the armour package that was tested in the U.S. and it’s evaluation sent to Sweden is drastically worse than a domestic M1A2’s armour package.

You have zero indication they were drastically similar either, and going off of the fact the US has literally never exported their DU armor I can be confident in saying it is much better.

@Necrons31467

Please feel free to share sources that show my sources are wildly off the mark, and what the true values should be.

Please explain sources that show you are actually correct.

@Necrons31467

You want/need it to be true, therefore you believe it to be true, regardless of the fact that there is no underlying evidence to support that position.
In fact, there’s multiple sources which heavily hint to a contrary position.

TC 90-16 is classified and only reserved for higher-level officers → to set the pace of the next war, make sure to set up scenarios where you win with devastating success → make sure the information they are given puts your soldiers in the most likely scenario to win → massively overestimate the enemy’s capabilities and underestimate your own so that the only scenarios you get into are massively in your favor → the data shown in the table (while also being unofficial and likely based on non-DU export numbers) massively underestimates the armor and penetration of US vehicles.

It’s not that hard to follow.

@Necrons31467

This has to do with multi-hit durability, and armour fatigue is not modelled in War Thunder, thus moot point.

And source to prove the armor solely provides such benefits?

@Necrons31467

Tell me you didn’t watch the clip without telling me you didn’t watch the clip.

The most powerful APFSDS round in the entire game cannot consistently penetrate the M1’s UFP at point blank range.

You got unlucky with spalling and also aimed at the most angled part of the UFP, am I supposed to view this as a counterargument?

[CinnamonToePunch]

@SpeclistMain

You got unlucky with spalling and also aimed at the most angled part of the UFP, am I supposed to view this as a counterargument?

also, not on level ground

[CodeNameColdWar]

@Necrons31467

I haven’t seen any indication that the armour package that was tested in the U.S. and it’s evaluation sent to Sweden is drastically worse than a domestic M1A2’s armour package.

There is a little bit of clue that they did upgrade export armor package after they lost the competition and Sweden choose Leopard 2.
It said that “The newarmor, Developed by the army, offers the same level of protection as depleted uranium armor used by US forces, but without using the controversial material.”
“The new armor is a much better package than provided in Sweden because we and the Army are smarter than we were then,” McVey said. “We have learned how to use materials and geometry to improve the armor protection from previous generations without having to get into the DU [depleted uranium] material.”

[quartas121]

Doesn’t the obj 292 have the best mbt round in game?

[AlvisWisla]

Object 292 isn’t an MBT, it’s at best an armored tank destroyer [given a higher SP cost from the medium tank categorization in-game].

[quartas121]

Is it not classified as a medium tank, aka MBT at high tiers in game? Is it not on a T-80 hull, which I’m sure you would agree is a medium tank? Does it not have a turret, armor, and autoloader similar to other Soviet MBT?

[sartt]

[AlvisWisla]

The M10 has a Sherman hull.
Heavy 40+ ton IFVs are called light tanks in-game.
So yeah…

[CinnamonToePunch]

What are you on about? The OBJ 292 is definitely an MBT because it fills the same role in game as the T-80, T-72s and T-90s.

[AlvisWisla]

It’s a slow large-penning gun, no machine gun, no smoke grenades, no general-purpose use… nothing that would legitimize it as a main battle tank.
Object 292 is as a main battle tank as PTZ89 is.

[CinnamonToePunch]

@AlvisWisla

no general-purpose use

[Necrons31467]

@CinnamonToePunch

Contradiction.

There is no contradiction.

The text clearly says the armour upgrades are relative to the M1/M1A1 vehicles, which are used as the basis for the M1A2 SEP conversion process.

Here’s three seperate mentions of the same process across more than a decade:

I’ve given you a direct (and full) qoute from the source, and you come back to me with a second out-of-context qoute as if I didn’t just debunk that.

Like a broken clock.

@CinnamonToePunch

Turret only, even though this source doesn’t say “improved turret front armor”

The turret front covers the… ** drumrolls ** frontal armour.

I’ve also shown you three other sources which point towards no significant (hull) upgrades being carried out due to budget, weight and time limitations.

@CinnamonToePunch

Fuck your clip

Okay, it’s clear to me you have no interest in any meaningful discussion, because any evidence that contradicts your position is instantly dismissed.

@SpeclistMain

You have zero indication they were drastically similar either

I do, actually.
And I’ve already mentioned it previously, but you neglected to respond to it.

• XM-1 protection requirements were to resist 115mm APFSDS at 800m, XM578E1 was used as a threat simulant, that provides us with the 350mm RHAe vs KE @ 60° frontal arc figure that’s confirmed by numerous other sources.
• IPM1/M1A1 used XM774 as a threat simulant, providing us with 400mm RHAe vs KE @ 60° frontal arc.
• M1A1 HA used M829E1 as a threat simulant, again giving us a 600mm RHAe vs KE @ 60° frontal arc figure.

@SpeclistMain

Please explain sources that show you are actually correct.

Judging by the fact that you’re deflecting, I take it you have zero sources to back up your claims.

@SpeclistMain

And source to prove the armor solely provides such benefits?

Conraire dives into archives and has access to various sources. For this one specifically, IIRC, he isn’t certain about whether he can share them publicly.

I’d suggest contacting him on this for further info.

@SpeclistMain

You got unlucky with spalling and also aimed at the most angled part of the UFP

So when the M1’s armour does it’s job, it’s just ‘‘luck’’.

The entire UFP is sloped back at a constant angle. What do you even mean that I ‘‘aimed for the most angled part’’? I aimed literally everywhere across the entire UFP so as to make it a fair representation.

You two are getting mighty desperate and are reaching for anything nonsensical to attempt to poke holes in that video.

---

Given that Cinnamon is now refusing to even read sources that contradict his opinion, and you’re not sharing any sources that back up your argument, I’ll just leave things here.

[CinnamonToePunch]

@Necrons31467

I’ve given you a direct (and full) qoute from the source, and you come back to me with a second out-of-context qoute as if I didn’t just debunk that.

I didn’t come back with out of context shit. You are the definition of in denial. That source says directly “The M1A2 SEP has improved frontal and side armor for enhanced crew survivability” and you wanna act like you just dont see that. Since you wanna ignore the source that quite literally proves my point, which you were so kind to provide me with, I’m not gonna engage with you any further, since it seems this conversation is becoming “nuh-uh, it dont say that”.

@Necrons31467

The turret front covers the… ** drumrolls ** frontal armour.

The turret is not the only part of the frontal armor, you realize that? It specified improved front armor, which could very well mean that the rest of it is improved as well. Why do you choose to perceive that as turret only?

@Necrons31467

Okay, it’s clear to me you have no interest in any meaningful discussion, because any evidence that contradicts your position is instantly dismissed.

SpeclistMain:

I could also shoot at the top of a 2s38 at an insane angle that nobody would choose to shoot at. Would that be adequate “evidence” to say that the armor of the 2S38 is very resistant to APFSDS? No.

@Necrons31467

Judging by the fact that you’re deflecting, I take it you have zero sources to back up your claims.

You seem great at giving us sources to back up our points. Help him out some, will you?

@Necrons31467

You two are getting mighty desperate and are reaching for anything nonsensical to attempt to poke holes in that video.

You are quite literally grasping at straws and refusing to admit that your logic is completely flawed. The source says clearly “M1A2 has improved frontal and side armor” and you choose to perceive that as “Improved turret armor”. You shoot at the most angled portion of the UFP from a decline, and try to pass that off as the armor being insanely strong, while still penetrating it in the process. Lastly, you sit here and try to call my points nonsensical while reaching so far up your own ass to find a new conclusion.

[Casino_Knight]

OP is wrong and coping.
/Thread

[Necrons31467]

@CinnamonToePunch

I didn’t come back with out of context shit.

You merely qouted ‘‘The M1A2 SEP has improved frontal and side armor for enhanced crew survivability.’’

But you left out: ‘‘This program upgrades M1/M1A1 tanks to the M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) configuration.’’
That’s the definition of taking things out of context, the rest of the text also makes it clear that improvements over the M1/M1A1 are mentioned.

Furthermore, let’s take a look at what it says regarding the upgrade from M1A2 to M1A2 SEP:

Suddenly no armour upgrades are mentioned any more. How shocking /s

Why would it only mention armour upgrades in the context of upgrading the M1/M1A1 fleet, and not mention armour upgrades in the context of upgrading the base M1A2 fleet? I suspect we both know the answer to that question.

Now let’s take a look at the M1A2 SEP v3 and see what changes are mentioned:

What a surprise, hull armor upgrades are for the first time specifically mentioned, when they were never mentioned specifically like this before.

It also mentions elements such as the TIGER (Total Intergrated Engine Revitalization) and Color Flat Panel displays, all of which were already implemented over a decade earlier in the previous SEP model:

So that clearly illustrates these sources mention upgrades across the total history of the M1 series of vehicles, and not just between the two latest models.

@CinnamonToePunch

“M1A2 has improved frontal and side armor” and you choose to perceive that as “Improved turret armor”

Because when the hull armour is upgraded, it specifically mentions the hull armour.

[MiseryIndex556]

The text says M1 and M1A1 tanks are upgraded, not the upgrades are relative to the M1 or M1A1. Older tanks are upgraded to the newer standard first, to keep the fleet more competitive. They aren’t newly built tanks.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@Necrons31467

Judging by the fact that you’re deflecting, I take it you have zero sources to back up your claims.

Did you even read the messages above?

@CodeNameColdWar

There is a little bit of clue that they did upgrade export armor package after they lost the competition and Sweden choose Leopard 2.
It said that “The newarmor, Developed by the army, offers the same level of protection as depleted uranium armor used by US forces, but without using the controversial material.”
“The new armor is a much better package than provided in Sweden because we and the Army are smarter than we were then,” McVey said. “We have learned how to use materials and geometry to improve the armor protection from previous generations without having to get into the DU [depleted uranium] material.”

If anything, I’d like to see your sources, because just posting a .png or .jpeg file doesn’t help to make your sources seem reliable. After I spent like ten minutes trying to find the original documents for the two sources I responded to, I was able to find that neither described official tests of domestic armor.

Specifically, this message (Why does it seem the M1 abrams is extremely underwhelming? - #14 by Necrons31467) and your claims about the newer generations of DU only improving multi-hit capabilities.

@Necrons31467

Conraire dives into archives and has access to various sources. For this one specifically, IIRC, he isn’t certain about whether he can share them publicly.

I’d suggest contacting him on this for further info.

Already have (in a thread), been waiting on his Abrams Armor thread for like over five months now.

@Necrons31467

The entire UFP is sloped back at a constant angle. What do you even mean that I ‘‘aimed for the most angled part’’? I aimed literally everywhere across the entire UFP so as to make it a fair representation.

You mainly aimed for the upper left and right sides while being on a decline, which increased the angle. Even then, you were still able to pen it.

@Necrons31467

Given that Cinnamon is now refusing to even read sources that contradict his opinion, and you’re not sharing any sources that back up your argument, I’ll just leave things here.

All I’ve done is refute your sources, my dude. The only claim I’ve made is that DU is much better than what export armor tests suggest, and I’ve been able to evidence that through sources that you yourself have provided.

@Necrons31467

Now let’s take a look at the M1A2 SEP v3 and see what changes are mentioned:

@Necrons31467

What a surprise, hull armor upgrades are for the first time specifically mentioned, when they were never mentioned specifically like this before.

The thing is that the Side Armor upgrade is the only one that specifically mentions only being on the turret (that I’ve found at least). When you look at the FY 2010 budget justification, it specifically says “Turret Side Armor” but not “Turret Frontal Armor,” only “Frontal Armor.” It suggests the whole of the frontal arc is being improved, not just the turret.

The FY 2009 budget justification also includes the “Turret Side Armor” versus “Frontal Armor” wording.

The FY 2004/2005 budget justification also uses the same “Turret Side Armor” versus “Frontal Armor” wording. This one also specifically says that the M1 Abrams Tank (MOD) (GA0700) applies to M1A1 and M1A2 SEP tanks, so it is showing that both types of tanks are getting the armor upgrades.