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.
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.
Okay, it’s clear to me you have no interest in any meaningful discussion, because any evidence that contradicts your position is instantly dismissed.
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.
Judging by the fact that you’re deflecting, I take it you have zero sources to back up your claims.
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.
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.
3 Likes
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”.
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?
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.
You seem great at giving us sources to back up our points. Help him out some, will you?
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.
11 Likes
OP is wrong and coping.
/Thread
7 Likes
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.
Because when the hull armour is upgraded, it specifically mentions the hull armour.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Did you even read the messages above?
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.
Already have (in a thread), been waiting on his Abrams Armor thread for like over five months now.
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.
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.
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.
6 Likes
So would the question now be, “Should we have Br base modification’s for the upgrades?”
I don’t understand your question. My point is the US isn’t building new Abrams. There are something like 2,500 active Abrams and 4,000 reserve Abrams. The vehicles are refurbished and or upgraded as needed. When a new variant is released, they take older variants of the Abrams, strip them down to bare steel and rebuild them from the ground up.
Ah, basically from what i understood from your other post is that the m1 and m1a1 with upgrades aren’t different tanks from the one’s in the tech tree we have rn. So would said upgrades be their own tank’s at a higher br or be modifications based on said upgrades. I might be having a small brain fart but eh.
I think you quote the wrong guy to reply. I never made the claim thay newer generations of DU only improving multi-hit capabilities.
I was simply telling Necrons31467 that there are a clue that show Sweden M1A2 export armor package might not be the same level as DU armor package and only able to catch up after they upgrade them after Sweden competition
But will give the source anyway it was just an article probably an interview. (welp as i said a little bit of clue)
Those aside. To track of what i know M1A1HA and M1A2 use different turret armor packege. The HAP-1 are on M1A1HA while HAP-2 are on M1A2 .
I only found some quote from Conraire back in the old forum.
He said that “Main difference between HAP-1 and 2 is HAP-2 has better multi hit durability.”
But I didn’t see any source that show/point out that HAP-1 has the same protection as HAP-2 yet.
Other than that there are another source from UK which show 650mm vs KE for M1A2 turret front. Post by (Flame2512) but that post got delete later for some reason. So i won’t show them until i know it clear.
Short answer: No.
You cause far more confusion and backlash with such a system, as well as causing potential issues of player choice depending on how it’s implemented.
I meant to reply to Necron, the quote was context (should’ve put it in a spoiler).
He keeps saying that the newer HAPs are only meant to improve multi-hit capabilities, but provides no sources of that at all.
3 Likes
I appreciate that but have you looked at the M1 HC (I think it’s this one) against a T-90A? The T-90A can literally go through it anywhere. turret cheeks and all. UFP LFP turret ring turret cheeks all let the T-90A sabot go through at 500m. and at 1000m it only then struggles with the right hand turret cheek. this is only using protection analysis which I don’t feel like it’s accurate but that is what it shows. That also being said. I rarely play higher than 8.3
There’s basically 2 types of tanks at 9.0-11.7, ones with russian ERA that allow areas other than turret face to have survivability against darts, and ones that don’t, but have better gun depression and reverse speeds.
New players are going to have a much better time in russian tanks, because their bad/noob playstyle of W into the fight and just duke it out is going to be better suited for russian tanks (and they will constantly bounce shots off russian tanks).
This does bring up an issue, some players think that playing in deadspace, and abusing binos, 3rd person camera etc. (camping in CoD terms) is a boring or morally inferior playstyle, but its just playing to the strengths of those tanks.
There is another issue with map design, you don’t want to bring nato tanks into a city EVER, you are at a disadvantage 100% as you can’t hide your vulnerable lower section and will be easily one shot the second anything gets guns on you, while you however either have to 2 shot a russian tank taking the gun out first, or pray you hit lfp and fuel tanks don’t absorb everything or you die.
Devs reworking maps to remove these sniper posistions that nato tanks need to play around their advantages/disadvantages is not great though. We need map design that has both elements of urban and more open sections.
M1A1 HC eats a T-90A for breakfast.
In fact, the base M1 Abrams is a more META vehicle than the T-90A is, the T-90A is among the worst high tier MBT’s in the entire game.
That doesn’t matter, the T-90A has:
- Abysmal gun depression, gun elevation speed and atrocious turret traverse.
- Horrendous reverse speed, poor acceleration, no neutral steering and low top speed, both on and off roads.
- Slow reload rate, and will soon be further nerfed by the introduction of the autoloader.
- Terrible survivability due to exposed ammunition everywhere, only 3 crew and everything being packed like a can of sardines.
- Unreliable armour and easily exploited side armour that leads to constant one-hit-deaths.
- The only good things about it are it’s thermals, but there’s plenty of vehicles at even lower BR’s with 2nd gen thermals already, and it’s 3BM-60 APFSDS, but then again the T-80B with 3BM-42 already penetrates anything it can meet so there very little actual impact with the upgraded penetration.
The T-80B is a better vehicle than the T-90A, and the T-80B is a lower BR ontop of that. Besides, you could also buy the 10.0 T-80UD and essentially have the T-90A experience at a more favourable BR.
3 Likes
Off topic, but why is this a NATO tank thing? Russian tanks have demonstrated that their lack of gun elevation is a glaring weakness, and their lower front plates are far more vulnerable and a far more attractive target than that of most NATO MBTs. I believe these shortcomings are more prevalent in russian tank design than NATO tank designs.
Their lfp are not more attractive targets because of the angle, no tanks lfp is stopping anything tho. Gun elevation is a meme, what they lack in urban enviroments where infrantry exists is a remote weapon system for their commander. Getting out of the tank to man your pintel mount is suicide (wish WT modeled this).
Well I mean the only things Abrams has over the T-90A then is mobility and reload and gun depression and elevation. other than that it has got unreliable armor that is easily exploited at any angle at almost any point and being a gargantuan tank compared to T-90. so I mean yeah it is “worse” but then the abrams is also “worse” depending on how you look at it. I wasn’t saying T-90 is better I was just saying that if you don’t know how to kill a abrams then that is just as much a “skill issue” as not being able to kill a T-90
oh yeah HC also has less than ideal thermals
You haven’t clarified which M1 you’re talking about yet.
M1 Abrams or M1A1 HC?
So that’s the things that make vehicles well suited to the META. You realize that, right?
1 Like