He is a USA main who doesn’t even play anything else lol no point going any further with him bro
2 Likes
And any reasonable soul could deduce that a tank that has been fighting increasingly powerful threats wouldn’t rely on the same armor that would stop threats from 40 years ago. Why would DU sheets be only in the turret face? No source says that the armor is only in the turret face.
I don’t think you understand that almost every single modern tank is still running on a platform that’s 50+ years old.
You seem to berate the Russians a lot for doing it, but you do realize when the XM-1 (Abrams) project actually concluded?
The Abrams turret armor basically doubled, and its shells became twice as potent - coming over from the M1 Abrams to the M1A2. No hull armor upgrades were done en masse until the SEP V3.
Whatever sources you have that the M1A1 or any such older variant had additional hull armor are loosely written propaganda at best. Something that Americans seem to fall for extremely easily.
What basis do you have for the Abrams being upgraded? You say that it’s been “fighting increasingly powerful threats”? Such as? Export T-55s and early T-72s, along with the earliest RPGs, operated by sand people firing outdated ammunition, which the Abrams was facing while having absolute aerial superiority?
It doesn’t weigh any more than the Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2 (which weighs considerably more), yet you want it to have far more effective armor than them? Because… America has to be number 1? Please post a source for it having DU hull armor (pre V3) or spall liners, so that I may laugh - realizing that it’s not a technical document in any sense, and is basically a very loose interpretation of an article.
Hell - the community bug report for the Abrams “spall liner” is an article where it says the Abrams has spall liners, with an image underneath… of an Abrams interior without any spall lining at all…
The Abrams was upgraded fitting to what it was facing. Additionally, American doctrine focuses on being a “world police” with carriers and aircraft. You’ve played too many videogames and watched too many documentaries (literal propaganda) where the US is portrayed as being invincible in every aspect, and the Abrams portrayed as the best - when every Abrams tank was absolutely dumpstered whenever it faced equal forces, and not woefully under-equipped goat herders.
Again, you are welcome to post a SINGLE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT explicitly showing DU hull armor or spall liners on older variants of the Abrams. That has not been posted yet from hundreds of American mains that are just like you, a dime a dozen, after years of whining.
All that has been posted are articles teetering on pure propaganda that essentially write “the Abrams has DU in the turret (and hull), please trust me”. No thicknesses, no dimensions, no numbers. Nothing technical, and you’ll never find it - because it doesn’t exist. For the turret DU, it does. Therefore it was added, because it did exist.
For spall liners - they were even ready to accept PICTURES of a spall liner (do keep in mind that technical documents were posted for the Leopard 2A7 spall liners, which were used - so it’s not a matter of classification) - but there is not a SINGLE picture of an Abrams interior with actual spall lining, it’s all entirely bare welded metal across the entire interior. You went so crazy over that, that you started implying the Abrams has magical “internal spall liners”, which logically make no sense… Because the last layer of RHA in the interior would generate new spall…
So, you’re welcome to prove me wrong in a reply to this post. I’ll be waiting.
3 Likes
There may be a varied amount of unnacounted weight due to the army also implementing weight reduction modifications. Especially with the SEP v2 which was quite the weight jump, although the ERA is likely quite heavy like you said. There could be missing armor but that is more likely from improperly modeled efficiency of the armor than raw weight.
2 Likes
Well, yeah, maybe.
Do consider that there’s dozens, even hundreds of composite/ERA armors with improper efficiency in-game.
The T-55AM-1’s 100mm of metal-polymer block on the UFP is only 5mm effective and its UFP should be over 300mm vs KE, yet it isn’t.
The Challenger 2 TES ERA has almost the exact same effectiveness as the Centurion AVRE ROMOR ERA, despite being dozens of times thicker and heavier.
The Ariete’s 5.5 tons of WAR kit - which was designed to stop APFSDS rounds, and should be at least ~160mm RHA effective… is 20mm KE. Roughly 8 times weaker than its objectively weakest possible protection. (Calculated by taking the surface area of WAR kit, RHA’s density of ~7900kg/m3, giving us roughly ~160mm of armor that should be at least RHA-levels of protection against KE, WAR is currently modeled as ~160mm of “composite screen” with a KE modifier of ~0.1/0.2 despite the developers having modeled its 5.5 ton weight, an absolute insanity of impossible proportions)
The LeClerc AZUR kit is also way too weak against KE.
There’s tons of composite armors in-game that have lower KE values than RHA would for the same weight (it’s the most glaring issue with composite in-game), which is absolutely illogical. Even if a certain composite material was made to resist mainly chemical rounds, it still wouldn’t be weaker than an equivalent weight in RHA (that would make composite armors extremely inefficient), yet it is.
This can be seen for every nation, other than on the Swedish Strv 122Bs. Which have 100mm of “composite screen” which is actually 200mm KE effective. Which is an impossible over-efficiency, this is the only example of such a thing in-game.
So - it’s a game issue. It’s not an American issue. American tanks have their weight fully logically modeled. And the lacking protection is mainly in regards to the TUSK kit. Which is just one of dozens of similar kits lacking protection.
3 Likes
I dont think its a game issue when russian tanks dont have that problem.
Theyr era stops apfsds Just fine.
I can just copy/paste my previous response in which I address that.
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.
3 Likes
Do you really think the abrams was MADE to fight early cold war tanks and those early HEAT warheads solely? No. The M1A2 SEP was not made to fight insurgents and T-55s. It was made to fight modern russian foes, because the US has no reason to just be behind technologically.
Wanna let me know what wars the abrams got absolutely dumpstered in? And who operated these abrams?
Ah yes, once the US lands they’re completely powerless. They actually don’t even train troops to fight on land. Brother do you hear yourself?
M829A4 was not developed to penetrate middle eastern T-72s without ERA, What are you on? Any round they had did not even come close to the 400-something RHA penetration that the M1A1 HC had upgraded from. You’re completely biased if you think the US is arming its troops and vehicles to do no more than bully farmers with AK’s and RPG-7s.
Necrons was nice enough to give me evidence of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY providing armor upgrades to the M1A2 SEP, it’d be nice if you scrolled up to look at that.
Yeah because the United states has always been very open on how exactly all of its gear is made and its specs. What the fuck do you expect?
This does not apply to my argument. I’ve spoken to abrams crewmen. The tank doesn’t have a spall liner.
Theres no need to prove you wrong when your whole point is extremely biased and short-sighted. By your logic, the M1 abrams is largely overperforming by every metric. The M829A2 is far too strong, since it was just made to fight T-72s, and the armor is far too strong for the same exact reason. You’re so aggressive in your effort to show that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and you’re a victim of the propaganda you seem to vehemently speak against.
3 Likes
Because theres an armor upgrade between the late M1A1s, like the HC, and the M1A2? Thats the only logical gap tbh lol
Which means there is an upgrade from those tanks to the M1A2 SEP configuration, meaning they have different armor. This likely means the M1A1 HC, an M1A1, wouldn’t have the same armor profile like it does in game.
They said turret side, but didn’t specifically say turret front either. Whats your point?
Okay?
1 Like
What video game are you even speaking of lmao. My biggest influences are call of duty and battlefield, probably. You’d be hard pressed to see the US being portrayed as invincible in these games.
1 Like
This ToePunch guy is really coping hard huh?
He could’ve just said he was bad at the game but instead he’s insistent on blaming the more than adequate tools.
Shameful display.
3 Likes
Simple answer: It is American and the USA have always been an enemy of Russia. Thus the Abrams is made to suck by the Russian dev team out of pure spite and bias.
You wrote all of that, and yet none of it directly counters what I said.
What a low quality post.
Insurgents and T-55s/early T-72s is exactly what it fought for the entire duration of its service lifetime.
1 Like
No it doesn’t
1 Like
It fought them, but its not the enemy the designers had in mind when it was designed. You still havent given me examples of when the abrams was shit on in its fights against peer forces in US service.
Ironic, coming from you. You don’t need to respond to what I said, but it does not mean that it didn’t counter what you said. You don’t need to admit being wrong to still be wrong.
1 Like
This is just you changing the text to suit your narrative. Living in your own seperate reality and such.
This is further made clear by the fact that you’re leaving out the ‘‘M1’’ part and focus solely on the M1A1.
These documents also make extremely clear distinctions between M1A2 SEP, M1A2 SEP v2 and M1A2 SEP v3, etc.
If at any point they reference the M1A1 HC, they will specify ‘‘M1A1 HC’’ just like they do with the ‘‘M1A1 SA’’ or ‘‘M1A1 AIM’’.
If you still don’t understand why that’s relevant, then any discussion here is hopeless as I’m essentially talking to a brick wall.
Now that other users have also pointed out the fact that you’re a typical US main, the full picture here starts to make sense.
1 Like
He want to bring 9.3 T-72M with 3BM6, fill with some T-55A to fight with 11.7 M1A2 then proceed to proud for that record.
2 Likes
You guys are just delusional if you think the M1A2 was made to fight insurgents and soviet-era tanks.
1 Like
Conversely, other users have pointed out that you’re a NATO hater, and thats starting to make sense.
This just has nothing to do with what I said. If anyone is living in their own separate reality, its the guy who brings up a source that states a DU armor upgrade to the front of a tank, and somehow still thinks that means just “DU in the turret”.
1 Like