Ah, all old kgb pensioners like putin himself wouldn't even dare to imagine all high levels espionage they did in good old days replaced and rendered obsolete by bunch of nerds with classified documents to win arguments against another nerds.
the US clearly wont show the specifics of their main battle tank, however simply for game balance purposes its a bit wild that the abrams doesnt get any armor upgrades whatsoever nor does its era get upgraded or really add anything but a bigger silhouette while russian tanks get heavy upgrades all around. Not even considering the other nations that also get substantial armor upgrades. You can see how that seems unfair for US mains.
My favorite is the fact that DU doesn't do according the the Russians or Gaijin. Because the US just uses a more expensive material to get no benefit. Just like they cherry pick anything and everything they want to nerf something with the US star on it into rubbish. Looking at you M18.
@@Rururudenko DU is preferred to other metals, because of its high density, its pyrophoric nature (DU self-ignites when exposed to temperatures of 600° to 700° and high pressures), and its property of becoming sharper, through adiabatic shearing, as it penetrates armour plating.
Gaijin has introduced many many systems and protections to russian tanks that have been only tested for once or only prototyped. And these vehicles stand normally in the russian tech tree.
Yes, and those are individual vehicles, which i support for other tt's as well. so, if there is avariant of the abrams with du in the hull - add it. but that doesn't mean all other abrams variants have du in the hull.
What vehicles would those be? I can only think of the early APS (which were in actual use) they have, with the one off prototypes generally as special event or premium vehicles
@Svannuta T-80U with thermal one prototype ? may I ask for a source, even though, the thermal upgrade could be easily named T-80UE-1 if that was true, as T-80UE-1 is just T-80U with better FCS and optics
@@domaxltv Well we could start with the thermal sights on russian tanks which are stated to be gen 2+,3 even though only handful of those produced have that kind of imaginers.
The thing about the Abram’s and tankers is that even we don’t really know that much about the armor we just know that what evers in there can definitely stop a tank round
Abrams tankers might not know anything about their tanks. But every person with an opinion on the matter knows ten Abrams tankers who know everything about the Abrams.
if you were in desert storm and were hit by the dollar store T72 APFSDS than yeah. but i would be surprised if it could stop more modern shells as consistently. But then again its not like anyone knows how good the armor is
I'm a M1A2 gunner ATM, there's different tanks with either an M or U suffix for the v3 and the same was true when we had the V2s, as far as I can tell there's no difference between the tanks. Best guess would be whether the turret and the hull were originally mated to each other during initial production of the Abrams
@@СергейСердюк94 No. Just like any other tanks, its biggest nightmare is an artillery barrage. T-90M does NOT go tank hunting. It's a mobile protected direct-fire artillery piece, and is used as such: destruction of enemy fortifications. That's why it's loaded with primarily HE-FRAG ammo. That ammo is the reason for the infamous turret pop. NATO tanks don't carry that kind of ammo, though if they did, they'd pop just the same.
@@wantedpumpkin1446 Yes, in vast majority of cases to artillery barrage. Abrams would be stopped by arty and then penned by drones and killed. No need to send a T-90M against it when a Krasnopol and Kornet-M are plentifully available.
Listen all I’m saying is we were told to quarantine the tank and call hazmat if the following was punctured/cracked/penetrated: the UFP, LFP, Turret cheeks, and #1 skirts. I served on M1A2sep and sepV2. It’s possible that the order was put out for sepv2s and got applied to all tanks in service either out of negligence or secrecy. The weight has been constantly increasing across models. Sepv3 replaced about 8 tons of wiring with 3 tons of fiber optic yet is overall roughly 13 tons heavier than the previous model. Do with that information what you will.
It is absurd to think the US hasn't improved the hull protection of the Abrams since the 70s when it was first produced.....with how much the weight has increased there has to be more armor.
@@legogenius1667 Its frankly just Gaijin trying to pretend they care about realism when the answer is their own skewed sense of balancing the game. The real issue is the lack of spall liners, honestly. im fine with hull weak spots, although the UFP really should be harder to pen.
@@M3RUL3Z I'll second that. I really wish there was a true competitor game in the same niche as War Thunder which would force Gaijin to be less greedy and incompetent, and offer a less aggressively monetized option.
There is considerably more nuance to this discussion than this video brings out. I will not claim to have the answer to the armor changes in the Abrams hull if there are any for Sep V2 but there are more sources which could indicate there is than you brought out in this video. While I haven's seen anything definitive Gaijin simply dismissing hull armor changes does seem a bit silly especially when they admit that the Abrams is underperforming compared to other vehicles at its tier. Why not simply add the DU hull armor from one of the 5 examples we know for certain existed? Sure it may not represent the ones being fielded but that same argument can be made for the slew of prototype vehicles we see in-game. I don't see this drama as being caused by the Abrams itself but rather it is players who are sick and tired of seeing the devs seemingly bend the rules and accept questionable sources for some vehicles but for others they need a notarized letter from the factory that made them or else it isn't good enough. Transparency is good on their part but a consistent enforcement of their rules for source material would be much better in my opinion.
@@billlhooo6485 this is the main reason I don't like gaijins response. The tank has gained weight between the variants so clearly something is causing that increase. Some of it can be explained by add-ons externally and upgrade packages but several tons is not an insignificant amount of weight.
As a former Abrams tanker I've heard anecdotal evidence that the M1A2 Abrams has DU hull armor, reports from deployed tankers who report that hits to the hulls and even the side skirts of A2 and A2 SEP tanks required CBRN/HAZMAT responses and yellow material coming out of armored side skirts when they are hit. All were at least second hand statements however and I don't have a primary source from a tanker who took a hit themselves nor have I seen any instruction to do so in any manuals so take this with a grain of salt.
It's classified they are going to just put that info in a manual. Just serving myself if I need to k ow then that information will readily available if they deem individuals don't need to know then it won't be put out where anyone can read it. It will be put out that something is being used or not but if it's a secret that they want to keep close, then only those that need to know will know the specifics of said information. So second and 3rd hand sources ar going to be the best you'll get on such a topic.
@@cdgncgn I'll give you a big ole surprise there are certain people that are considered classified in different countries revealing their names can be a big ole jail sentence.
@@JAnx01 Technically, the US Government and Military isn't allowed to lie to a US Citizen. If someone applied for a freedom of information act pull on the armor composition of the M1A2 in reference to Depleated Uranium armor, the Government would have to provide the documents, now its no guarantee how much would be censored out, but it could prove that the abrams does have depleated uranium in the hull.
You all have it completely wrong, the M1A2 SEP V2 has ENRICHED uranium hull and turret inserts. The radiaton deflects APFSDS rounds, similar to ERA. Trust me, it came to me in a dream.
Not knowing the armor thickness and composition hasnt really been an issue for gaijin as we see on the leopard 2A7V, one of whiches main upgrade compared to the 2A6 and older is an improved frontal hull armor, yet in game the 2A7V still has the same armor there as the 2A6 😂
If it is, how come my Svinets doesn't pen it frontally? Not even the driver port is a killshot now as the sights just eats my 3BM60 or it slides into the turret cheeks.
@@pilotmanpaul Gaijin did indeed give it an additional armor wedge in the front, but in reality the whole internal frontal hull composite block should have been upgraded.
So I remember asking an instructor what the differences were between the first sep and the sep v3 and v3 and honestly he was pretty unsure himself but when you actually look at the tanks side by side which we had at basic as training tanks since different army units had different variants, and the size difference is insane, the v3 is huge in weight and thickness the v2 is a lot thicker than the normal sep as well, plus m829A4 is a thing id love to eventually as well.
Even if they didn’t place DU in the hull, they still most likely have increased the armor with regular armor packages, since the M1 already had plenty room within the armor section of the hull to increase the armor, it wont be noticeable difference outside. Otherwise the weight difference doesn’t make any sense at all. I don’t believe that 10 Tonns of mass came only from DU on the turret and new gun
@@olisk-jy9rzThe era is 1814kg alone, Plus there like protection, Better systems, Era plating and in SEPV1 mine upgrades etc, it only increased 7 tons from the original, 2 of which is from era, Plus APS, Plus crows, Plus IED systems, PLUS digital map interfaces, PLUS a better engine which is heavier, FLIR, tank-infantry phone, FBCB2 and blue force tracking, crew compartment cooling and more, You say DU ARMOUR DU ARMOUR, U have to be a moron to believe they would put DU armour in a tank so when u get hit u breathe in all those radiation particles and get lung cancer.
Whether the M1A2 and the sep versions have depleted uranium or not, it should still have reinforced armor, stated by a document by the secretary of defense. There is no way in hell the M1A2 and the sep versions use a hull directly from the M1 Abrams from 1980
@@Pechenegus Yes but all available data + logic shows that you still need to keep hull armor up to date. Modern APFSDS rounds can pass through several meters of dirt with little energy loss. So if you're hull down, a round could be shot low, go through the hill you're hiding behind, and penetrate your hull if it is not sufficiently armored. While the hull does not need to be as armored as the turret, saying its armor doesn't matter at all is crazy talk, and would never be accepted by any engineer or protection analyst, of which the US has many. There is zero chance, and I mean zero, that the SEP V2 still has the same armor package on the hull as the original M1A1 Abrams. Even without DU, it's been improved. New thermals don't weigh 10 tons.
The thing people seem to not understand is not every abrams has du armor and the ones with it are the exact same vehicle. It has no new name. Russia on the other hand literally has a nomenclature for every upgrade V (Explosive) K (commander) D (DROZD, Diesel) B (modified) U (heavily modified) (improved) M (modernized/Export) S (Export) For russia, there is no "one of them had it so all of them should" if a t-72 is different from the base model in any way. Its getting a different letter or an obr. By its name to we know what happened to it Example T-80B T-80BV T-80BVM T-80BVM Obr. 2016 T-80BVM Obr. 2023 T-72A T-72AV T-72S (M1) T-72B T-72B Obr. 1989g T-72B2 Rogakta T-72B3 T-72B3M obr. 2023
Exactly, it's especially true when every day Abram's are going through upgrades to better versions of hard/ soft ware or getting different packages installed
While you are correct about most of those letters, there's some confusion here as A, B and U are not related to 'modification' but rather which factory model it is, so if you look at the T-80 as an example, the base model is the T-80, however it was later upgraded with the B model, then later with the A model then lastly the U model, each one from a different factory, while the T-72 was first upgraded with the A, then later the B, but was never designed in the factory designated U. Also M means modernized in most times, but it can also mean export if it's an older vehicle such as the T-72M
@@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009 U means improvement. And it was only used only for the T-80 line. It's still technically a modification or an improvement because of the turret being completely redesigned and B is usually used to indicate a modification upon a the tank. The T-80B and T-72B both are up gunned and up armored versions of there base counterpart and A is typically used to designate the first change or an alternation between models (however whatever the fuck the ussr did in the 1970s with the T-80 made it confusing considering it goes T-80, T-80B, T-80A T-80AV (BV) and then U, where the fuck did U come from?? Like i understand The A was essentially the U but why?). Still don't know what E means though Essentially A,B,U are improvements upon early models to then be used as the basis for later modifications A usually is the earliest version, B is usually the next modification and U is innate to the T-80 for some reason
Hey Red, could you also consider a video about the Leopard 2A7Vs armor? There is a huge controversy about that as well. We (the community) believe the internal composite armor of the hull was upgraded and that the addon armor should be stronger. Currently Gaijin decided to not only keep the old hull armor (2A5, 2A6) but also make the front hull addon armor WEAKER than the Swedish one. Their thesis is based on the Swedish trials, which claim that the Swedish solution had better protection. Problem is that these trials are over 25 years old and the Swedish armor was also developed together with IBD Deisenroth. It just makes no sense to us that Germany would adopt a weaker additional armor package on the brand new 2A7V than what Sweden has been using for decades and what is essentially also a German development.
Look at the TT win rates for Germany compared to America most american a2 sepv2 players have 20-30% win rates whilst 2a7 players have 50-70% win rates (it also doesnt help gaijin keeps throwing premium abrams like the kvt or click bait into top tier america) the 2a7 already has the best armor in the game and has the controversial spall liner that stops most spall. I dont think the 2a7 needs the armor upgrade that the swedish got
oh boy how much of a crutch do you german mains need? Lepoard 2a7 is already the best tank in the game armor wise stops just about everything from the front
I was told by a friend that according to weight statistics alone that the armor is reflective of a difference in armor composition, especially seeing the spike in mass that youd attribute to heavier armor materials like DU. I had another unofficial claim years ago from an ex-abrams tanker who stated that they were instructed to bail from their tanks and destroy the Abrams if it was compromised due to the armor being DU, rather than recover it. They stated that DU acts similarly to composites and shatters, and that they were told by instructors that radiation was a concern if the hull was breached. Now from my knowledge DU isn't radioactive enough to cause long term harm unless it's embedded inside you, but again I cannot verify any if these claims regardless and there could be many other reasons, if true, to resort to destroying the tank rather than recover it because of the risk of the DU contamination.
Radiation might be a valid concern on armor breach because fine uranium dust from fragmented and powdered armor plates will fill the interior of the vehicle and the crew if alive will breathe it in, if the crew have gas masks with particle filters they might be okay, but if not that's guaranteed lung cancer.
@@resonance314 that is a good point, I assumed that there's a risk of DU shrapnel, but DU dust would be far more concerning since shrap can be surgically removed. Something else I was told is that apparently Gaijin had somewhat poor justification by stating that the Abrams chassis could not mount DU due to it's weight, but to be frank that hadn't stopped any tanks in WW2 and there's still the fact that the weight is what it is. I still think it's bizzare that all this controversy is over a game that very loosely simulates realism.
Uranium dust is a serious heavy metal poisoning and incendiary hazard, in addition to the (somewhat limited) radiation hazard. If it's compromised internally, bailing is a good idea in general. Saying "Radiation!" just gets the troops to move fast and not ask questions.
@@resonance314DU (as in, DU thats been shot at) is toxic only if you ingest it,its not radioactive,its similar to lead,it wont kill you just because you touched it, but if you dare eat acidic food on lead plates you're gonna suffer.
I'm inclined to think that there is some difference in protection between the the various Abrams hulls IRL, though I'm not sure it's DU. This is not based on any hard facts, but the M1, IPM1, and M1A1 all had the same hull data plates (every one I saw read "XM1"; the turret data plate on the A1 read "M1A1"), but the M1A1HA hull data plates read "M1A1". This implies some change to the hull itself for the HA models, even if that change is not DU. Regardless, if Gaijin can't find an excuse to adjust armor on the M1 series, they should adjust the BRs down. As stated in the video, the SEPv2 is a much older tank than other top tiers. Maybe it shouldn't be sitting at top tier. Another thing Gaijin might consider is giving US tanks their DUKEs. The US put CREW systems on everything that rolled to counter remote-detonated IEDs, but they also jam out drones that fly within their radius. It's part of the TUSK package, so any in-game tanks with it should have a denial radius for drones.
Something that has been largely missed in all this is that the BRL-2 armor co-developed by US/UK was implemented on M1A2, which SHOULD give up to 550mm protection in the LFP.
I don’t even play US, but in the 2nd document, even though it said only 5 hills with DU inserts exist, wouldn’t it be fine to still give them it? I mean, a bunch of trees have vehicles that aren’t production models, either only have 1 prototype, or just plans. (2S38 for example). I’m a Japan main, but I’ll also still use their vehicles as an example. F-16AJ, R2Y2 series, and the Ho-Ri series. They just straight up do not exist irl, and yet they’re still ingame. I really don’t see why this is a big deal
Does it mean that the M242 is a bad gun? M791 is a bad shell? You can’t take it on board from 20-30 meters with two barrels, after flying over the FPV tank, the repelled anti-tank gun and the tank were stopped only by the reverse gear and a tree? Yes, even a tree had a better chance of stopping a T-90M than a Bushmaster =) Better look at how a 2A4 is stopped from a kilometer away by a 2A42 cannon, that’s where the power is 💪 And most importantly, all the operators were in place and didn’t run anywhere =) But you know What didn’t the Russians see on the battlefield? M1A1, as it were, has already captured 120,000 in 4 months of the offensive of the Russian Federation and repulsed 8,000 in 15 months of the counter-offensive of Ukraine. And the reason? Russia doesn’t know how to fight, we watch the video, and there they kill Russians, they can’t do anything against the West, intelligence is free 24/7, radio intelligence, there are no factories, and they just supply weapons, I can’t understand anything, how the Russians manage to always receive from everyone, never be able to do anything, everything is worse for them, and they come to Berlin, and they seize 120,000 kilometers of Ukraine or 20% of the territory. Can you imagine if you give them brains and good weapons?
The larger issue here is that Gaijin will take some BS source, give it two seconds and make a change immediately to a Russian vehicle. Meanwhile, NATO vehicles are required to provide a resource just short of classified documents, but not classified and even then, those sources are stated as unreliable.
@@byzantinehoney3384 For ages Russian MBTs straight up did not model spall. It was an on or off value that Gaijin literally had turned off for Russian tanks. This isn't reddit cope, these are verifiable facts.
lol, it’s hilarious someone is trying to dispute the OBVIOUS Russian bias in this game and the OBVIOUS cutting the nato (US in particular) short. It’s legit not even possible to debate this, it’s a fact that everyone with a brain knows.
What’s the real issue is, the LFP hull armor when angled its NERA elements disappear or something. Because if it’s at minimum (LFP) 390mm LOS, when angled vs the 3bm60 in game at 60 degs impact angle, it still goes through and shrapnel flies off 60 degrees into the driver’s face… Idec if we get DU inserts because head on that would only protect you at very long range, or against early APFSDS’ that you don’t face in the end game scheme of things. But I’d at least like to be able to angle, peak a corner, have them bounce off like they used to do when the hull at or wasn’t bugged, and come around and blast them in the face. Not have my entire driver get spiked by a shot that magics its way through 390mm - 420mm at 60 degs.
The NERA and composite values are the overall thickness of the materials combined. Really, only the RHA and like 50% of the NERA is useful as kinetic protection (300mm flat, 400mm at 45°) Material matters more than thickness, which is why the ceramics are better at chemical protection and only decent with kinetic rounds
@@Goddamndan200It won’t happen if a building is blocking my side armor. You don’t know what side scrapping, or front scrapping is. So don’t speak on topics you have no knowledge of which I speak of. Furthermore interesting language, maybe it’s your activity schwallow rods on a Saturday. Don’t project that on me good fellah. If you’re the gumbo to try to shoot through a building that can’t be shot through to hit side armor, then when that guy peaks the corner to blast you. Don’t complain. You were the goof ball who thought that was a bright idea.
people complaining about armour thicknesses and other boring stuff when real ones know what really matters is that sep v2's tile armour makes it by far the drippiest abrams to date
We (as gamers) should really get its turret ring spot REDUCED (which WAS artificially made bigger as a reaction to the Abrams being extremely strong vs the T-64Bs, and Leopard 2Ks which were the only other top tier tanks in game when it was first introduced). *IRL there is no neck extending the turret up, it’s time to fix that (it’s way beyond time LMFAO). I care about that more than the LFP armor (aside from the fact it has a bug that causes the Composite inside the LFP to disappear when hit at an extreme angle and kill the driver).*
You don't seem to be aware you don't need an exposed turret ring to have it damaged. Try playing german panzers, they all have nonexistent turret ring neck and even an additional deflector around the turrett, yet any round that pens in that zone will insta lock the turret turning the turret ring black. Classic example of low skilled or clueless players complaining about things they don't even understand.
Googled M1A2 SEP and the ring is indeed exposed just as is in the game. Same tiny area too but doesn't really matter when your Dart slides right up to it.
Exactly. RedEffect is ultimately a Vatnik and has always had a huge raging hardon for Soviet/Russian equipment. The original NRC document was edited for publishing and only allowed to admit the known trainer models that were already commonly known to be out in the wild. At 2006, all of the tanks in production would already have been in active service and were standard, modern equipment at the time so the world of the day becomes disinformation. Meanwhile, when someone writes something in Russian on a napkin, Gaijin puts it in game and RedEffect is simping and championing it.
@@karakarakiri9568 And? There are a ton of Russian lovers in the US. Where you live means nothing. The guy's video history overwhelmingly fluffs Russian hardware to a disgusting degree.
I was a tank operator in the 90s with the M1A1s. The Army used to tell us that the depleted uranium armor hauls were not sold to foreign countries. Basically, the American M1A1 heavy common is only made for the U.S.A. and Canada. Foreign countries who buy the tank get a cast iron hull. The depleted uranium hull could take any MBT round to the front and survive (at least in the 90s). I've seen T72 rounds stick to front hull like ladder steps. Of course you can still shoot the exhaust vents in the rear with a 50 cal or better and disable the tank. BTW. For you infantry men out there, you cannot kill the crew by shooting into NBC port on the side with your pistol. I've herd that so many times.
while i love shitting on russia, they did disable the optics and the crew rammed a tree and bailed. so..yes...it was out of combat, but it didn't get penetrated or destroyed
@@thecursed01 Where I come from that is called a mission kill. Tank was also later destroyed. So that means that Chadleys destroyed a T-90M. I never said that they penetrated them, and I think a lot of the comments similar to mine are saying the same thing… but salty Russians are just assuming that means they Bradley’s penetrated the tank. Trying to make a formula for “Bradley’s did this, crew did this, tank did this and drone destroyed tank” is just a long winded way of saying “Chadley’s schwacked a T-90M”
The thing is I still highly doubt whether DM 23 is going to go through the lower front plate like it does in game from a kilometer and a half. I also did find a source for the abrams having a spall liner but it never said anything for the U.S. abrams but for the M1A2S and M1A2T. I am really sick of gajin adding really modern tanks, like the sepv2 or really any abrams, these tanks are heavily classified and we as people who aren’t in the military don’t know what the armor of the abrams is and or where it is. Even the only abrams on public display at the museum I volunteer at isn’t even a truly accurate to what kind of believe is the M1A1HA configuration as all the DU and classified armor was removed and instead the prototype turret for the M1A1 was placed on top. The things are heavily classified
@@mach533xwhat variant of an Abrams, was it a regular M1A1 because if so than yeah, if it was a M1A2 or a HA than probably not, I also think that the account hit the side or rear
@@mach533x their are only 2 reported incidents of that getting used to successfully damage an Abrams and the only one that hit the turret hit the side of the turret and not the cheeks. the other shot hit the lower rear hull of a different tank.
I tried to visit there earlier this year but ran out of time. Just to see the M1-A1 on display. Its very close to the one I served on in 1991. And yes still VERY classified, the armor alone is a nightmare if lost or cracked open. The closest clue i can share with you about Du and its usages, is the high rate of cancers in Abrams crewmen.
@@mach533x You are probably referring to an abrams that got immobilized by an SPG-9 recoilless rifle, and incapacitated by firing M830A1s on the side of the turret, and a hellfire on its turret cheeks during Thunder Run circa 2003.
I wish you could cover the situation regarding the Leclerc's armor in the game. It's so weak in it's current implementation that 105mm M735 can penetrate it's UPF. The fact that Gaijin is using a swedish test document showing trails against Leclerc batch 1 (which has worse armor than batch 2 and S1) is very frustrating for us France players. It would be like Gaijin telling us the M1A2's armor is shit based off of a document showing armor tests against XM-1 prototype.
Well, the UFP is not really protected by much composites, according to the armour viewer, so it kinda makes sense that just about anything penetrates it, just like the Abrams front plate... I mean, if you have reliable documents about the protection then you can send it to Gaijin, most of them should have around the same protection because, well, they weigh around the same
It's even worse. France (just like the US with the Abrams) kept their armor classified for the swedish trial. So, the swedish use the Leopard 2 armor scheme to extrapolate both US and french armor. Which of course was wrong, because both US and France used more modern and compact armor scheme.
honestly I think a better addition would have been the M1A1 thumper testbed/prototype armed with the XM291 cannon, afterall the 140mm cannons were intended for use and had the cold war gone on its very likely they would have start being filtered down sooner or later, hell france if i recall correctly is still kinda batting around the idea of arming their Leclerc tanks with one even today and it wouldnt be over powered since the turret of the Thumper was onpar with the M1A1/2 (not sure which) while offering much better effect on target and while im not sure we can assume getting declassified info on the 140mm performance or doing FOI requests on it would be easier to get ones hands on then getting the M1A2 sepV3 armor layout from reliable and useable sources
@@williewilson2250 honestly I have no idea if I recall correctly you can place the request no matter how old something is, I think that the 50/60 year thing is when the files become declassified on their own but I could 100% be wrong even then I think you'd have a better chance getting the US army to declassify info related to the thumper project then the current M1 models
As per Gaijin not adding M829A3 because they believe it won’t make a difference in top-tier, I believe they were meaning against Relikt ERA from the Rank 8 T-90M and T-80BVM. Those are true top-tier presently. T-72B3M, T-80U, T-80UK, T-90A, T-90S etc., with Kontakt-5, are technically no longer top-tier because they are Rank 7 and not Rank 8. This means their statement holds true, as Relikt performs 50% better than Kontakt-5.
@@good_praxice1588I totally agree. They play as though they’re Rank 4 Germany, believe they’re invulnerable with tiny weak spots. The Abrams was designed to be used in hull down positions because the hull armor being its weakness. Hence, due to the weight budget/restrictions, DU was applied only to the cheeks.
They're the greatest example of *the boy who cried wolf* whenever they reverse obviously acoustic nerfs people have complained about for years 😂 Hence why people are complaining and how they have the momentum to shoot down dev claims *(excuses)* for shit like clay pigeons ❤
I agree with the concept of adding tanks and aircraft that we don't have accurate sources for and just trying to estimate the armor and performance and best as possible. We've reached a point in war thunder where there's few vehicles left to implement where we know everything about, add them with estimated values then just adjust those values as they become available. No one wants to wait 20 years for the m1a2sepv3 armor package to become publicly available. The main purpose of war thunder is enjoyment, realism should only be considered when it adds to that or at least doesn't reduce it.
There are still a lot of vehicles from early cold war and WW2 that still haven't found their way into the game yet they could add but Gaijin want's to add flashy things that make click bait titles and headlines. Pretty sure the F-16 was added so quickly to the game because its all over the news due to a certain conflict in eastern Europe at the moment.
Only time it really gets annoying is when armchair tankers online start arguing that x tank is actually better than y tank because these War Thunder stats say so
They could easily add tanks like the XM800, XM723, tow/dragon variants of m113, stryker tow variants, m249 vigilante (might have this wrong), the Knight Systems armored gun vehicles, the CATTB, thumper, Sheridan up armored version used in desert storm... and probably a few I am forgetting. Just for the US alone. There's a ton for Britain and France. A few more for Russia. US and Russia both had crewless turret prototypes that were cool. Tons of stuff left to do.
@@dominuslogik484 they have to add top tier stuff, lots of the original players (me included) have already researched pretty much everything in game, they could add 50 ww2 vehicles and I'd have the researched in a month.
Also another point, if they can add T90M and base it off of previous tank in its line. Why cant they do that for Sep V3. Like that's actually cancer. Abrams turret protection is already pretty good, Gaijn can take their idea of what the Sep V3s armor in the hull would be and upgrade it as they do for Russian MBTs. Its such a clear "I hand hold USSR" Kinda deal its not even funny.
agreed Gaijin is a russian company so there for: russia BEZT in DA WOrLd Armor iz made out of Stalins Mustache Putins Soul and the Sweat of Socialist hard Working comrades.
@@gavinj243 you would be the dense genius to tell me I didn't do something when I did. My point is still valid genius. How about you read what I said again and come at it with a better perspective.
They hand hold USSR so much the Leopard 2A7V and STRV 122B+ PLSS dominates Top Tier with ease. Meanwhile France Top Tier has better W/D than US Top Tier.
The 5 tanks at the school are only there for long term health studies. All M1A2 production tanks have the full DU armor and all M1A1 tanks have been upgraded to the same DU armor package.
@@IzakSemrdoii If you dig far enough through government budget reports you can find that they have been consistently ordering DU for both the turret and hull. Also new thermals are not 10 tons.
Abrams doesn’t have a discrete spall liner. The spall liner is usually a layer of Kevlar applied to the inside face of the armor plate before it is sealed.
I think they don't want to add a new top tier shell for the US for the same reason they don't want to add ofl 120 f2, the algorithm that makes the calculation for the penetration of shell is just showing no difference or maybe it's just for "balance".
Ngl, the only difference i would see as acceptable is that it would be needed to make a different penetration algorythim for them since they react differently from normal apfsds, but outside of that its full on lazyness
The current calculation is very basic, yup. It cannot account for advanced features like break away tips which would significantly improve the performance of a shell like M829A3 against ERA. they could make a whole new system for this or just add a blanket modifier to certain shell types vs ERA protection, same way ERA has differing values for KE and Chemical munitions in game. Saying "it has no difference" is just them saying "we won't change how the game works right now, stop asking". I figure it's the same with the M1 series armor. The community over the years has provided plenty of evidence that the hull should have appx 500 to 650mm RHA protection vs KE threats. Gaijin doesn't see it as a needed change for the current state of the game. It's just a shame they hide that fact behind denying perfectly credible documents.
The only way to find out is to go against a latest and greatest Abrams tank. Nobody outside of a very, very small circle of Top Secret Need to Know group will ever know.
First I've heard of Depleted Uranium armor on an Abrams. I was only aware of Chobham composite armor, with Explosive Reactive Armor add on packages such as the TUSK package.
Short answer, no. Long answer, Gaijin has multiple public sources (some of which they specifically mentioned) that confirm the hull armor of Abrams has been improved. Even some Russian sources they used confirm that. Gaijin doesn’t want to add it however and instead say the several tons of increased weight is due to wiring, which isn’t possible. They specifically cherry picked lines from their sources to better fit their agenda. They also said they can’t add it even if they confirmed it has it, unless they have specific armor protection values. Really trying to bait leaked documents.
@@sauce1542 yes, a single source in which they cherry picked sentences out of. That’s ONE source from 2006 when the subject wasn’t yet declassified. What about all the other sources he didn’t cover that prove there is in fact increased hull armor in the SEP and SEPv2 that people have brought up?
@@bobh9492thats because they pulled out ALL the wiring and updated it. If you add literal tons of wires to an already existing vehicle without changing it, yeah that doesn't seem right
T-80U for example gets thermal ingame while in reality it never had thermals only on a prototype. God forbid gaijub gives a western tank the same treatment.
The thermals on T-80U were implemente in limited numbers, and as far as I know, its literally directly swappable between the nonthermal and thermals night vision sights
The T80s that have thermals are the T80UM, T80UK and T80BVM All of these are actually modern versions so they do get the thermals. Also, the T80U becomes a t80UM when you get thermals. And the thermals on the t80uk are only first gen so who cares...
The amount of internet angst about this game is just……just a perfect representation of the modern era. Enormous amounts of energy dumped into something that has absolutely no real additive benefits to society other than keeping antisocial neckbeards occupied doing something other than shooting up elementary schools. The brand loyalty…the egos…the delusions and propaganda…..beautiful.
Remember, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission document comes from 2006, before the Sep V2 was fully rolled out. It is more than possible they were testing things. The real thing could certainly be fitted with increased armor. Even if it was only five tanks, that should be reason enough, as very few Russian T-80Us and BVMs were fitted with thermals. Also, there are almost certainly spall liners; they were vulcanized/melted into the interior lining.
hundreds of T80s recieved agava thermals, every BVM has one. He literally said a spall liner being inside the armor makes no fucking sense as spall forms AFTER the shell penetrates the armor. are you listening with your anus?
@@meezo9980 well, the abrams premium is new, so people flocked to it, when the premium leo or t72 were added things were similar in germany and russia to what usa is seeing now
Exactly this. So many people in AIMs and Clickbaits that leave after 1 death. Meanwhile when I explode in my T-90M or Leopard after 2 mins, I switch to another tank and go on my merry way.
To be fair we have only been using the abrams against guys in sandals with rusty AKs for the last 20 years so it makes sense why it’s not protected as well against the most modern tank rounds we haven’t had to worry about it nobody has the balls to try it except guys in sandals and dresses
@@altacc0604 No, what the video said is we don't have a specific source indicating that sepv2 definitely had DU hulls. So the author of the video doesn't believe any exist. His arguments against the first source is decent. The other source indicated there were 5 tanks that had it, at a training ground (read: testing facility for implementation). His retort was that he didn't believe it was wide spread because unnamed sources who have been in the tanks didn't believe it to be true. Anyone in a tank isn't going to know the exact composition of materials that make up composite armor. Just because a tank commander says it does or doesn't have it means not a whole lot. Composite armor is still very much a classified thing. We do know, per the video, that there definitely was five tanks at one point in time that had DU hulls. The tank crews would be told that they have a composite armor with steel, ceramic and a sandwich of materials that make up the armor. Because it's one thing to give a tanker a chunk of money to get info from them. It's another thing entirely to give an engineer enough money to get info from them. Not that it doesn't happen. But there's a lot more tankers floating around than there are engineers who work on the armor comp.
@@SlavicCelery you does make sense. tank armour is generally heavily classified so its hard to get decent information on them. the crew could very well be told there is no du but they actually couldn't know if that is true. So rn the general public no one knows if the mass deployed abrams have du or not
@@altacc0604 Pretty much. The real beef with WT is the fact there was 5 tanks (per a source) listed with DU hulls. But that's not enough for them. They will do many other prototypes of other tanks. What's stopping them from introducing the DU hulled "prototype"? All that said, going back to the prior point of Tankers not knowing the hull composition - consider a grunt knowing about explosives in depth. It's not in the job description. Knowing that something is RDX or Composition 4 is one thing. It's a whole other ball of wax knowing how to make the stuff. Most explosives aren't even classified. Just because you're blowing up stuff doesn't mean you know exactly the chemical compounds are in use. You should know the general blast effects, but effects are not the building blocks of the creation of the material. Similarly, knowing you got some bomb ass composite armor and knowing what's in it, are very different.
it should be noted that the chart shown in 0:28 is user made and could be biased. not to mention that different server locations have different players that could be doing more or less good
I totally agree its not accurate and shouldnt be used to say if a nation is weak or strong, however in this specific case there seems to be truth to it because gaijin randomly increased most abrams rof by 30% recently
You can literally see multiple nations with much worse vehicles at the same tier outperforming the US, because US players, despite honestly having some good tanks and planes, just don't know how to play the game because it is many people's 'default' choice when starting out in the game, and US tanks at top tier play nothing like they do leading up to it
The problem encompasses a combination of various issues. I don't see upgrading the hull armor as properly mitigating anything, because at the top tier, armor isn't as crucial compared to speed and firepower. However, I will propose an opinion that could potentially alleviate some of the current issues with the Abrams. In the game, every tank has weak spots, such as the breach, driver's port, lower front plate, etc. My suggestion is for Gaijin to make the driver's port on the Abrams a non-weak spot, while keeping the horizontal turret drive as a weak spot. This adjustment would give the Abrams a better chance in frontal engagements. Of course, if tanks use their best APFSDS rounds, there should still be some damage inflicted, but not to the extreme of instantly incapacitating an Abrams. While this modification may not be entirely realistic, it would introduce a unique playstyle for the Abrams, where hitting the driver's port wouldn't result in an instant kill or disablement of the tank, addressing a critical need.
Meanwhile, the T-90M, devoid of normal armor, and its speed in the game is 60 kilometers, when in reality on the ground it travels 80 kilometers. When the same Abrams can't travel more than 50 kilometers on the ground, and because of the weight and Gushents, we have a reload time of 7.1 seconds when you have 5.0 seconds.
devoid of normal armor? What do you expect, the Russian doctrine is to R&D world leading ERA applique to the tank, and gaijin chose to ignore the M829A3, made to defeat modern russian ERA. Also for speed, really? Gaijin doesn't model road surfaces properly. Neither the M1 or T90 are pushing past 50km/h offroad. Secondly, any tank's top speed on road is achieved slow enough to the point that most warthunder maps have 1/2 roads that would accomodate those top speeds. Lastly, any tank with a spall liner> any tank without in WT, despite the abrams possessing Spall liners in the armor plate IRL.
@@haythemsandel8303 "and any future ERA". While you could still assume through classified info that Relikt can defeat A3, it'd be even harder to justify if defeating M829A4. Im fine with keeping Russian protection levels for balance sake. But with how unbalanced top tier is, Gaijin's game is currently both unrealistic and unbalanced. There's a reason it's considered a worthless cesspool filled only by morons and meta slaves.
91 tons? What? This not only creeps at Maus weight, does this thing come with portable bridge in tow as it will easily break 95% of not rail bridges virtually everywhere...
can you make a video about that T-90 vs Bradley video. A lot to unpack, and it seems like the damage was done by more than just the 25mm on the Bradley. Possibly an FPV drone as well or an ATGM? Either way, it's one of the most drawn out armored vehicle/tank combat videos I've seen come out of Ukraine. As generally first shot wins and that's that, but it looks like either incompetence or damage to the optics lead to the T-90 being unable to take out the Bradley, and without infantry to support it. Also there seemed to be a lot of other combat going on in the video, from what looks like a rocket artillery barrage in the top right corner at one point near the tree line. as well as some mortars or artillery shells dropping in the middle right part of the observed area (possibly called in by the Ukrainians to attempt to hit the tank?), and also what looks like some small arms fire on the left side of the shot as well. Either way, your thoughts would be appreciated and it seems like a video that's right up your alley.
War thunder moment. I once used AA SPG autocannon to attack tank weak points in the War Thunder mobile. In real life autocannon is lethal against tank side armor
The funny thing about WT players is they cry about the tank "not being on spec" when they never play the tank in its intended doctrine. Like, the DU in hull is not present in most if not all Abrams, since it never was meant to fight with the hull exposed.
@@pacus123 russia lost over 450 vechiles since the start of Avdiivka offensive, lost it's landing ship, first nation to lose awacs a50 plane. But Ziger copes about 9 damaged bradleys which were recovered for the repairs later. It really sounds you have none good news, do you?)
So basically all this drama is because abrams doesn't have a tougher lower plate?? Do people not get how useless that would be haha... Abrams has a weak ass roof of a driver's compartment that will always get penetrated alongside under the gun neck area. Shooting the lower plate never did anything to begin with, apart from killing the driver.
So they were wrong about Gaijin only adding spall liners to the T-90M, they were wrong about the Abrams having spall liners, and then they were wrong about DU armour just being commonly accepted knowledge as if the sky were blue. What will they complain about next?
@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 why would people be wrong for pointing out the t90m shouldn't be the only tank to get spall liners? Its a terrible balance decision
The Abrams armor should reflect 1650mm RHA for the skirts and fenders. It’s armor was upgraded on m1a1 and so on. I’ll make sure to upload the right classified docs for gaijin to fix this
Giajin spies looking for technical data to provide to Putin and company. The Armor has been present prior Desert Storm and tanks that took damage were covered up so no one could see the layers if they were exposed. Since it took hits from T-72 and survived this proves the Armor was superior. The hulls was never part of a DU armor upgrate, this is why the exterior armor was added along the hull.
bruh getting hit from a iraqi t72 isnt surprising or crazy. if the abrams were t72bs it would have been the same result. the iraqi t72s couldnt even pen their own downgraded export armour array.
Buddy 🤦♂️ even in the Iraqi’s case, they didn’t have the rounds to back up the tanks. They only had 3BM3 and 3BM4 APFSDS rounds, which were outdated for the time. Russia doesn’t export their top end APFSDS rounds
@@thisismyshitpostingaccount5991 How the fuck did they stick 115mm apfsds into 125mm guns? they had 3BM9, 3BM15, and 3BM17 in their stockpiles (all of which were training rounds in the USSR)
@@magnum6763 My bad, I meant 3VBM3 and 3VBM4, which are the penetrators. They're used in the 3BM9/10 and 3BM11 projectiles, respectively. But you're right, they did have up to 3BM17 books.google.ca/books?id=yFu1CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=soviet+apfsds+ammunition+iraq&source=bl&ots=TX8jYUmdDc&sig=lNPsVKmFOIf0H2kYW8bc4-2PbFA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=soviet%20apfsds%20ammunition%20iraq&f=false
So really what players should advocating for is either the addition of M1A2 School Model fitted with DU or a name change from M1A2 SEP V2 to M1A2 School Model (or something similar).
what red affect didnt mention is the license that mentioned only 5 abrams we DU hulls was amended a few years before SEP v2 entered service to remove any limit on the number of hulls
@@anotheralpharius2056Except that either of the amendments brought up don't actually say anything about removing the limit of 5 hulls nor do they mention any SEP V2s getting them. The SEP V2 just never had a DU hull.
@@AceTheMM what do you mean they dont say anything about removing the limit of the 5 hulls, what part of "amended in its entirety to read" do you not understand, being the following page does not include a limit of 5 hulls the limit was removed
I remember when Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen with their Abrams' and some were shocked when the Saudi Army drove their Abrams through a narrow valley and were slaughtered for being in a very narrow kill box. Too many think that the Abrams' armor is undefeatable for some reason, even from the side.
I am sure all tanks would fail that it sounds more like a issue on the tankers then the tanks there a reason tanks try to stay out of urban areas and especially where your surrounded you will get killed very fast
lol thinking Saudi have the same abrams the US has is insane. US only sells its shit variants or variants that are not considered peer threat. Same thing happens with planes, we also tend to strip our stufff out of armor and planes before we give them to others. Hence why other nations have F16's but they do not have the same block or radar's that the US uses.
As you noted the internal walls of the Abrams are just metal. However the chobham array of armor are backed by Kevlar so it goes: outer hull, chobham array, kevlar, inner hull
The SEP V2 should get the DU upgrade just on the grounds of sharing the M designation on serial numbers for balance purposes. As stated in the video the other nations of the "Big Three" in war thunder are currently running their most modern vehicles, and Britain of all nations has something they dont even have in standard service yet. The least that could be done is increasing the playability of the existing end of the line Abrams. Then, when the V3 is added, the V2 should retain the upgraded armor. Regardless of whether or not Gaijin has reliable information regarding armor values, they have shown in the past that they arent afraid to just make something up until a later date. I dont see why this is any different. They really kicked the hornet's nest on this one, and I hope they learn from their mistakes.
Tell me if I'm wrong, I ask around and the best answer i got was. Real spall liners have to be at least 2 cm from the armor, so they are mostly done around Ammo but the liners in the tanks are mostly there for spall mitigation, so the don't prevent Spall they only stop it from bouncing around in the tank.
Virgin Big "3" mains : OUR ARMOR IS NOT REALISITC WE NEED LEAKS PLS GAIJIN BUFF REEEEEEEE Chad Minor nation Mains : Our armor is weak because its top secret but thats okay im more skilled at the end the day "pull out a 10 K/D"
Hey red, it was my understanding that the document which limits the du inserts to only 5 hulls had an amending document which changed that number to as needed/unlimited. I’m pretty sure I saw this doc but maybe I’m wrong. I also recall there being talk about Russian mod armor estimates which put the abrams at a much higher amount than currently in game but that source was rejected because it was Russian. Any truth behind any of that? I just find it unlikely that the hull armor never saw any improvement from the very first model after all this time. You’re telling me material science hasn’t gotten any better since the 80’s? I mean this is the most funded military in the world and they couldn’t improve the armor at all? Idk just doesn’t seem likely.
Gaijin is wrong about all American weapons, because American weapons are not balanced around a video game. War is not fair, and if Gaijin presented US weapons and tactics the way they exist in real life no one would ever play anything else but the US trees. The only example Gaijin has on the Abrams is the export variant, probably the M1A1SA, the type sent Ukraine. This is not representative of the latest version of the Abrams. How bad is Gaijin at getting US weapons right? Well, let’s start with publicly available information. First, the Abrams-from the very first version of it-has a fully integrated computerized fire control system that computes all ballistic concerns for a given shot. All the gunner has to do is put the reticle on the target and keep it there. It doesn’t matter how fast the target is moving, the fire control system will compute range and lead and automatically elevate the gun and traverse the turret for a very chance for a first shot hit. The Abrams has a literal aim bot. Gaijin left it out. Strike one for Gaijin. And then there’s the Apache. Warthunder has the Longbow Apache, the AH-64D, but the Longbow system isn’t just a helicopter. The Longbow system includes the Longbow Hellfire and its accompanying Longbow radar. The AH-64D therefore is able to acquire targets behind cover and engage them without having to leave cover. Gaijin left this out. Strike two. And then there is the TOW missile. TOW stands for Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided. It isn’t spoofable. There are no counter measures you can use against it that work. Even if you pop smoke its IR tracker is going to find you. The shooter is guiding the weapon, it only misses if he fucks up. The T-90’s IR dazzlers are somehow able to disrupt Gaijin’s interpretation of the TOW. Strike three. This isn’t even a debate. America is so goddamned OP you can’t make a fun game around it that isn’t about it specifically.
1. Pretty much every modern tank has that. 2. Lots of nations have fire-and-forget missile systems. 3. Shtora-1 is a Electrico-optical/infrared jammer which means it can easily jam TOWs. (newer missiles are immune to this tho).
Yeah Abram did have armor in the hull why is the weight increase then if we keep the same hull armor throughout the the service it doesn't make sense. The armor increase in the m1a1 and m1a2 variants. Its just that gaijin is getting there sources out of there asses and full up into Russian propaganda. I seems RedEffect sources are based on some baseless claims that doesn't mean it has or not has. The spall liner in the Abram did have it like the m60 tanks and other. If we want real stats I just ask the US military if the Abram has DU in the hull or a pressure a congress member that the Abram has du in the hull.
Don't leak any Abrams info lads, Think of who is going to gain the most from that happening and the countries currently using them to defend themselves from invasion.
So, given the fact that there has been instances where the us army have had to blow up their own tank and they tried firing all the different types of at rounds and the rounds didn't go through the armour at all. This is on the M1 variant and on the M1A1 variant too. And both if not all the tanks have had reports of radioactive readings. So yes, the armour is composed of DU the problem is that very few people know of how much and in what kind of sandwich it's in the combination of. And given gaijin is a Russian company they would love to know that. But the fact is that currently as things stand there is no tank fired tank round in the world that can pen the Abrams tanks. All the current rounds in use all over the world has been tested on the armour. All short of the experimental round's and top secret round's of course. And yes, this is all readily available info. So gaijins problem is mainly the fact that if they are going to implement the right armour rating only atgms can take out the Abrams tanks and that's from top attack mode. Anything frontal direct on the armour is stopped. There was some rumours of the German leopard having a round that allegedly could pen the armour but that's never been publicly confirmed and the rumours are just rumours.
According to task and purpose the armor is a laminate of: ceramic top layer, steel, empty cavities to catch spall/ inside the diesel fuel tanks, then another layer of steel and finally what ever interior liner they may have. This peice of equipment is all about crew survivability. There may not be a spal liner but Abrams has been defeating squash warheads for decades now. Hope that helps, Gaigen delivers a minimum viable product like most game companies, so they do what makes sense to their pocket book.
Look, this is easy.. All of the hulls were built between 1979 and 1985. They didn't go back and add anything to the armor. What they have done over the years is add protective packages to the outside of the armor. That's it.
only 3,273 Abrams tanks were manufactured between those years, there are over 10,300 Abrams tanks currently around today, the math isn't adding up, I think they made Abrams hulls for longer than just 6 years
Good video No solid evidence of DU in the hull front. Solid evidence of other upgrades from the Original M1 with the armor package accepted into service in 1978. Total weight simulators look like about 50mm of steel by the time the M1A2 Sep entered service. Placed about 600mm in front of the backplate in relation to the Torson bars where it would rest suggests a simulating a weight of about 75mm. There is probably a new NERA and ceramics package designed against at best rounds like the 3bm-42 with a priority against more advanced heat warheads. From what I have been able to tell, the US army doctrine suggests that infantry with powerful ATGM like the Kornet or RPG-29 were more likely to be a threat as when fighting other tanks, a M1A2 would not move from hull down and more easily spot a say T-90 than a ATGM launcher. In the late 1990s early 2000s, there was little chance a 3bm-46/42m was going to be shot at an Abrams. Important to note that there is strong evidence that the M829A3 does not use a steel tip but rather a Tungsten alloy or Tungsten Carbide Tip. The patent released around the DOI for the M829A3 makes this rather clear. patents.google.com/patent/US6662726B1/en?oq=US6662726B1
Abrams ingame is not bad, it has a super fast reload with an amazing round with amazing mobility. Just consider it more off a glass cannon rather than a armored brawler like T90M or Leopard 2
Yes and no, M1A2 Abrams can take beating better than the previous model. And it has been proven during the Afghan wars and beyond. It's really shit that Gaijin are just bad at balancing top tiers.
