Fwd: Dec/11/2019 M1A2 Abrams Turret Armor

[Shaun_Dorrington 325]

to start off with currently the M1A2's armor is underperforming it is not 600mms vs kinetic from a 60 degree frontal arc like the swedish trials imply although I do not believe them to be valid, I'll get to that later though.

1. in game values from the front (should be significantly higher than from 30 degrees from center) 

Spoiler

2. swedish test values 

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

next the M1A2 that the swedish were offered had no DU and were export models as these following references point out. reference one Inside the Pentagon Vol. 9, No. 14 (April 8, 1993), pp. 1, 10-11

1. the article states  "Sweden appears to be backing away from statements that it would not buy the M1A2 Abrams tank unless the united states consents to sell the version of the tank equipped with depleted uranium armor and ammunition.

         "we have a specification for a special level of armor protection, but the specification does not include depleted uranium."

Spoiler

 

also from our second resource 

GD, U.S. Army Sweeten M1 Offers to Greece, Turkey With New Armor Package." Defense Daily, 30 May 2000. Gale General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A62968489/ITOF?u=nysl_se_usma&sid=ITOF&xid=1c5e6a6f. Accessed 28 Oct. 2019.

2.The article states The Army launched the effort to develop the new armor package after GD in 1993 lost the competition to supply Sweden with a new tank in part because of the U.S. government's refusal to allow export of the depleted uranium armor package. Sweden chose the Leopard 2 Improved tank equipped with a new armor package that did not use heavy metals, but was superior to the U.S. armor offered at the time

Spoiler

 

The Army launched the effort to develop the new armor package after GD in 1993 lost the competition to supply Sweden with a new tank in part because of the U.S. government's refusal to allow export of the depleted uranium armor package. Sweden chose the Leopard 2 Improved tank equipped with a new armor package that did not use heavy metals, but was superior to the U.S. armor offered at the time. The composite armor developed by Sweden, dubbed the Swedish armor package, has become Krauss-Maffei Wegmann's export standard and has been offered to Greece and Turkey.

"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. We have passed along technical details to both customers through classified channels, and I would say we are equal, or better than, the competition in terms of protection."

The armor is referred to as the third-generation package because the protection system is the third type fitted to the M1-series since its introduction nearly three decades ago. The first versions of the M1 were equipped with composite Chobham armored developed by Britain, which at the time was considered the best in the world. The British armor was succeeded by the DU, or heavy armor, which equips front-line versions of the M1. The third-generation armor, however, is intended for export because the Army sees no need to assume the cost of replacing the DU armor in existing tanks with the new protection package.

McVey added he is confident GD is offering not only the best protection, but also the best price and industrial package in both competitions. In Greece, GD has offered a comprehensive workshare package to Greece's state-owned armored vehicle-maker, ELVO, while in Turkey the company is allied with BMC, part of Turkey's Chicarova Group and Nurol.

 

3. next is the arms and export control act restricting sweden from getting the DU

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

Ok now on to what armor protection the M1A2 should have according to the british MOD the M1A2 should have better protection than the challenger 2 the challenger 2s armor is as follows (650 vs kinetic) according to the TRADOC worldwide equipment guide

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

 I still have more sources to add but I have to go to work I really hope you guys approve this bug report I know other people can add sources to support this.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by Shaun_Dorrington
added a ton of info thank you to all who donated sources and were active in the forums

[TheTurtleTanker 1,167]

1. A detailed description of the issue you have encountered. It is also important that you describe how we can reproduce the issue, if you are able to reproduce it.

The M1A2 Abrams has less than even export armor values on its turret.

 

2. If applicable, the full name(s) of the vehicle(s) affected.

M1A2 Abrams

 

3. If applicable, the difficulty setting (e.g. Arcade) in which the issue occurs.

All difficulty settings as this is a issue with a vehicle's armor protection.

 

4. If applicable, an attached screenshot showing the issue, as well the client reply file and the server replay.

Spoiler

Angle of attack (±30-degrees):

Spoiler

As you can see, over a 60-degree frontal arc (±30-degrees) the turret "only" has ~550mm of RHAe against 125mm APFSDS. This is even below the Swedish export M1A2 Abrams protection, let alone the US-standard M1A2.

 

5. Attach the Client Log of the session in which the error occurred. If the problem is persistent, attach the latest one available.

See attached.

 

6. Attach your system's current DxDiag Log.

Not applicable to this issue.

 

7. If possible, link a short video showcasing the issue.

See #4.

 

8. Detailed description of the fix you suggest. Provide sources including references that underline your position. This is up to the discretion of the Technical Moderator handling the report, however the number of sources required depends on the type of source presented.

Alright, so first let's look at the Swedish M1A2 Abrams protection figures:

Spoiler

Stridsfordon idag och imorgon by Rickard O. Lindsröm

 

Clearly, the M1A2 Abrams Gaijin implemented is even below that of the Swedish M1A2 Abrams (should be increased by ~50mm RHAe). Now let's dispel the myth that the Swedish M1A2 Abrams had a depleted uranium armor package.

Spoiler

Inside the Pentagon, Volume 9, Issue No. 14 — https://www.jstor.org/stable/43988687?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

AD-A216 020 - Sale of Abrams Tanks to Saudi Arabia — https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a216020.pdf

 

Depleted uranium is not even allowed to be exported under US federal law. Sweden was only designated a "friendly foreign country" in early November of 1992 (around the time of the Swedish tank trials).

Spoiler

Publication of Change 6 to the SAMM — https://www.samm.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/1988 SAMM/1994-02-08 - SAMM Change 6.pdf

 

Under the Arms Export Control Act, specifically section 27, section A:

Spoiler

P.L. 90-629 - Arms Export Control Act — https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Arms Export Control Act.pdf

 

So Sweden would not be able to get access to "uranium depleted in the isotope 235 which is incorporated in defense articles solely to take advantage of high density," that being depleted uranium. So there goes the Swedish tank trials as a source for the M1A2's turret armor (although it is a good baseline). So, let's look at another vehicle, the vehicle which the M1A2 supersedes, the M1A1 Heavy Armor with its first-generation depleted uranium armor package. According to PB 7-90-1 (Infantry magazine), the M1A1 Heavy Armor has around 600mm RHAe over a 60-degree arc (±30-degrees).

Spoiler

PB 7-90-1 - Infantry magazine

 

Well this publication does get the M1A1 (Improved Performance M1 that is, M1A1 for whatever reason has less armor protection than the IPM1 - probably just a bug) and basic M1 Abrams turret protection figures to nearly match that of War Thunder's protection figures. So it appears to be quite accurate (for US equipment), especially considering this is published by the United States military (hence the "This publication approved for public release; distribution is unlimited" at the bottom of the cover page). One of the improvements made from the M1A1 Heavy Armor to the M1A2 is "Appliqué armor added to protect the tank against future Soviet-made weapon systems," so improved armor protection.

Spoiler

AD-A216 020 - Sale of Abrams Tanks to Saudi Arabia — https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a216020.pdf

 

So the M1A2 should most certainly should have more armor protection than the M1A1 Heavy Armor. So, how much should the M1A2 have then, with its improved second-generation depleted uranium armor package? Well, according to a British report comparing the Challenger 2 to other contemporary NATO main battle tanks, it should be slightly higher over a frontal arc than the Challenger 2's armor protection against kinetic threats.

Spoiler

 

The Challenger 2 is rated as having 650mm RHAe by the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

Spoiler

TRISA WEG - Worldwide Equipment Guide, Volume 1: Ground Systems (December 2011) — https://www.soldf.com/download/freebooks/WEG 2011 Vol 1 Ground Systems.pdf

 

This also agrees with War Thunder's (albeit it's quite inconsistent along the entire turret) Challenger 2 turret.

Spoiler

Angle of attack (±30-degrees):

Spoiler

 

So, the M1A2 Abrams minimum turret armor should look something like this (just using the Swedish diagram because it looks nice):

Spoiler

 

 

 

2019_10_13_23_57_02__2056.clog

Edited October 31, 2019 by TheTurtleTanker
Forgot CLOG, minor edit

[Conraire 5,723]

Hello,

 

Thank you for your interest in helping to improve the game.  We'll investigate this issue and get back to you shortly. 

 

Regards

Tech Mod Team

[Conraire 5,723]

Merging Topics

[Mememeist3r 934]

Also note that the x-ray view label for the turret armour is incorrect. Instead of saying "External composite armour with NERA elements" it should say "External depleted uranium composite armour with NERA elements". 

[Conraire 5,723]

Thanks

Also, I need to remind of this.  We cannot go solely off of Protection analysis too for these tanks.  We also need in game tests showing the issue.  This should be recorded as video, and include clog files if possible of the test session.  It is possible to test this, as there is ammunition in game that can penetrate over 600mm KE.

[Jocky_Strappers 1,230]

On 01/11/2019 at 12:27, Conraire said:

Thanks

Also, I need to remind of this.  We cannot go solely off of Protection analysis too for these tanks.  We also need in game tests showing the issue.  This should be recorded as video, and include clog files if possible of the test session.  It is possible to test this, as there is ammunition in game that can penetrate over 600mm KE.

2019_11_02_23_28_33__6516.clog

^Clog file for the recorded test between CK16 and Myself, CL3143 APFSDS vs M1A2 Abrams on November 3rd 2019 at 1am US central time (Chicago time)

 

As for the following video this was our procedure:

• CK16 as M1A2 test target is to aim his turret due North or bearing 0
• I am to aim my Ariete's gun due south towards the LOS(line of sight) center of both Abrams turret cheeks
• CK is to first present a due north face towards myself for the first shot against gunner and loader sides of turret respectively
• After the shot against his turret bearing 0, he is to rotate his turret 30 degrees counterclockwise for the gunner, and 30 degrees clockwise for the loader. This is to simulate the 60 degree frontal arc protection of the turret armor as tested in real life. 
• this test is repeated starting with the gunner and ending with the loader at varying ranges
• the CL3143 apfsds is the test munition for this test

Expectation: as per the above reports content, the 30 degree offset of the turret should still offer at the very least 650mm of kinetic protection

 

Test: The armor fails to stop the CL3143 in all tests except for loader side turret face at bearing 0 or due north, at all shown ranges. Testing ceased shortly after 1km due to troubles with mouse sensitivity and aim percision issues preventing consistent tests at the line of sight center portion of the primary armor. This contradicts with the above sourcing citing better protection for the American built M1A2 Abrams, and even falls short of the Swedish trials protection analysis for the Export M1A2 that lacks DU armor.

 

I have just now noticed that I seem to have the video "zoomed", can't figure out if it was a error due to my davincci resolve software or my OBS studio software. Hopefully the Clog will help with any details.
Edit: ok I see what happened, I am on a 1440p screen but the OBS rendered in 1080p, and thought it should chop a good portion of the screen to fit the resolution. But to prove there has been penetration with that xray cut off from the video, at 22:35 time stamp you see the penetration of the gunner side turret cheek at bearing 0 due north from 1km, and how it results in CK16's destruction.

Edited November 3, 2019 by CaptainBallistic

[Conraire 5,723]

Thanks

[Conraire 5,723]

Just wanted to update with a diagram I've been working on in my free time for this issue.  If you can see more that should be added to it feel free to pm me.  For example, the vertical construction angle of the turret cheeks.  I'm using photoshops line too which gives the line angle to do this.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[TheTurtleTanker 1,167]

This is the entire source from that one text-only source for the DU armor being, supposedly, on-par with a upgraded export armor package.

Spoiler

 

[Conraire 5,723]

Thank you 

[Shaun_Dorrington 325]

it seems the hull armor should also be increased to at least 400mms as the M1A1 recieved a hull armor upgrade according to a US Army technical report  linked here. the M1A2 had its DU in the hull canceled because of weight and budget constraints but it should still get the improved M1A1 hull armor. unless we are willing to give it the 650+ DU armor the first five tanks had for their hull.  https://books.google.com/books?id=oHLfAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA1&lpg=RA1-PA1&dq=M1A2+block+II+armor+tests&source=bl&ots=04wyTk00TC&sig=ACfU3U0ojnoezRVvQtFK3_Qk7pJxevKEXg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJjvfyv_TlAhVDkFwKHe_YDgk4ChDoATAIegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=M1A2 block II armor tests&f=false 

 

 

 

Spoiler

same source as above mentions how only part of the 2nd gen DU armor will be added due to weight limits and budget issues in this case its the hull armor that is deleted and the turret arrays are kept

Spoiler

 

Second source removed as it only referenced the turret and hull structure of the M1A1 not the armor arrays.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Shaun_Dorrington
added info 2nd time edited third time removed source due to inaccuracy

[Conraire 5,723]

Thanks for the update

[Conraire 5,723]

Does anyone have any more solid source information that they would like to add before this gets forwarded?

[Bad_MoFo 1,048]

 I will screen shot it and DM this to the the team thats been working on this in private on discord . They probly have given up hope and exhausted coming here . 

[Conraire 5,723]

4 hours ago, Bad_MoFo said:

 I will screen shot it and DM this to the the team thats been working on this in private on discord . They probly have given up hope and exhausted coming here . 

 

Shouldn't be necessary.

 

Will be able to report on the turret missing some 50mm on the 30 degree side arcs vs long rod penetrators.  Was hoping to find some more data on the testing, but having seen docs for the XM-1 that show the US was using best available ammunition at the time for armor testing, I might be able to convince them of the same with the M1A2.  

[Conraire 5,723]

Hi
 

Thank you for your interest and help improving the game.  

 

Your information has been forwarded to the developers for their consideration.