Damian90

I agree, US.Army have more tanks than Heer, so modernisation takes more time.

And of course that most units now, operates older variants, but, from what I know, the first line units in US.Army get's new tanks as first, hence, I heard that also ARNG got M1A1AIM v.1's!

4th. ID and 1st. ACR use M1A2SEP's, 1st. AD what? M1A1SA's? Or still M1A1HA/HC's? 1st. and 2nd. ID? 3rd. ID use M1A1SA's I think.

Independend HBCT's?

The problem is we really don't know how many tanks of each type are in inventory, and US got at least 8800 tanks.

I've heard that al basic M1A2's were taken out from units because problems with IVIS, and all will be modernised to M1A2SEP, I also heard that not all M1A2's got IVIS installed.

It seems that also M1A1D's are rare and not in servie, stored somewhere or upgraded, and replaced by M1A1AIM v.1.

Well, without correct numbers we can't say what unit got what type in use.

M1A1AIM v.2 or M1A1SA is completely different tank.

In all info's that I find about that version, they clearly say, that armor is new.

Besides this, it is logical that now, they make same armor inserts for M1A2SEP v.1, v.2 and M1A1SA/AIM v.2.

I don't beelive that new FCS, new sights and FBCB2-BFT weight so much, what they added also? TMS? New TNB and HNB? PDB and TIP? Also it seems that they added TIS for CWS as not part of T.U.S.K. but as standard equipment. This can't weight so much.

So conclusion is, same armor as in M1A2SEP.

But there is strange thing with M1A1HA+/HC and M1A1D, in informations we can get, they write about 62,000-62,500kg weight, same as in M1A2.

Well ok maybe Paul is right, or maybe not, or maybe yes and no.

Maybe situation is similiar like with M1A1AIM v.1 and M1A1AIM v.2?

So we have early production M1A1HC and late production M1A1HC when M1A2 was fielded, so they just put in new inserts as they become availabale.

And then tanks upgraded to newer standard (surely many of them were upgraded to M1A1HC not only by adding "common" equipment) recieve new inserts.

Well I think this theory make sense.

Well, the best way to check it out is getting weight data about all variants. But from where we can get reliabale weight data in metric tons?

Ssnake, did Paul considered weight of different variants?

This is strange, because of these all generations of DU armor. Ist. was certainly just Burlington + DU layers, 2nd. something new? 3rd. also something new. The why not, US policy as superpower must take in consider that they can engage enemy with modern equipment or modern ammo, I doubt that they are stupid and doesen't upgrade armor also in A1 variants before M1A1SA was fielded.

But these are only my thoughts.

Ok no problem.

Ca I ask only about one thing, this new estimates are smaller for every tank or bigger than old ones?

Ssnake, so if it is an old version, where I can get new one? Of course only for personal use (read: just look how estimates changed).

Ssnake, I'm not saying that You guys must add it, I'm only asked, if no, that ok.

And this is that document:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6032093/Armor-Basics

Maybe this is old one?

Well I don't know, I never seen new one.

MAJ_Fubar, Volcano, so know I have a problem, in any sources we have M1A1HC is reffered as better armored with newer type of armor inserts, same armor inserts are in M1A2... Maybe this is reffered to later production M1A1HC's?

This is problem with US designation, it is full desinformation! ;P

Making an "uparmoured" M1 is as easy as giving the other side weaker ammo. Ta-da!

Easier then you thought, huh?

Well, I would preffer more fair play.

Well, I think you are reading to much into this. From what I was always told, the "HA" and the "HC" are essentially the same (semi unofficial, hence the parenthesis) designation for the same tank, but different names. "HA", or Heavy Armor, was the somewhat unofficial designation used when they first started adding the addition dU armor to the vehicle, and once it became common with other superficial changes then it was then called the HC, or Heavy Common. Either way, both the "HA" and the "HC" are unofficial designations of sorts to mean the same thing, that it has the additional dU armor over the stock M1A1. If you look at official references, such as the US DoD, some list the "HA" but not the existence of the "HC" and others are vice versa.

Ok, but how you then explain info's about different armor types.

Ok, maybe I read to much ( ), but M1A1HA was essentialy M1A1 with Burlington + added DU layers. M1A1HA+ and M1A1HC were tanks with 2nd. generation "special armor", I don't know if it was Burlington with new gen. DU layers or just a completely new armor with DU, but I assumpt it was new construction. So If this is true, M1A1HC is different, more modern version than M1A1HA. Sure I can be wrong, but this is that problem with US tank designation.

Ok, so we go further, M1A2 was based on M1A1HC so conclusion is, same armor, and I think it is true, time period when tanks were produced, or maybe more correctly, when new type of armor inserts were produced, suggests it can be true.

And in 2000 and beyond we have XXI variants, M1A1SA and M1A2SEP. We know that M1A2SEP have new armor but, in any official info's I saw about M1A1SA there are saying that tanks are equiped with new armor. And that also have some logic. Why to produce so many types of inserts, that don't make sense, so produce only newest type and put in to tanks that went to modernisation.

So in my logic we can make such comparision.

M1, M1IP and M1A1 are variants up to 1985 and are equiped with Burlington armor, M1A1HA produced from 1987 to 1990-1991 (?) with Burlington armor with added DU layers, M1A1HA+ (older tanks only upgraded with newer armor) and M1A1HC with many upgrades and mainly new type of armor inserts + M1A2 as further development based on M1A1HC with same type of armor, these tanks were produced up to 1993 when production stops.

And from 2000 and beyond we have XXI generation represented with M1A1SA and M1A2SEP we newer type of armor inserts and full digital packadge, this tanks are older ones after upgrade'ing.

And between 1993 and 2000 we have something that I will name, interim upgrades like M1A1D or M1A1AIM, oh wait, M1A1AIM appered in 2000 or something, then it was replaced by M1A1AIM v.2 aka M1A1SA.

But ok I hope You know what about I'm talking about.

Well maybe in nearest future SB will be updated to packadge with more M1 variants, not only M1 and M1IP but also more modern ones.

Whoa wait.

From what I learn, first M1A1HA's production started in 1987. First M1A1HA+ and M1A1HC's were fielded in 1991 from what I remember.

So...?

M1A1HA+ and M1A1HC have armor same as M1A2 because maybe not M1A1HA+ (these were probably older M1A1HA's with upgraded inserts), but M1A1HC was base for M1A2, this one I'm certain.

Besides this, time when certain tank was developed and time when it was fielded are two different things.

So yeah, in my eyes M1A1HA is tank from late 80's.

Ok mabe it is a bit lobbing from my side. But you agree that it a bit unfair that we have not only Leo2A4 but also modern variants with greater protection, and US "side" is represented only by model from late 80's. I don't except to see XXI variants, but M1A1HC can be nice addition.

But as I said, these are only my thoughts and proposition.

Still, keep the great work.

Well I have different view on that.

Paul Lakowsky makes some good estimations in his armor basics (Collins site depends on them I think) and M1A1HC is better protected than M1A1HA.

880-900mm RHAe vs. KE and 1310-1620mm RHAe vs. CE at turret front for M1A1HC, 660-680mm RHAe vs. KE and 1080-1320mm RHAe vs. CE for M1A1HA.

There is big difference in estimation as you see. Sure your estimations can be different.

Well and making M1A1HC is easier than making M1A1SA i.e. because inside and outside it is practical same as M1A1HA.

Adding these variants seems to make sense to me only as a part of an "M1 family" package.

Well I wouldn't mind if You guys make such pakcadge.

Well, it is a bit unfair that Leo2 family have also the best armored ones and M1 series is represented only by one model, and old model. Yeah I know that we M1 fans probably can't expect to see XXI variants like M1A2SEP or M1A1SA, but 90's variants like M1A1HA+ or M1A1HC can be a good upgrade.

But this are only my thoughts and proposition.

Hi!

We must also remember that in game we have M1A1HA from 1987, so overall even with less exposed weak zones it have still weaker armor.

I ask on TankNet Ssnake, if SB team consider to put in to SB pro PE, better armored variant like M1A1HA+ and/or M1A1HC, this one got better protection, same as basic M1A2, but they are preatty much same inside and outside to M1A1HA, so making it should not be a big problem? Unfortunetly Ssnake doesen't reply to that question (maybe here? ). So US forces will be have comparabale tank to newer Leo2's.

And backing to Leo2. I wan't to ask, how thick is upper glacis? It have similiar thickness to M1's glacis? Something about 80mm at 80 deegres angle, what angle have Leo2 glacis, certainly angle is smaller. And in newer Leo2's how much protection is added by this addon armor plate over glacis, surely "toe" have better protection but glacis? Addon plate there is not very thick.