Jump to content

History of US Tanks.


Damian90
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6.3.2018 at 11:58 PM, MAJ_Fubar said:

I don't know if the internal composition changed between the M1A1HA and M1A2, but both the front and back plates (along with the turret roof [slightly]) were thickened on the M1A2 with the turret clocking in about 1.4 tonnes heavier. 

Thank you for the feedback. Would you know where this diagram is from? It looks like an early M1A2 with the armor package of an M1A1 HA:

 

hQcWM70.png.d8f86ed0162675c701d3024aab5c0135.png

 

Also, would you know if the composition and thickness of the upper front hull was changed from the original M1 to the M1A1 and so on.

 

The M1A1 HC seems to have composites in the upper front hull:

ufGkOnE.thumb.jpg.640ae1304ec81888858c3efbc1539298.jpg

 

This might be from an M1:

1395168198-m1abramshullthickness.thumb.png.48a2271b144357074bdc865756c726bd.png

 

Also for the original M1:

 

 

...

 

and for the early M1A1 HA:

 

x0nmoij.thumb.png.d71839248d1c4c604b3c3abbedb44ed7.png

 

Although the early M1A1 HA variant did not seem to have featured DU inserts, i could believe that the shaded area on top the front hull could contain a thickened steel plate composite array.

 

This makes me believe that the original M1 did not have any composite elements in the upper front hull!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 423
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 minutes ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

Thank you for the feedback. Would you know where this diagram is from? It looks like an early M1A2 with the armor package of an M1A1 HA:

 

hQcWM70.png.d8f86ed0162675c701d3024aab5c0135.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obvious  fake. Warthunder fanboys are making tons of them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

Because of the "secret" on top ? I am confused.

1) Diagram  is listed "Unclassified", and this is abnormal for any graphics or text specifying exact threat and protection values. 

2) "Secret" stamp itself. Clearly photoshoped because faker forgot to clean-up some...  Features ;).

 

Anyway this is best quality fake I ever saw to this moment and I`m not going to make life of makers of such stuff easier(they are definitely reading this board).

Edited by Jartsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

1) Diagram  is listed "Unclassified", and this is abnormal for any graphics or text specifying exact threat and protection values. 

2) "Secret" stamp itself. Clearly photoshoped because faker forgot to clean-up some...  Features ;).

 

Anyway this is besе quality fake I ever saw to this moment and I`m not going to make life of makers of such stuff easier(they are definitely reading this board).

The figure itself is copied from a TM, the text and the figure number is added manually by someone. So yes Jartsev is correct, this diagram is fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you guys for the feedback! Also guys what do you think about this claim from an 19K soldier:

Quote

 

So here we go.

M774 is a good round but it saw limited service life on the Abrams, reality is that the Abrams should be slinging M833. This according to Global Security.

 

Armor values, so in game the lower plate is clocked at 380 kinetic and 650 Chemical, upper plate clocked at 30mm, turret front plate at 380 KE 650 Chem. Real life for the lower plate we're really looking at about 678 vs KE and 1513 vs Chem with the exception of where the driver sits which is at 439 vs KE 643 vs Chem, upper plate 648 vs KE 1280 vs Chem, again exception for center which is 410 vs both KE and Chem. This according to Sergeant First Class Juarez, First Battalion Eighth Cavalry Regiment, Alpha Company Master Gunner and General Dynamics reps who work with us.

 

Side armor, game has is clocked in at 57mm on skirts one and two right side, those actually have a ballistic property to them so realistically we're at 260vs KE and 547vs Chem. Still on the right side, skirts 3,4,5 are sitting 150vs KE and 329vs Chem, skirt 6 has 55vs KE and 248 vs Chem. Left side, skirts 1,2,3 have a ballistic property so the values are 260 KE and 547 Chem, 4 and 5 150 KE 329 Chem, six 55vs KE 248 Chem. We take skirt seven off because it makes PMCS harder to do. Again this is according to Sergeant First Class Juarez, First Battalion Eighth Cavalry Regiment, Alpha Company Master Gunner and General Dynamics reps who work with us.

 

We don't use the hull ammo storage, it's hard to get to and a liability. Every loader is expected to load from the ready rack behind the ammo doors in under seven seconds. If you run low on the ready you transfer from the semi-ready that is behind the commander. This is according to any M1 Armor crewman (19 Kilo or 1812) you talk to.

 

GAS (Auxiliary sight) is missing from model.

 

Now I ain't no expert but I am an M1 Armor crewman and I know the machine I work on. So until next time folks.

Blackjack.

 

hmmm

M1armour.jpg.079e99f290fb1f726f6703b55d2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm no friend to diagrams with pretend-accuracy at the millimeter level. Yes, you can make measurements of weld line distances and angles and use formulas, and your calculator will spew out "a" result with 12-digit precision, but the underlying data and the errors associated to them are orders of magnitude larger.

What "our" diagrams show are what our models use but even then the by far bigger source of error is what happens after a penetration occurs. There simply are no reliable and normed data available for this.

 

We have reason to believe that our work isn't half bad. But it would be preposterous to claim that they are "the truth". What you can see from these diagrams is that tanks do not present a uniform area of protection, but that there are areas that are better protected than others, and that such weak spots are essentially consequences of functional requirements. A gun, for example, MUST be open on one end. And in order to aim properly, you need to mount it in a gun cradle with a mantlet which inevitably requires material discontinuities that then create certain weaknesses. Much of a tank's protection therefore is based on statistics. You try to minimize the area of vulnerable zones within the target silhouette and then keep your fingers crossed. But given enough test cases the likelihood of your luck running out eventually approximates certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1395168198-m1abramshullthickness.png

 

This is a modified hull for CATTB, and I have an extremely strong suspicion there is not a lot of truth here, both upper glacis and hull sides over crew compartment are too thin compared to... khem khem... I seen and touched myself. ;) Also heavy side skirts are often too thin in various estimations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jartsev said:

Look at classification  markings of "document" and "diagram". Nothing pings?

 

7 hours ago, Assassin 7 said:

The figure itself is copied from a TM, the text and the figure number is added manually by someone. So yes Jartsev is correct, this diagram is fake.

 

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I'm no friend to diagrams with pretend-accuracy at the millimeter level. Yes, you can make measurements of weld line distances and angles and use formulas, and your calculator will spew out "a" result with 12-digit precision, but the underlying data and the errors associated to them are orders of magnitude larger.

What "our" diagrams show are what our models use but even then the by far bigger source of error is what happens after a penetration occurs. There simply are no reliable and normed data available for this.

 

We have reason to believe that our work isn't half bad. But it would be preposterous to claim that they are "the truth". What you can see from these diagrams is that tanks do not present a uniform area of protection, but that there are areas that are better protected than others, and that such weak spots are essentially consequences of functional requirements. A gun, for example, MUST be open on one end. And in order to aim properly, you need to mount it in a gun cradle with a mantlet which inevitably requires material discontinuities that then create certain weaknesses. Much of a tank's protection therefore is based on statistics. You try to minimize the area of vulnerable zones within the target silhouette and then keep your fingers crossed. But given enough test cases the likelihood of your luck running out eventually approximates certainty.

 

54 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

1395168198-m1abramshullthickness.png

 

This is a modified hull for CATTB, and I have an extremely strong suspicion there is not a lot of truth here, both upper glacis and hull sides over crew compartment are too thin compared to... khem khem... I seen and touched myself. ;) Also heavy side skirts are often too thin in various estimations.

Thank you all for your input!!!

 

Also, concerning this diagram:

 

hQcWM70.png.d8f86ed0162675c701d3024aab5c0135.png

 

I got the following response:

 

"I had a talk yesterday with people on this subject and looks like that drawing is from SwedenMBT 2000 competition. USA offered M1A2 but with EAP (Export Armor Package). EAP differs from client to client like monkey versions for Egypt or Iraq for better setups for closer allies like Sweden or Australia. EAP for Sweden was probably close to M1A1HA but without DU. So it really isn't comparable to any M1 variant in US service - maybe lower front hull will be similar to M1 or M1IP but that just speculation. M1A2 with EAP for Sweden failed competition to Leopard 2I (similar to german 2A5) based version but amount of lower protection for M1A2 EAP for Sweden isn't known. Probably after this export failure US offered better HA version for Australia without DU replaced with titanium. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

I got the following response:

 

"I had a talk yesterday with people on this subject and looks like that drawing is from SwedenMBT 2000 competition. USA offered M1A2 but with EAP (Export Armor Package). EAP differs from client to client like monkey versions for Egypt or Iraq for better setups for closer allies like Sweden or Australia. EAP for Sweden was probably close to M1A1HA but without DU. So it really isn't comparable to any M1 variant in US service - maybe lower front hull will be similar to M1 or M1IP but that just speculation. M1A2 with EAP for Sweden failed competition to Leopard 2I (similar to german 2A5) based version but amount of lower protection for M1A2 EAP for Sweden isn't known. Probably after this export failure US offered better HA version for Australia without DU replaced with titanium. "

 

Export Armor Package always is in a single standard.

 

No changes there, only exception was Australia that got modified Heavy Armor Package that had DU replaced with something else, perhaps Tungsten on request of Australian MoD.

 

In general this drawing is indeed fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

I got the following response:

 

"I had a talk yesterday with people on this subject and looks like that drawing is from SwedenMBT 2000 competition. USA offered M1A2 but with EAP (Export Armor Package). EAP differs from client to client like monkey versions for Egypt or Iraq for better setups for closer allies like Sweden or Australia. EAP for Sweden was probably close to M1A1HA but without DU. So it really isn't comparable to any M1 variant in US service - maybe lower front hull will be similar to M1 or M1IP but that just speculation. M1A2 with EAP for Sweden failed competition to Leopard 2I (similar to german 2A5) based version but amount of lower protection for M1A2 EAP for Sweden isn't known. Probably after this export failure US offered better HA version for Australia without DU replaced with titanium. "

Well... This, actually, is easily verifiable. But nothing can  explain  images of binder holes  on top of the picture ;)

Edited by Jartsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

Export Armor Package always is in a single standard.

 

No changes there, only exception was Australia that got modified Heavy Armor Package that had DU replaced with something else, perhaps Tungsten on request of Australian MoD.

 

In general this drawing is indeed fake.

oh yes

19 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Well... This, actually, is easily verifiable. But nothing can  explain  images of binder holes  on top of the picture ;)

yup

 

Posted disclaimer: " According to some sources checking FMV archives that drawing above is fake, well made photoshop but still fake. So bother about it even less. Lessons learnt: don't bother about data which sources you can't confirm just because they fit your theory or you will end like GJ. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

Here is a download link to the presentation: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH

 

I am getting the strong impression that the M1A2 diagram is indeed not a fake after all.

 

Diagram is a fake.

 

In the FMV documents you have clearly shown protection vs KE on the turret ranging depending on place and angle from 400mm to 700mm vs KE and 500mm to 1800mm vs CE, quiet nice for an M1A2 with export armor package.

 

FMV documents have nothing about hull protection vs KE, but vs CE you have protection ranging from 600mm to 1200mm vs CE.

 

It is also important to note that Swedes made only protection estimations based on the US Export Armor Package and Swedish armor package that was meant to be used in any tank design they decided to purchase.

Edited by Damian90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok,  I`m backing off my statement about diagram  being a fake. Source document was found, and I`d say it is more than weird if such information can freely float around.

 

Edit:

Damian, check in pdf properties who is  an author/creator- its a well-known owner of ointres.se, so everything looks legit

 

Edited by Jartsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

Diagram is a fake.

 

In the FMV documents you have clearly shown protection vs KE on the turret ranging depending on place and angle from 400mm to 700mm vs KE and 500mm to 1800mm vs CE, quiet nice for an M1A2 with export armor package.

 

FMV documents have nothing about hull protection vs KE, but vs CE you have protection ranging from 600mm to 1200mm vs CE.

 

It is also important to note that Swedes made only protection estimations based on the US Export Armor Package and Swedish armor package that was meant to be used in any tank design they decided to purchase.

As far as i could see these are the supposed protection values for the "export" M1A2 variant not the US variant. I am getting the impression that the documents are legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Ok,  I`m backing off my statement about diagram  being a fake. Source document was found, and I`d say it is more than weird if such stuff can freely float around.

It was part of a presentation by  R. Lindström, who works/worked for the Swedish FMV, that was maybe supposedly unwittlingy leaked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

Nice PDF, so is the diagram presented earlier  the results from the Swedish Armor inserted? Or the export Armor?

Diagram shows vehicle with some US-designed package, on following pages there are diagrams for ballistic test rigs, and some of them were probably composed of US-designed special armor and swedish add-on armor(assumption is based on photos)

Edited by Jartsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, speaking of RHA estimates  or values obtained during ballistic test, they are almost useless in real life without exact data on threat munition, because  current armor  can be tailored to defeat  very certain nomenclature or even particular models of  ammo.  Kind of brown magic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Well, speaking of RHA estimates  or values obtained during ballistic test, they are almost useless in real life without exact data on threat munition, because  current armor  can be tailored to defeat  very certain nomenclature or even particular models of  ammo.  Kind of brown magic...

Agreed, It’s like the diagram was just inserted into this document to make it look like a valid diagram. There should be more detailed for this diagram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...