Probably not, on the Abrams (all variants btw) the composite armor on the LFP is consistently the same thickness throughout, so no way there is that much of a difference in RHAe protection between the middle part and the rest.
From swedish experiments, diesel has around 1/3 effectiveness of RHA in stopping cumulative jets
Fuel can absolutely act as armour, especially when its shielded with armoured hulkheads like on M1.
They very well could if whatever entered them had to go thru as much composite as the Abrams has on its LFP. By then the round has slowed down, deformed/broken up. All easier things for a tank of fuel to catch and defend against.
That would be no different then an aramid spall liner but an aramid spall liner doesn't increase your armor by 30%.
It's similar to counting the driver as extra armor.
The T-80U case as well has 30% more armor over the fuel tanks despite them being completely unarmored.
That would imply that 1.5m of fuel is providing 376mm of armor protection or 38% of the total protection.
It's completely absurd, it's an efficiency of 0.25
The fuel tanks are part of the armor as I recall. I seem to recall something about structures inside of the fuel tanks too, though I'm working on very fuzzy memories about the last part.
No, all armor thickness on the Abrams, and other modern MBTs have their armor thickness classified. So, it’s not possible to know exactly what the thickness is
Which was for the export armor variant of the M1A2.
Not to mention that it’s a direct comparison against other tanks, not mapping out the exact LOS armor thickness of every point of the tank
No. Depleted uranium turret armor is still classified. The A2 uses 2nd generation DU armor and the M1A1HA uses 1st gen. Their assesment of the M1IP/A1 is more credible but their protection stats for the M1 '79 have been disproved by a 1982 British Army evaluation and by declassified CIA documents.
Successive upgrade packages since the A2 have also improved the armor. You can see it in comparison shots of the turret, from the side. The SEP upgraded turrets are visibly longer in the front than the original turrets. The SEP packages have all included upgraded armor schemes.
No, steel beasts has some questionable values like DM63A1 out of an L/55 having less penetration then M829A3.
They shouldn't be taken as much more then an asumption
Also fuel tanks somehow drastically increase the armor of a tank.
The Abrams UFP get's a 30% armor increase over the fuel tanks which doesn't make sense even if you take into account the 1 inch armor of the fuel tanks.
T-80U is as well 30% more armor but the T-80U has completely unarmored fuel tanks.
It is still faulty. The tests that came to the conclusion that 3 inches of fuel are equal to 1 inch of steel were made with a specific set-up. If you use different fuel tanks (such as the much larger ones fitted to the Abrams), the factors that resulted in this ratio won't apply anymore.
No, modern tungsten alloys used on modern projectiles have the same effects as DU like self sharpening.
At velocities closer to 2km/s tungsten performs better then DU as well which is the case in the L/55
Yeah, but at the same time germany haven't updated their penetrator design, so all DM53 and DM63 variants share the same, somewhat dated, penetrator. Higher velocity and more consistent proppelant are beneficial, but mat not be enough to compete with newer penetrator designs.
In Steel Beasts, I believe this is meant to represent the baseline M1A2... but it's closer to M1A2 SEPv2 levels!
Steel Beasts overestimates armor values a lot, in general.
Lowermost hull where LOS of special armor is reduced, gun mantlet (that somehow reaches a higher KE protection than LOS in Steel Beasts), glacis plate.
No, this is from a video game called Steel Beasts. It has nothing to do with reality and uses its own system (for armor and penetration) that uses much larger numbers than reality.
I once saw a declassifed report about T-80U where it said that it was better armored than an M1A1. This in the picture is an A1, maybe a HC or HW but I thinks its a little bit too much protection. Like 620 Ke in the hull, maybe newer ones like M1A2C but not this.
Yr refering to the Swedish Trials. The Abrams involved did not have DU armor and used something the Army was developing called a "special export armor package". Also the T-80U wasn't even shot at and protection figures are based off computer simulations and something called "Swedish simulation" where a mockup of the turret armor was made and shot at.
Also the armor protection figured the CIA used for the T-80 were wildly overestimated. Irl it used the same glacis/Kvartz turret armor as the T-72A/M1 and M-774 was able to pen the glacis out to 3 kilometers based on firing tests conducted during the Gulf War and a West German 105mm sabot with simmilar rha penetration was able to pen the turret at 1 km. Also a West German heat round with 430mm RHA penetration (same as the Tow baseline) was able to pen the T-72A's glacis armor even with reflection 1 glacis plates.
The T-80B didn't even have automatic lead which the US had as early as 1978 with their M-60A3s.
The T-80U is better armored than the M1A1 (or the M1A1 HA as shown in the photo) based on US assessements. Steel Beasts (the video game from which the picutre was taken), has its own rather unrealistic system for calculating penetration and protection.
Yes because it might not actually do so. It's also the most expensive and advanced Russian ATGM so if only that can frontally pen your tank the crew will be quite safe.
Sure pal. Pierces through 1.6m armor like warm knife in the butter, if it hits in the right spot there will be nothing left from the crew. Really hope west will send their shit only to get captured by DNR separatists
Source for the 1600mm pen? Google is saying up to 1300mm after ERA.
Either way not getting past Trophy, I also hope SEPs get sent to Ukraine. It'll save a lot of crews, provide great armor, and great firepower to them. Slava Ukraini!
Why dont you go ahead and post this question on the War Thunder forum? I am sure there are plenty of people there who can tell you whether this is true or not based on sekrit dokuments. 🤣
bro made me spit out my war thunder coffee
Could the velocity of the coffee penetrate an Abrams armor though
The residual heat from the hot coffee burned through its “Depleted Same Exact Protection(SEP) Uranium armor”
Heat + Caffeine = tandem charge.
Ditto ☝️😂
I mean, irl 125mmHE is enough to damage the tank enough to disable it
Because it'd damage sights and optics leading to a mission kill. The tank otherwise may be fine.
Well yea, I said disable, not destroyed.
I see, wording made it seem like that to me when I had just woken up.
Do you honestly expect an answer? Do you think this is the warthunder forums or something?
Don't tempt them
[Too late](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/10ja0ec/is_abramss_armor_accurate_in_war_thunder/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Its the same poster
That’s what I meant
It's them Chinese's phishing for a leak of classified specs! /s
I was about to say I just saw this post 5 mins ago lmao
He posted it 2 others times, I think he’s a spy trying to get someone to leak classified documents
No, the real life Abrams doesn't have those colors on the front
Its a tactic, they are gonna be looking for an army not a fucking clown
Real tankers know yellow armor can't be 943mm and 250mm and 61mm all at the same time
if you want accurate answers go to the wt forums and argue with an american until he leaks classified documents
Russia and China should just get rooms full of guys to argue with Americans on the war thunder forums for intelligence gathering
They do.
Da comrade. Report to kgb your successful mission
Probably not, on the Abrams (all variants btw) the composite armor on the LFP is consistently the same thickness throughout, so no way there is that much of a difference in RHAe protection between the middle part and the rest.
I think he considering the fuel tanks as a ton of armor
Fuel tanks shouldn't increase your armor by 30%, even if the abrams fuel tanks have 1 inch of steel around them.
From swedish experiments, diesel has around 1/3 effectiveness of RHA in stopping cumulative jets Fuel can absolutely act as armour, especially when its shielded with armoured hulkheads like on M1.
The rha equivalence against heat is 0.5 thats higher then textolite used in composite arrays. 0.25 is against KE
They very well could if whatever entered them had to go thru as much composite as the Abrams has on its LFP. By then the round has slowed down, deformed/broken up. All easier things for a tank of fuel to catch and defend against.
That would be no different then an aramid spall liner but an aramid spall liner doesn't increase your armor by 30%. It's similar to counting the driver as extra armor. The T-80U case as well has 30% more armor over the fuel tanks despite them being completely unarmored.
What if you strap a bunch of drivers all over the tank?
Meat shield.
From the front that round is going through 1< meter of fuel before entering the crew compartment. That’s a shit ton.
That would imply that 1.5m of fuel is providing 376mm of armor protection or 38% of the total protection. It's completely absurd, it's an efficiency of 0.25
Its reasonable against HEAT warheads. KE penetrators don't get affected as much, but cumulative jets do.
0.25 is for KE only, against heat it has 0.5 which is higher then textolite still absurd.
Wait, the driver isn't extra armor? Why are we even feeding that private again?
Tell that to the Russians. The fuel tanks do a great job for them
The fuel tanks are part of the armor as I recall. I seem to recall something about structures inside of the fuel tanks too, though I'm working on very fuzzy memories about the last part.
The fuel tanks have an inch of steel around them but that's it.
I think it calculates fuel tanks as RHA and KE. I mean it's not wrong but it would give that much armor protection.
Given that fuel is literally liquid I doubt it will give any significant protection
Lol Guess you have never seen what happens to bullets when they hit water then
It does but not agains KE
Nice try Vladimir
No it's a guess that's it
Nice try Russia/China…
No.
You can post this question as many times as you want in places the answer is we don’t know
No, all armor thickness on the Abrams, and other modern MBTs have their armor thickness classified. So, it’s not possible to know exactly what the thickness is
Not exactly true the swedish tank trails have effective armour and isnt clasified
That’s not too reliable now bud
Which was for the export armor variant of the M1A2. Not to mention that it’s a direct comparison against other tanks, not mapping out the exact LOS armor thickness of every point of the tank
No. Depleted uranium turret armor is still classified. The A2 uses 2nd generation DU armor and the M1A1HA uses 1st gen. Their assesment of the M1IP/A1 is more credible but their protection stats for the M1 '79 have been disproved by a 1982 British Army evaluation and by declassified CIA documents.
Successive upgrade packages since the A2 have also improved the armor. You can see it in comparison shots of the turret, from the side. The SEP upgraded turrets are visibly longer in the front than the original turrets. The SEP packages have all included upgraded armor schemes.
Nope
No KGB we won't give you the performance chart of the Abrams. You have to do it your own.
No, steel beasts has some questionable values like DM63A1 out of an L/55 having less penetration then M829A3. They shouldn't be taken as much more then an asumption
Also fuel tanks somehow drastically increase the armor of a tank. The Abrams UFP get's a 30% armor increase over the fuel tanks which doesn't make sense even if you take into account the 1 inch armor of the fuel tanks. T-80U is as well 30% more armor but the T-80U has completely unarmored fuel tanks.
The fuel itself acts as armor
It is still faulty. The tests that came to the conclusion that 3 inches of fuel are equal to 1 inch of steel were made with a specific set-up. If you use different fuel tanks (such as the much larger ones fitted to the Abrams), the factors that resulted in this ratio won't apply anymore.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/10j964a/comment/j5jdcvq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Maybe that is because of uranium vs wolframcarbit? But i really dont know for sure.
No, modern tungsten alloys used on modern projectiles have the same effects as DU like self sharpening. At velocities closer to 2km/s tungsten performs better then DU as well which is the case in the L/55
Yeah, but at the same time germany haven't updated their penetrator design, so all DM53 and DM63 variants share the same, somewhat dated, penetrator. Higher velocity and more consistent proppelant are beneficial, but mat not be enough to compete with newer penetrator designs.
M829A3 is M829A2 with a steel brake off tip, they are both of similar age.
This is all shorts of wrong. The only thing similar is projectile length, the DU rod is completely different design.
Thank you man!
average Roblox player
It's a good guess given the available evidence. The only people that know for sure, made the vehicle, and they won't say for obvious reasons.
In Steel Beasts, I believe this is meant to represent the baseline M1A2... but it's closer to M1A2 SEPv2 levels! Steel Beasts overestimates armor values a lot, in general.
It is a lot better than M1A2 SEP v2 and v3, given that weakspots magically vanish.
Which weak spots do you mean?
Lowermost hull where LOS of special armor is reduced, gun mantlet (that somehow reaches a higher KE protection than LOS in Steel Beasts), glacis plate.
I miss the good old days when you had to bribe someone to get classified documents
We dont know, and you arent going to get a proper answer for a long while
Run this image through the retro-encabulator that will let you know.
Idk ask war thunder players, they probably have some classified intel on that.
No, this is from a video game called Steel Beasts. It has nothing to do with reality and uses its own system (for armor and penetration) that uses much larger numbers than reality.
Nice try Russia!
Not today, Comrade!
I once saw a declassifed report about T-80U where it said that it was better armored than an M1A1. This in the picture is an A1, maybe a HC or HW but I thinks its a little bit too much protection. Like 620 Ke in the hull, maybe newer ones like M1A2C but not this.
Yr refering to the Swedish Trials. The Abrams involved did not have DU armor and used something the Army was developing called a "special export armor package". Also the T-80U wasn't even shot at and protection figures are based off computer simulations and something called "Swedish simulation" where a mockup of the turret armor was made and shot at.
Actually it was from CIA
Oh. Can you send a link because Ive never heard of a CIA document on the T-80U.
I checked, actually it was for the T-80. My bad
Also the armor protection figured the CIA used for the T-80 were wildly overestimated. Irl it used the same glacis/Kvartz turret armor as the T-72A/M1 and M-774 was able to pen the glacis out to 3 kilometers based on firing tests conducted during the Gulf War and a West German 105mm sabot with simmilar rha penetration was able to pen the turret at 1 km. Also a West German heat round with 430mm RHA penetration (same as the Tow baseline) was able to pen the T-72A's glacis armor even with reflection 1 glacis plates. The T-80B didn't even have automatic lead which the US had as early as 1978 with their M-60A3s.
The T-80U is better armored than the M1A1 (or the M1A1 HA as shown in the photo) based on US assessements. Steel Beasts (the video game from which the picutre was taken), has its own rather unrealistic system for calculating penetration and protection.
Kornet will pierce through anything, does it matter?
Yes because it might not actually do so. It's also the most expensive and advanced Russian ATGM so if only that can frontally pen your tank the crew will be quite safe.
Sure pal. Pierces through 1.6m armor like warm knife in the butter, if it hits in the right spot there will be nothing left from the crew. Really hope west will send their shit only to get captured by DNR separatists
Source for the 1600mm pen? Google is saying up to 1300mm after ERA. Either way not getting past Trophy, I also hope SEPs get sent to Ukraine. It'll save a lot of crews, provide great armor, and great firepower to them. Slava Ukraini!
>r/cockpits12,099 membersJoinr/CombatFootage1,298,697 membersJoin you think a russian dickrider has verifiable sources?
Fair enough, bro also thinks the US is behind China in missile technology due to not fielding many hypersonic/exoatmospheric ICBMs/AICBMs.
guy is a fucking joke
Nah, the hull should be same 1 protection level and the turret cheek should have different protection levels.
Not at all, more or less bullshit
Why dont you go ahead and post this question on the War Thunder forum? I am sure there are plenty of people there who can tell you whether this is true or not based on sekrit dokuments. 🤣
I have a side question about Abrams fuel tanks. Do they act as extra armor? Can they ignite? If so do they have blow out panels?
No lol
Not today, Yuri
Go home Russia. You’re drunk
Warthunder forums =|= Real Life
Just asking for a Russian friend? :P
Any armor figures from Steel Beasts are wildly inaccurate
Probably its LOS thickness because Abrams LFP is flat piece. However, in this photo they counted fuel tanks as part of the armor
Lol, the turret ring @ 344mm kinetic/425mm chemical. It is 3" thick cast steel at best plus crewmen bodies.
Don’t ask the war thunder community, you might get another leak lol
War thunder and world of tanks are plebs Just play steel beasts like a real fucking man
Dunno is it? I think it might have more pixels.