War Thunder News

We’ve seen a lot of topics regarding the armor of the Abrams series of tanks, more specifically the presence of DU (depleted uranium) armor, and so we’d like to share our data on the subject.
Most sources on radiation safety clarify that the only threat to personnel is posed from armor packages in the cheeks of the turret. The M1A2 Abrams in War Thunder has uranium armor in the turret cheeks.


Source: The Medical NBC Battlebook, USACHPPM, 2011.

We’re aware that several experimental vehicles of an unspecified modification of the Abrams were equipped with reinforced DU armor in the hull. However, even though armor was reinforced on these experimental variants, we have no sources that clarify which specific versions of the Abrams these were, and as such can’t confidently state that any of the Abrams versions we have in War Thunder received this specific hull armor reinforcement.

A section from a document describing the use of DU in five machines located in army schools. Source: Nuclear regulatory commission renewal license application for DU armor.

The documents presented in the reports we currently have don’t provide clear evidence of DU armor being present on the M1A2 SEP V1 or M1A2 SEP V2 modifications. A significant increase in mass which would accompany strengthening the armor with high-density fillers is also not observed in the SEP V1 or SEP V2 versions.

Weight changes of different M1 Abrams modifications. Source: An Independent Assessment of the 2040 Battlefield and its Implications for the 5th Generation Combat Vehicle (5GCV), Department of the Army Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, 2023

Additionally, a significant weight increase from such an armor package would lead to overloading the first pair of torsion bars, which already are under an increased load on the M1 series due to the placement of the frontal armor being positioned significantly far towards the front of the hull, as well as the large armored fuel tanks either side of the driver.

The implementation of low-density mass-efficient fillers would inevitably require an increase in size, which is not observed on the serial modifications of the M1 Abrams.

An M1 Abrams series hull armor package demonstration with an additional armor screen that greatly increases the armor’s resistance. Source: "Svenskt pansar igår, idag och imorgon" by Rickard O. Lindström.

Therefore, the lack of reliable information regarding the increase of frontal hull protection in tandem with the lack of observable evidence (such as a significant increase in weight or size), does not allow us to assume that the frontal hull armor was strengthened with DU packages on the versions of the Abrams we have in game.

We’d also like to leave a comment on the sources that players cite as evidence about the use of depleted uranium for the M1A2 SEP.

Боевые машины Уралвагонзавода. Танк Т-72 (Combat vehicles of Uralvagonzavod. Tank T-72)
This book cannot be considered a reliable source, especially for modern Western vehicles. The authors wrote this book shortly after the SEP came into service, the written information is more speculation and guesses on their part. This book also contains errors for the characteristics of Soviet tanks in comparison to other open source data available.

MATERIALS LICENSE from U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Licenses to work with depleted uranium in the hull of the M1 Abrams series of tanks may apply to those experimental vehicles, for example 5 vehicles located at the tank school. These documents do not describe whether there was depleted uranium in a particular modification of the tank.

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, Owners' Workshop Manual
This publication does not directly indicate that the M1A2 SEP or M1A2 SEP V2 had depleted uranium armor added to the hull. Only general words that the changes achieved on the M1A1SA were implemented on the M1A2 SEP V2. In addition, this source is secondary; other independent secondary sources are also needed.

The Army's Future Combat Systems Program and Alternatives
Only the use of third-generation uranium armor is mentioned, but there’s no confirmation that this armor was located in the body of the M1A2 SEP, and what exactly the “third generation” consisted of.

Main changes with the M1A2 SEP modification. Source: The M1A2: Current and Future Program Plans, US Army Armor Center, 1997

If we consider other projections, possible changes to the armor of the Abrams over its various modifications may not have directly resulted in an increase in the actual protection of the armor itself. These changes could rather have been aimed at increasing the armor filler’s survivability upon impact (which is an element not currently modeled in the game). Because of this, without hard numbers and solid facts confirming a tangible increase in protection, we can’t alter the protection currently offered by the armor on the M1 series.

However, this is not the end of our attention on the Abrams, as we’ll continue to look at all declassified and publicly available information we can regarding its protection — we fully appreciate the discussion. If in the future an increase in protection can be validated and corroborated from available sources, we’ll take action on it.

Thank you to everyone in our community for your attention on this topic and for all of the discussions you’ve brought forward, we hope that this devblog has managed to provide useful information and clarify our outlook on the Abrams currently.

Hello everyone. We’ve noticed that many of you had questions regarding spall liners on tanks and armor in general. To avoid any misunderstandings, we’d like to briefly answer some of these elements below.

[h2]The effectiveness of the M1 Abrams[/h2]

We’ll soon be releasing a dev blog on the hull armor for the M1 Abrams series of tanks, where we’ll explain why we believe that hull armor was not reinforced on production vehicles. However, we’re not satisfied with the current effectiveness of all M1 variants with a 120 mm gun, so we’re looking at other ways to improve them.

The first consideration is the addition of a new M829A3 shell which we’ve also seen requests and suggestions for. We’ve discussed this option, but the addition of this shell in comparison with the M829A2 will not enhance the Abrams capability against top-tier vehicles that are equipped with modern armor and built-in ERA systems. We’re still considering the possibility of adding the M829A3 shell, but as a first change, we’re going to increase the rate of fire of first-stage ammo from 6 to 5 seconds per shot on an Ace level crew, which’ll make the Abrams more effective against all opponents. This rate of fire is possible considering the size and weight of most shells for 105 mm guns are comparable to shells for a 120 mm gun. This is due to the fact that the 120 mm cartridge case is partially combustible, while the 105 mm case is metal. For example, a 105 mm shell with an M900 projectile has a length of 1003 mm and a weight of 18.5 kg, and a 120 mm M829A2 has a length of 982 mm and a weight of 20.3 kg.

[h2]The Leopard 2A7V’s armor[/h2]

We always try to bring the characteristics of vehicles presented in the game as close as possible to the documented characteristics of real vehicles. In the case of the protection of the Leopard 2A7V, we rely on information about the Leopard 2 armor package presented at the Swedish tender. We have no reliable evidence that armor enhancements compared to the prototype submitted to the Swedish tender were ever carried out, nor the level to which the armor could have been enhanced if this had been done, so at this time we don’t believe that it’s possible to further enhance the protection of this tank.

As for the difference in protection between the Swedish versions of the Leopard 2 and the German Leopard 2A7V (the Swedish versions have more, which may seem illogical). This is due to the fact that the Swedish versions of these tanks received their own, completely new, reinforced armor package of their own production, both in the hull and and on the turret (which is also confirmed by protection data obtained in tests for the tender).

At the same time, we’d like to note that the current level of protection of the Leopard 2A7V currently is that the majority of the frontal area is protected against any 120-125 mm APFSDS presented in the game. Regarding the slightly lower turret protection than the Leopard 2A6, small differences in durability within ~2~5% do not affect this tank’s protection, and are due to the difference in vehicle geometry. In the near future, we will update the DM for Leopard 2 tanks, therefore correcting any minor discrepancies.

We’d also like to separately note that some players believe that the protection of the Leopard 2A7V presented in the game is based on the “B” package. However, according to the data we have, this is not the case. As you can see from the armor resistance diagrams from the Swedish tender, the mounted package D-2 in combination with package B provides protection of only 45% of the frontal projection from APFSDS with a penetration of 600mm, but in the game a different combination of armor protection packages is presented, providing protection of more than 65% of the frontal projection from threats of this type.

Protection of Leopard 2I (improved), based on B package with an add-on kit of D-2: more than 55% vulnerable to APFSDS with a penetration of 600mm.

Armor map in the game: less than 35% of the projection is vulnerable to APFSDS with a penetration of 600mm.

[h2]Spall liners for the Ariete, Merkava and Leclerc[/h2]

We’re currently studying and adding spall liners for Ariete tanks. These tanks will receive spall liners in a future update.

As for the Merkava series of tanks, we have information that these tanks do not have spall liners. We’ve studied information from open sources and apart from armored steel, we did not find any other protection on the sides of the Merkava’s fighting compartment.

At the moment we don’t have reliable data from open sources about the precedence of spall liners on the Leclerc series of tanks.

[h2]Battle Rating 12.7 for Aviation[/h2]

We’re closely monitoring the data and believe that at the moment, there’s no need for an increase to the current Battle Rating threshold for aviation from 12.3 to 12.7. This is because the current efficiency of all new aircraft except the JAS39s is at the level of previously introduced Battle Rating 12.3 aircraft. As for the Gripens, their flight model has been revised, and we’ll monitor their effectiveness after these changes.

[h2]Tornado IDS WTD61[/h2]

We decided not to expand the range of weapons of the Tornado IDS WTD61, since we’re not sure that this aircraft could carry a targeting pod and guided bombs. However, we’re closely monitoring this aircraft’s performance and are ready to make other changes if necessary.

[h2]Topics for upcoming Development blogs[/h2]

We’re working on your reports on the Challenger 2 series of tanks, and many of these issues have already been fixed. We’ll publish answers to some questions regarding these tanks in the near future. In addition to this, a development blog about the changes to the parameters of Stinger and Mistral MANPADS missiles is planned for release in the very near future, so keep an eye out on the news for that.

s my esteemed colleague Rich Stanton put it, it has now been [0] days since restricted military documents have been leaked in the War Thunder forums. As reported by Task and Purpose, this latest incident relates to the M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, a tracked AIFV that first went into service with the US military in 1981...
Read more.

Nobody likes cheaters. We’re continuing to actively fight them — and we want to thank those who are actively helping us on this matter. The number of violations identified and banned recently has significantly increased — and with it of course the integrity of all battles!

[h2]Banned accounts[/h2]
Over the last month, we’ve blocked 6,818 accounts that were found to be in violation of the rules. Specifically 3.2.3 of the EULA namely in the automation of gameplay (using bots) and cheat software.

For full transparency, we’re publishing the full list of these blocked players. This list will be available for two weeks after the publication of this article.

[h2]What we recommend[/h2]
We recommend that you set a strong password for your account and enable two-step authentication in your profile. This will protect your account from fraudsters. And remember, don’t use forbidden client modifications and never share your account information with anyone!