There was a document about a new ceramic armor package being developed before the base M1A2 or the SEPv1 started production iirc that was supposed to provide a 35% increase in KE protection.
Iirc it was also attached in Kenny’s bug report. Problem is that Gaijin was like “yeah nah we have no clue if it was actually applied or not”, and moved on to DU hull armor.
If you really are against that du in abrams. You should add m829a3 for sepv2. It will make it somewhat worth it and just sidegrade to previous US mbts. M829a3 will have superior penetration and anti-era tip. Anti-era tip should also be introduced to other nation fe. Dm53, L27a1 etc
M829a3 should have enough pen to penetrate relikt heavy era
The turret is still gonna stop it
You might have actually given me an idea for one last thing to look at in the SEPv2 LFP thread. It’ll have to wait until when I get home in about 1.5-2 hours though, because scrolling through 1500 replies on my phone is pain.
It probably won’t be enough to convince Gaijin, but I guess it’s worth a shot to look.
It seems to me that either in 2002 or sometime in the mid late 2000s they stopped using the identifier “U” that had been used to state said tank had DU armour, and instead started using the “M” identifier for upgraded tanks, I initially thought the M identifier was for NGAP but that doesn’t seem to be the case as tanks that do not have the NGAP armour upgrade can still be seen with the “M” identifier as can be seen here:
SEPv2 (top) and SEPv3s turrets
As stated, the bottom is the SEPv3, which is easy to tell apart due to the added NGAP turret armour which has extended the turret cheeks lengths by quite a bit.
Now the turret serial identifier does in fact seem to stand for something, for instance Australian had an A, the U = Uranium, E = export, there was also an E with a dash above it, probably to state it was improved, I do not however know what the M stands for, maybe M = modern or mixed i.e. Mixed non-DU GDLS armour package and DU, I do not know.
I will probably create a bug report to reiterate that the improved hull does not need to be DU.
Although yea will probably still be rejected because “no values given” although, like I said from what I have gathered the non-DU armour created by GDLS was meant to be comparable to the DU armour package, likely meaning an improved hull would be around 550 - 650 (what the 5 DU hulled M1s supposedly had).
Hmmm. Now that THAT has been mentioned, if an Abrams can have a better reload to make it less painful to play then surely the Leclerc can get the same treatment and be put to it’s actual real life reload speed of 5s right??
Nah, Leclerc armor report was denied so chance of getting a reload buff is none.
it is possible that the M1A1SA and M1A2SEPv2 with the letter M have improved turret armor.
They do though? “Turret armour side” “armour side” “armour front”.
So if they ment front of turret, they would have written “turret armour front”.
I hope the official can officially respond to the current issues with CNTT to prevent CN players who are preparing to make another impact.
At present, the number of players in CN is not to be underestimated, and is there accurate information to support the advanced equipment games that have emerged in recent years in the context of CN’s high level of military confidentiality?
Do the staff who reject the player’s submission of supporting materials have corresponding materials as a response?
Does the fact that most of the top-level CNTT in the game are fictional go against the original intention of restoring reality?
How should CNTT develop in the future, after all, as one of the current permanent members of the world?
The fact that a classified tank, has very few unclassified stuff about it, and one of those stuff being CLEARLY SPALL LINERS they DENY IT ITS THERE, THERE IS A SPALL LINER FOR MK4, Israel literlly is useless, they make it completly unplayble
Maybe, the problem however is that the US in regards M1 upgrades are not entirely as straight forward as their documents sometimes state.
So after looking into this quite a bit I came to some pretty “obvious” conclusions, that Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) Gunnery FM 3-20.21 document does not state the M1A2 SEP had an improved armour package, however as noted here there was a new armour package that was introduced in 2002 i.e. when the SEP was beginning full on production/upgrade status, this armour package did actually include both the improved turret side armour:
As noted, this armour package did not exist when the SEP was given the go ahead as it didn’t even have ballistic testing done until 2000 and likewise was only adopted in 2001 when the contract was awarded, this is why early documents do not talk about the SEP getting improved armour.
It is highly likely that the HBCT document is referring to this armour upgrade as it was not initially stated as an improvement to the original SEP, I could be wrong however.
Edit: Forgot to mention, they also state the SEPv2 was the tank to get the Block 1 FLIRs, however the first tanks to receive that upgrade were SEPv1s / tanks being upgrade to the SEPv1, that Block 1 FLIR upgrade is from 2004ish.
M1A2SEPv1 received 2 gen FLIR block 0, SEPv2 got block 1.
My impression: You obviously didn’t understand the problem.
Please do your homework and if it is necessary to involve the players then do it first. There is no point in continuing like this, the dissatisfaction and frustration on both sides is only increasing.
I dont understand why you dont wany to put kevlar spall liners on abrams…
I guess 13.0 BR fighter aircraft toptier would be Sukhoi Su-27SM3, Sukhoi Su-34, F/A-18A+ Hornet (1995), F/A-18C Hornet (1993 ~ 2002), CF-18A Hornet (IMP) and F-15I Ra’am (1998)
This will not go unnoticed, Gaijin devs deserve to be exposed for blatant bias and favoritism.
