Bug reports about M1A2 SEPv3 hull armor are closed with “no specifics, unclear what was changed”
I understand modern tank armor is classified. But then:
-What exact KE values (in mm) does Gaijin have for T-90M?
-What exact KE values does Gaijin have for Leopard 2A7V?
Gaijin clearly uses educated guesses for Russian and German tanks(T90м and leopard 2A7V). Yet for the SEPv3 hull, you demand “absolute proof”
Official sources confirm SEPv3 has upgraded hull armor:
-U.S. Army procurement docs (FY2020-2022): “upgraded hull armor”
-General Dynamics brochure: “upgraded armor in the hull and turret”
In game weight difference: m1 (55.7t) vs m1a2 SEP v3 (66.8t) = +11.1 tons
I am not asking for classified numbers. I am asking for the same logic — a conservative educated guess (e.g., 5-15% improvement) that Gaijin already applies to other nations.
Question: Why does Gaijin’s policy on classified armor depend on the nation?
Uh…gaijin uses the Swedish tank trials for tank values. This is where the Abrams also comes from alongside the AIM and its trials in AU.
The Leo TVM is what gaijin pulls when looking at the stats iirc for the 2A7 when it was compared against the 122.
A lot is very much gaijin choosing whatever they want and not really caring (seriously I love Sweden but I’m not gonna say Germany somehow didn’t make better armor than their production model in all those years since the trials with the TVM prototype.)
I understand the Swedish trials. But those trials covered the M1A2 AIM (export armor, no DU hull) and Leopard 2A5, not the 2A7V. Gaijin still made an educated guess for the 2A7V’s improved armor. I’m asking for the same educated guess for SEP v3 hull armor, based on official U.S. documents stating ‘upgraded hull armor’ and an 11-ton weight increase. That’s all
As far as i understand it those educated guesses were based on external size differences between the older and newer models. Then estimating that volume change and using either known armor values per previous volume or estimated ceramic ones to add that value based on the new size. I think they are doing the same with the sepv3 turret.
The Abrams hasn’t had en external size change to the hull so there is nothing to base the estimation on.
But i might be completely wrong, that is just my personal understanding.
This is not true. If they had demanded it, the T-90M would have had the same armor as the T-90A, and the 2A7V would have had the same armor as the 2A5. However, in the game, they are reinforced. Can u show you the error report for the T-90M, which was rejected due to a lack of data. There are no such reports.
The U.S. Army procurement documents (FY2020-2022) explicitly state “upgraded hull armor” - not just turret
The in game weight difference between m1 (55.7t) and SEP v3 (66.8t) is 11.1 tons. Even accounting for the new gun, APU, and turret upgrades, several tons remain unexplained
Armor upgrades don’t always require external size changes. Internal composition changes (different NERA layers, backing plates, spall liner) can significantly improve protection without changing the tank’s silhouette
Gaijin has made educated guesses based on weight and documentation for other vehicles. I’m asking for the same logic here - not for 800mm of protection, but for a conservative estimate (e.g., 5-10% improvement over the base M1A2)
That’s all)
T-90M does have the same exact hull armor as T-90A, & the same composite composition as the turret of T-90A; the only turret difference is the angling toward the gun, & the front steel plate thickness.
Thank you for the explanation on the T-90M. That actually proves my point - Gaijin had unclassified data for the T-90A, so they could copy it to the T-90M with only ERA changes
For the SEPv3, we have the same situation: an older vehicle (M1A2) with known hull armor (~380mm KE). But unlike the T-90M, official documents state the SEPv3 has ‘upgraded hull armor’ and the weight increased by 11 tons. Gaijin is ignoring their own sources
I’m not asking for classified numbers. I’m asking for the same conservative approach they’d use if a Russian or German tank had official documents stating “upgraded hull armor”
So why not just use numbers for other Arrays that we have something on? Even they they aren’t for this particular setup and were historically not moved to production.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I completely understand that the documents don’t say “LFP increased by X% against KE”
But here’s my question: For the Leopard 2A7V, what exact document told Gaijin that “this part of the armor was improved, against these threats, by this amount”?
I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m genuinely asking: if Gaijin can make a reasonable, conservative estimate for the 2A7V based on Swedish trials and weight increases, why can’t the same logic be applied to the SEP v3 hull using the 11-ton weight increase and the official “upgraded hull armor” statements?
I’m not asking for 800mm. I’m asking for consistency in how ‘educated guesses’ are applied across nations.
Sorry, but a lot of this is answered through multiple sources already; the only thing we’re really missing is actual armor values, which are classified.
For which part of the armor, it’s obviously the turret front, as seen in irl images, and the hull , which is stated in government docs.
-For the threats, the armor was designed to have multiple operational and emerging threats in mind. That’s obviously KE and CE threats, as that’s what the armor protects from.
And when it comes to the enhanced crew survivability and whether it was actually talking about the armor. Well, as stated individually, it’s talking about the Armor “Next Evolution Armor” as a part of the “enhanced crew survivability”.
I don’t actually know the sources used so i can’t comment on that.
I think the biggest difference is with the physical outward appearance, not the weight increase. Weight can be increased by a lot more thing than just armor, the physical outward growth however can practically only be armor and in those cases it’s also quite clear at what places it’s increased by approximately how much.
With the Abrams hull there is zero indication on where that increase should be and by how much. is 10 tonnes on the sides and 1 in the front? 5 tonnes sides and 6 tonnes front? is 3 tonnes from something else changing and only 8 to the armor?
There is really (so far) no reasonable way to make any sort of even guess let alone estimate for the hull.
You’re missing way more than that for the hull, see my answer above.
Well sure, but is it mostly armor designed for KE or mostly for CE? equal for both? at what parts of the hull? increased CE armor to the sides and KE to the front? other way around?
The reports i have seen and the sources i have seen have really not at all answered the questions i asked in the post you replied to. At best it’s players assuming things and making their own connections between separate things (that might be logical connections but not necessarily the only explanation so it’s to vague).
I disagree personally. The standard you’re stating where you need the most nitpicky details; it has been broken many times already with Gaijin in the past on other things like Relick armor , KH38, Merkava armor and the Type 10 armor, which have even more vague detail compared to sepv3s hull information that was provided its really is double standards at this point. Bringing up wheter its more KE or CE is just nitpicking really; we know its was a general improvement against those threats. As Gaijin has stated already, they don’t need armor values for bug reports so they are just going against what they said.
