I still haven’t found whatever primary source that Spookston used to claim the SEPv3 definitely had DU in the hull. That one will forever leave me scratching my head.
Yeah that one had me confused I guess he took NEA as that?
Back in 2015 it was still a new and maturing program for sepv3, and that doc is very out dated. It’s pretty obvious that the new armor is meant to counter new threats like the Armata like you said. I mean you literally can physically see that they had to extend the turret cheeks and hull out further to fit the new package in. It’s pretty big upgrade which the army constantly touts.
There is no question about the armor being upgraded. What it was is the question. was it just thicker chobam?
I mean we will probably never know but it could be entirely new armor composition all together.
1 Like
At this point I really hate that Gaijin making the SEPv2 a separate tank. all it is in game is the TUSKII package. I would rather have that as a removable which would then literally just be a SEP.
Information will probably come out after the Abrams is replaced entirely.
Yep, Sepv2 was a scam tank in my opinion they could of at least gave it aps because as of now it’s a worse Sepv1 because its heavier. I wish they just added sepv3 instead because we know for a fact the armor was upgraded.
7 Likes
Heavier and has a large shot trap for HE on the top of it.
No I’ve seen that it’s from August something 2006, I just haven’t seen the earlier licenses from like 2015 about the Army handling the Marine’s DU materials.
The license from 2016 doesn’t say hulls so they’ll just say ‘tanks’ and ‘turrets’ mean the same thing. I’m sounding awfully doomer but I have looked through a lot of documents and Gaijin’s responses to them and if it does not say “hull” (for example, if it just says “frontal armor” - even if frontal is used later on in the document to describe the hull of a tank) they won’t accept it.
wait since the marine DU tanks Possesed under the US army license for DU, wouldnt that mean that in theory that DU limit of 5 hulls wouldve been applied to marine tanks also? and isnt the presence of DU in the hull of the m1a1 SA very probable already?
the Trophy not being on it is absolutely stupid, we know it had it as a matter of fact,
Yes they would fall under the same restrictions. Honestly tank/turret really probably mean just turret. I have seen people saying they know the Marine tanks have it but I haven’t seen documents confirming.
Regardless if they add the DU hulls gameplay-wise it would change anything, I would love to see a buff to the hulls but it wouldn’t make a huge difference. they should give the sep v2 removable tusk and give it APS(Trophy). Additionally, the turret ring is a major weak spot, which I never realized as a USA main until I started playing other nations. I hope seeing the USSR win rate under 50% gaijin will make changes to top tier.
If they are refusing to give the tank DU hull cause “it was only on test vehicles” I doubt they will give it Trophy which was deferentially only on test vehicles.
I have been playing this game since 2014, consuming most of my time gaming. It’s my favorite game and probably will be for the rest of its existence. I only wish the absolute best for War Thunder, and I want the game to succeed.
BUT.
There is a massive issue as you climb the ranks of the US tech tree. Over the past 2 months, I have gone back to “Spade” every US Tech Tree vehicle. At around 6.7, most ground vehicles seem to be far from useful at their BR. The situation gets a bit better with the M60’s, until you have the TTS facing T-80B’s.
Right now, I am currently finishing off the M1A1 HC and HSTVL, and what an absolute nightmare it is… The HSTVL is for a different conversation, but 250mm of pen vs a Leopard 2A7 or a T-80BVM/T90M (especially with the unbelievable ERA package that eats 200mm of kinetic armor penetration) is just ineffective. Anyway, back to the Abrams.
The early editions of the Abrams feel solid, not invincible machines, but very strong, as they are meant to be. However, with the later editions of the Abrams (11.3 BR and up) you have the issue of your M829A1 ammunition just simply bouncing around weak-spots and not spalling (thanks to the spall liners that every other nation’s MBT’s has but Abrams does not have “according to your materials”).
Playing top-tier US is a chore, and I love playing other nations at top-tier. Having one of the most heavily fortified tanks in the world be taken out by Cold War-era vehicles from the FRONT, is absurd. If your “materials” are correct, then lower the BR of the later Abrams’. We, as in the player base, will not look at you negatively for having the USA’s top MBT at a lower BR than the T-80BVM/T-90M.
I could rant about these problems for hours, but instead, I have just one request.
It feels that the devs aren’t actually playing the game. Anytime there is a complaint about (insert nation/BR/vehicle here) we get a graph of win rates instead of a change. I want you (Gaijin Devs) to play Every one of the Abrams from stock to spaded, and live-stream it. If at the end of each Abrams, you feel as if it’s in a sufficient state, then so be it, however, I don’t think this will be the case…
9 Likes
They already said they don’t like the state of the Abrams, that is why they gave it the reload buff and engine noise reduction. They won’t change the armor without evidence though.
We have evidence of turret ring being too weak, side turret armor being too weak. We don’t have concrete proof of anything else unfortunately, and Gaijin has yet to fix what we have proof that should be stronger.
1 Like
They also acknowledged the Kevlar lining in the interior of the Abram’s idk how that going to implement that but it’s needed. Current win rate is getting closer to 20% which is crazy. The BR change, reload buff, and noise buff didn’t do much and they know it, it needs some sort of armor or survivability buff. But Russia win rate is dropping too so they might need to adjust something quick.
2 Likes
The Abrams Series became incredibly weak 90% of every Hit you are dead or knocked out :D
9 Likes
Seems they’ve had plenty of “evidence” DU armor exists…however its not forthcoming enough for them because its does’nt specify exact locations and engineering specs. IMO it there is enough evidence to give them license to make the Abrams more competitive. WHEN the actual specs come out I, if no real changes have been made, I will be done with this company. This fiasco is exactly why people, in their exhaustion, leak classified documents.
Funny enough an old vid from youtube, “chieftain chats abrams” guy gets to inspect m1a1 museum peice. He was a tc in desert storm and goes through functionality of pretty much entire vehicle…around 33:23 he talks about how they got the old crew to come see the tank which WAS a HC version with a DU turret which was removed and replaced with an older standard turret before donating to the museum. He and the crew knew it wasn’t the original turret because it lacked starting with the U on the numbers which denoted it as the HC with DU. I’m sure he is making it all up though.
2 Likes