I know this is just my personal opinion. However I would rather get a tank that actually offers something different/new over a nation’s other 11.7 MBT than just getting a straight up downgrade of the previous end of line MBT (CR3 TD and SEPv2).
I’m confused right now so do SEPV2 does have better hull or not
Could have, but there is no concrete evidence currently available which proves that to be true.
The SEP v3 most certainly does however.
SEPv2 would if you could just take the ERA off.
Plus if so your path is only suggesting and waiting for prototype Abrams tanks instead of waiting for SEPs with little to none gameplay changes. It’s like waiting a T-34 or Sherman to change porgressively gameplay wise.
CR 3 TD used to have more meaning, it has meaning now still, being with 120 Rh L55A1 instead of shitty 120MM gun it had before, having one piece ammo actually in a safe place for it instead of all over the tank, making hull shots possible to be ammoracks like on T-series, but it also had engine with a horsepower only export Chally 2 has.
Spoiler
Except someone doesnt even need a spall liner to refuse spalling (Centurions love to not spall)
Yeah either the TUSK II should be optional or the SEPv2 should have just been skipped in favor of the SEPv3.
SEPv2 without TUSK II would still at best be an uninteresting sidegrade, as it only adds the stabilized .50 cal compared to the SEPv1. But at least a SEPv2 without TUSK II would actually be worth playing I guess.
It still has a leopard style rack in the turret without blowout panels though. And it gained penetration at the cost of a slower reload.
It was a sidegrade before the engine nerf. Now it’s a straight up downgrade over the 2E.
5 Likes
Germany (in the form of KMW) did mass-produce them in the Strv 122, which isn’t moving the goalpost.
DU being incorporated into the turret =/= it not being installed in the hulls (either before this document was made, or after). Additionally, the Frontal Armor upgrade designation change and the removal of the hull limit was done after this report was published, and it lacks mentions of the DU hulls that were made before this since they have existed since at least 1997.
As for the improved side armor, this also just shows that they put on an armor that gave it better protection for negligible increase in weight, not that the M1A2 was so heavy as to be unable to handle a DU hull (which wouldn’t make sense, since we know M1A1s could handle it [after receiving the M1A2’s suspension, most likely]). The report also directly talks about weight-saving measures taken on the M1A2 (and M1A1 retrofits), including the improved suspension.
This directly talks about ~3.25 tons worth of weight-savings modifications with their “scheduled effective date” being the year of or the year after their first use. It is just speculation to say that these were not implemented, especially if the severity of the weight concerns are true.
This is before 2006, so it doesn’t disprove that hull improvements were rolled out in 2006. Additionally, I cannot find the actual document in question, so I can’t verify the context.
Moving it down to 9.7 would make a larger lineup, still.
I mean the US currently has only offensive tanks (and they’re nearly all the same), so Russia’s actually in a better position in that regard.
M1A1 HAs, M1A1 SAs, M1A2s, M1A2 SEPs, and M1A2 SEPv2s should have better hulls at the very least as their best armor package option (from 1997 for the M1A1 HA in the form of prototypes, and post August 2006 for the rest).
1 Like
Yes but it’s hull isnt a guaranteed blow up like on T series and blowout panels still seem to somehow stop explosion and sometimes fire even if struck on vehicles like Type 10/90 so always better with than without.
2 Likes
Might I add, while being at risk of going off topic, testing docs that Flame has suggest that L27A1 should have superior performance to M829A1… the problem is Gaijin doesn’t have a full set of figures for L-O formula and so assumes the mass and length are the same as the L26…
Gaijin just likes playing pick and mix with the CR3.
They’re all the same exact tank, just with minor upgrades that were added among its lifespan.
Whether or not it remains as it is in-game or is changed, its additions are simply anachronistic
It… Is a T-80UM?
I see
Change of armour throughout 1979-1983-1984 is not a minor upgrade.
1983 made 105mm DM23 not effective against T-80B, unlike 1979 T-80B, with T-80B getting same armour array (5 layer) as T-80BV making it much effective overall.
Did the German Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 feature the applique hull armour dispite it being developed? It’s a simple Yes/No question, so answer it for me, will you?
-
If it were placed in the hulls as well as the turret, it’d just say so.
-
Feel free to prove that it was installed in the hulls, again, you’ve still not presented any evidence for that case.
And it’s speculation to say they were.
Burden of proof still lies with you on that matter, not me.
Plenty of people claim the M1A2 SEP featured improved hull armour, that being a 1999 DOI vehicle.
I have the source listed right below, and it’s literally the first search result on Google.
We’re going around in circles again, you make claims that you cannot back up whatsoever, and then when I present sources that don’t align with your pre-established view on the topic, suddenly the goalposts get moved.
You’ve also still not shown any valid proof for any of your claims.
I’ll leave it here.
2 Likes
Yes? Also the Strv 122 did as well.
Unless it was part of the classified information, and the report was published before 2006.
Read these please: M1A2 SEP V2 doesnt have better LFP armour - #1807 by SpeclistMain1
The burden of proof is not on me, the Army explicitly states the weight-saving measures were planned to be implemented on a trade-off basis. The assumption one would make here, when we don’t have anything stating they were not implemented, is that the weight-saving measures were implemented.
Yes, but it seems like the pre-FY2004/2005 Abrams had an earlier Frontal Armor package, with the post-FY2004/2005 having a different version that includes hull DU. I looked through all of the budget justifications before FY2004/2005 and none of them mention the SEP having better armor, but in FY2008/2009 the frontal armor is directly mentioned with the SEP. Think of it as an “early” versus “late” model thing.
I don’t use google, but ok. Regardless, this still doesn’t prove anything beyond 2000.
1 Like
There was no Agava M1, oy Agava 1 and 2.
Your stand on Agava M1 exists purely on thermal sight complex name, but complex isnt just thermal sight itself, it could be any small change or just different way of mounting, just like 1A45/T.
You are the only person I ever saw Agava-M1 come from.
This scheme from museum shows additionally that Agava was first mounted on some T-72’s (probably A version), same museum also has Agava 1 and 2 by that very same scheme and no talk of Agava-M1 to start with.
There most definitely was an Agava-M1.
Yes, and I said quite clearly that the T-80U used the Agava-M1 complex… I don’t understand how people like you fail to understand basic sentences.
You must not do enough research. KBTM even notes the Agava-M1, both within the Nocturne system and the base T01-P02T complex I’ve already given.
If you want to talk about Agava-2 alone, that wasn’t produced as a single unit since 1987. No lone unit of Agava-2 coincided with 1A43 beyond the final run of T-80Us, and was only incorporated into 1A45T systems on 80UMs.
Agava is a sight, not a complex, but something like
is a complex, and it recieving T or -1 doesnt mean it changed, it could be anything including just dfifferent mount for a T-90 for example, which it (TO1-P02T, complex that includes Agava 2 for early T-90 and T-90K tanks, same way how TO1-P02 is Agava 2 for T-80U variants, same way how 1A45T is T-90 complex that while 1A45 is T-80U/D complex) literally is.
state your sources
One mention of Agava-M1 I could find is a T-80 vietnamese wiki page that uses this as it’s source, but it somehow fails to connect Т01-П06 being Nocturne and not Agava-M1, the very same source it uses proves vietnamese wiki wrong.
Other mention is from russian website detailing how Agava-M1 is a system that includes Agava 2 and 9K119M complex, ADDITIONALLY it mentions it while talking about T-80UM, the very same tank to use Agava 2 and not Agava M1, it also states it’s index wrong, stating its Object 219AT, with Object 219AT being given to T-80U modernisation programm that never got past project state.
Then there’s russian “Alphapedia” that mentions Agava-M1 being a sight talking about T-80UM, additionally stating it’s year of introduction wrong while making a note Agava 2 (its real sight) is optional, then you have a bunch of English sites and notes just copy pasting that source in English.
Then you have Army Recognition stating Agava-M1 is a sighting complex, however doesnt state name of sight and then gets a lot of mistakes regarding T-80U’s variants in general.
Then there’s Army Guide stating Agava-M1 to be a sight of T-80UM.
Funny how in it’s own language Agava-M1 makes a single appearance on a tank that always realistically had Agava 2, additionally Agava-M1 being made after the Agava-2 has been tested, and adopted into army and production, you have russians here struggling to get one thermal they tested 5 years ago into production while these foreign (with one sketchy russian source) websites think there was room for Agava-M1 (thinking that it is it’s own sight and not a complex)
Then, the only somewhat okay source, russian army tech journal is the only normal mention of Agava-M1, stating it to be a complex of thermal sight and other things like 9K119M being a part of new T-80UM tank.
So out of all of these only one applicable source stating Agava-M1 being not even a sight but a complex containing thermal sight.
What I am discussing is Agava-M1 never existing as a sight, but a complex that uses Agava 2, which refering to Agava 2 as Agava M1 is missleading, as majority knows it by Agava 2 and its history as Agava 2 sight. I believe me stating multiple “sources” aka sketchy websites stating Agava-M1 to be either complex or a sight proves that it’s best to refer to Agava 2 as it’s sight name and not state complex it’s used in.
Funny to see the corpse of an Abrams thread being used to talk about stuff with actual sources to be found tbh
The curse of all US equipment threads, to just become a thread about another nation’s vehicles.
4 Likes
lol
M1A2 did not receive any hull armor upgrade due to weight concern, SE2 were postponed to be incorporated in SEP.
Based on all the available data I could find, I believe the armor scheme should be something like TCA.
2 Likes
Additionally all Abrams variant that were produced after 2000 should receive Improved Side Armor, which increase CE performance by 250%
![1687224914265|907x888]
And all Abrams variant that were produced after 2013 should have DU in its turret side armor.
(upload://zPKFL3DShA4vDXa3dQlMd7OINWV.png)
M1A2 SEPv2 also received additional upgrade for its turret frontal armor.
2 Likes