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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Additionally all Abrams variant that were produced after 2000 should receive Improved Side Armor, which increase CE performance by 250%
M1A2 SEPv2 also received additional upgrade for its turret frontal armor.
Looks like you got more than enough sources for bug report.
Do you know the date of these?
Depending on the date you can prove whether late SEPv2 got NEA or if these docs are related to SEPv3.
Contract W56HZV-12-C-0322 was awarded to GDLS in late September, 2012.
Can confirm it’s SEPv2.
Someone already did few years back.
Dev just casually wave it off by saying that "FY2001 is too vague, we can’t determine which spefic model should these upgrades apply to"🤥
Nothing I post is new to Gaijin.
To my acknowledge they got at least a half dozen bug reports regarding to the ITSA.
Dev just sit on the issue for years.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ULvSC60SVBFw
Damn…
No!
