You understand that the SEPv3 will not differ in any way from the M1A1 with a 120mm gun. The Gaijins still have all Abrams with the same armor thickness. The only difference is the thermal imager and the size of the gun.
Probably, but SEPv3 has physical external geometry different from the others so the remodel will offer opportunity to address the armor values.
The Turret ring nerfs are a bit harsh given other tanks don’t receive them at the same time too. I’m hoping it’s in advance of some buffs. Better rounds, better armor models.
It’d rather have a meh looking but better performing tank than a good looking but worse performing one.
Then there will be no difference between the M1A1 HC and M1A2. It will be one tank. Now if Gaijin makes real armor for the Abrams, then it will make sense, but everyone has the same NERA, the only place where the NERA has weaker armor is on the first M1.
Besides, TUSK is not useless, it very often saves from “Vikhr” missiles and from 2S38 and from cumulative shells. So if you remove TUSK you will simply weaken an already weak tank. I do not see any advantages in this at all.
It’s dead weight.
2 Likes
You are wrong to think so, play at the top rank on M1A1 HC and then you will see the difference. TUSK has good protection, very often even shells get stuck in it.
1 Like
1- The DU armored Abrams in-game currently have DU armor modeled.
This is proven by comparing M1A1 AIM to M1A1 HC.
2- This was a proposal in 1992, proposals aren’t applied to production vehicles in War Thunder.
3- This is still conjecture. SEP2 was produced prior to August 2006.
4- This one is definitely myth.
SEP2 didn’t have DU hulls in the first “block” of production, let alone SEP or M1A1 HC, with M1A1 HC being from the 1990s.
5- ?
@Alpharius11348
The M1A1 AIM armor is based on the Swedish trials.
The DU turret Abrams have 20 - 30mm more armor in-game.
I support fixing the armor values if proven incorrect. [Which I suspect they might be for years.]
Proposals won’t do that.
Dates after a year or production won’t do that.
The lack of unclassified numbers is why Gaijin guesstimated 20 - 30mm of extra armor above the Swedish trials [M1A1 AIM].
I rather have the same tank 4x than having to use a tank that is just worse because it has to carry a dead weight useless era package.
Lmao I’m spamming X to doubt.
I have over 400 games in my SEPv2 and I can count the amount of times it did anything on 2 hands.
I use the M1A1HC as a backup up in top tier so I can already tell you it’s dead weight.
As for your Vikhr statement the only Vikhrs it will be stopping was bad shots into the hull side armor.
A lot of hope for some for 4 extra tons of weight. I would rather keep my mobility.
But I’m not going to keep going back and forth with you over an opinion. End of the day Gaijin should give the option to remove the TUSK so those who don’t want it can remove it. Thankfully they have already said they are looking at it.
No it could get stuck in it. But that isn’t because of the TUSK it is because of a shell getting Gaijined at the end of the day it’s just well I hope a bug happens to save my life.
1 Like
it also increases profile making it much easier to spot behind a ridge line and offering more places to overpressure with HE frag shells
No, they are not. The “DU armor” in the game is based on non-DU export armor that was explicitly stated to be worse than the domestic packages and the packages offered during the Greek and Turkish Trials.
Armor: M1 < M1A1 < Swedish Trials export Abrams’ < M1A1 AIM <= domestic DU packages for the first gen (at least)
The M1A1 AIM and M1A1 HC use non-DU armor numbers from the Swedish trials, and therefore do not have the correct protection.
A proposal DU armor which shows the increase in protection DU adds, and therefore should be used to increase the armor of the current M1A1HCs/AIMs and M1A2s.
The production estimates for the new DU hull package were not stated going into FY2004/2005, so the DU packaged SEPv2s likely arrived after that (after all, the US army doesn’t produce DU packages for every single Abrams, they do it for the group of them that will be in combat).
Multiple post-2006 sources suggest otherwise (check the post I linked in the comment you replied to).
At the very least a DU-hulled Abrams should be added as it would provide the US with a tank with armor on par with the 2A7s and T-90M, even if Gaijin doesn’t want to give the SEPv2 (and likely the SEP and M1A1HC) its DU hull.
600mm KE * 0.35 =/= 20-30mm
2 Likes
Here is today’s battle, I survived three air-to-ground missile hits from a French plane. After that he came at me with unguided missiles.
I would agree. There have been several times where the TUSK 2 package on the turret has saved me from being 1 shot by helicopter ATGMs. It’s not like T-series where you just completely negated all damage(and somehow not even completely strip the ERA…) and the pieces generally come off as an entire line of modules instead of only the one that is hit… But it does increase survivability.
You give up a decent amount of mobility for what is essentially just a random skillcheck. You give up an active advantage for something situational that relies on people suffering from skill issue.
Why does no one suggest removing the T-90 or T-80 relic for the sake of mobility? It just seems to me that the Gaidzins should strengthen the dynamic protection on the Abras and other vehicles.
Thanks to this protection, the 2S38 stopped penetrating my side.
Because the frontal Relikt actually offers a meaningful advantage. As for the side relikt, because both already have the option to remove it??
2S38 can still pen most of the hull side even through the TUSK II, so that is at most some dude who got Gaijined.
1 Like
That a serious question? I don’t know maybe because one offers 30mm of KE while the other offers more than 6 times that at 200mm? TF?