I was under the impression TUSK-II was 1.5 tonnes, not 1.65
Can we please keep the topic on M1A2 Sep v3…
6 Likes
bro this comment section is declared a idea zone by me, why did my suggestion get denied.
3 Likes
you dont decide that
2 Likes
then who does
yall really too down like 30 comments dam
1 Like
Don’t you know? The 3-day long rants in the Leopard 2A7 thread spent slandering Gaijin for nonexistent issues are perfectly fine, but a general think-tank styled suggestion thread is oh-so horrible.
Oh, no, 1/4 the views so impactful.
1 Like
im just worried some els is going to come algo and restart the thread saying how useless the sepv3 would be.
1 Like
I personally think it’s a useless addition, with the only good thing coming from it being the armor protection… Even then, I’d rather have the previous models refined and finalized before anything protection-wise is added.
if the USA still uses it and has been for 4 decades it couldn’t be that usless.
The SEPv3 hasn’t been used for 4 decades, though. All of its additions are centered around logistical combat and anti-personnel / ambient protection, and wouldn’t serve for tank/tank combat.
The only addition is armor. That’s pretty much it.
i meant the tank design has been upgraded for 4 decades
1 Like
Well what I was saying is that the implementation of the SEPv3 would be useless. That’s what topic I primarily meant to reference.
The SEPv3 will receive better optics, Trophy, Low-Profile RCWS (which will help against HE…at least a little) and better armor which drives its uniqueness. The SEPv3 is the primary variant to receive the Trophy system out of the M1A2 family. Also the M1147 AMP round which should be integrated into the SEPv3 with the cancellation of the SEPv4.
Also, hopefully with the cancellation of the SEPv4 and the creation of the M1E3, there will be a lot more info on it such as its armor, spall liners that are integrated within the composite (which is like almost every other Abrams), LWS, and APS. I’d hate to have another paper tank.
4 Likes
+1 with T-14 and ZTZ-99A2
Screw the T-14, when do I get my '195.
1 Like
What better optics does it receive? The only upgrades to thermals on the Abrams was supposed to go with the SEPv4 until that was cancelled, and it’s an entirely new system on the E3.
Unless you mean lens differences, zoom, and so on… I still can’t find a difference.
SEPv2^
Great reason for that, but its still huge.
Why not an option to remove it, though? Many testbeds to the M1A2 SEPv3 based on the SEPv2 removed the RCWS altogether, and you can still see a few select models that lack it entirely.
You don’t need to keep trying to sell me on this, I’ve already agreed that it would be a welcome addition… after current armor is dealt with.
Both the SEPv2 and SEPv3 have been equipped with Trophy, and both are rare occurrences. Commonality makes no difference in design, though.
Again, what purpose would this serve? Do you also want the canister shell to be added?
Its armor, like HAP, can only be estimated in KE/CE effectiveness for the next few decades, just as previous armor generations have been.
That’s called NERA, not spall liners.
You’d hate another paper tank? That’s effectively what the M1A2 SEPv3 is compared to the SEPv2. There’s no addition to it apart from armor that can serve a gameplay difference between the two vehicles… The armor is still a paper figure for every vehicle past the M1A1HC.
The only Abrams in the game that can have the increased hull armor that everyone whines about is the AIMv2, and even then it’s next to impossible to find multiple sources that corroborate the same information.
M1E3 real???
lol the abrams is completely wrong and i dont want stona closing this thread too
PMs are fine, or we can link to off-topic.
trust me it is