Fine, let’s recap this whole talk from the beginning. To be honest, I haven’t known a lot of intricate details about Abrams.
First, I never strictly worry about hull only. Some people over the internet mention that Gaijin hasn’t even implemented DU insert for the turret. If this is true, then it’s been overdue since Gaijin introduced M1A2. Some people mention that Abrams are supposed to get hull improvement for a select number when they were experimenting it. If this is true, then there’s a difference in treatment for this situations when they give Russia better optics despite them only upgrading a select few T80 to have the better thermal optics in real life.
Right now, M1A2, M1A2 SEP, and M1A2 SEPv2 have the exact same protection (excluding ERA modules). You’re trying to convince me that despite the tank being multiple decades old, and upgrades have been implemented, and attempt to shave weights off by moving from copper cables to fiber optics, the armor profile for the Abrams tank (without ERA) is exactly the same. All M1A2, M1A2 SEP, and M1A2 SEPv2? I saw one or two threads made by people asking to give SEP better armor but rejected not because they did not believe there was no improvement, but one of the mods stated that it was because they didn’t know how much it would have to be added.
As for you believing there are multiple improvements to be added should SEPv3 is introduced into the game, there are already possible improvements for SEPv2 like M829A3 and Trophy system. The APS that would actually matter against ATGMs especially when Abrams don’t have LWS. Despite SEPv2 being a downgrade due to added weight and nonexistant extra advantage in the game, and Abrams in game being a huge lolpen from even BVM with like sub 600mm pen dart, they don’t even want to add the Trophy even though SEPv2 can have it, and US is in dire need of better MBT in game.
As for the 2S38, I personally doubt that 2022 vehicle already has basically all of its information leaked for public use to the point that Gaijin can accurately model it. One example: wasn’t 2S38 lost in river in Ukraine war because they thought it was gonna be waterproof but it wasn’t?
The difference between the Abrams tests and the T-80s is that production T-80s were given Agava-1 and Agava-2 from factory… The Abrams did not get its heavy armor in the hull to begin with, unless you count a few one-off testbeds.
So go talk about that where it’s relevant.
If you’d learn to read, or scroll, or both, you’d see me see on multiple occasions that the one and only interesting thing the SEPv3 adds is armor. That’s the only effective difference it has.
Not a single 2S38 was lost in Ukraine, because it hasn’t been commissioned yet. I don’t know about you, but a nation that hasn’t bought a vehicle obviously would not be using it in an all-out war.
As for “leaked for public use”… They’re quite literally a public display.
Because Abrams hulls are so bad they get lol penned by sub 600mm round. If the improvement makes it able to shatter dart at an extra 1 or 2 degree angle, it might make it slightly better. Or at least resists from rounds like 2S38’s dart (quite a lot of surface area to be frontally penned on the hull by 57mm dart, maybe this will help a bit).
Well, I don’t think that should suddenly be a barrier for Gaijin to refuse giving it the extra protection. Hell, they can give it as one of the researchable mods. From what I heard, even though Agava 2 was supposedly from factory, people said RU had a few of them only fitted with this… Maybe more than what? 4 or 5 of the supposed Abrams fitted for the test, but still small percentage over all other T80s…
Then it was western propaganda. Someone said a whole convoy including the ‘brand new’ 2S38 was lost in river crossing in Ukraine conflict.
If by shattering you’re referring to the upper front plate of the hull, you need to remember that it was designed to survive against rounds such as 3BM3, 3BM4, and 3BM6… 3BM6 being the primary adversary.
The first of these had a horrible penetrator design, being able to ricochet / shatter at angles as bad as 70dg.
Then sure, I’d love to see something like an event vehicle or one of those “building” events, if they ever come back. A building event for a prototype / testbed abrams would be cool, especially when its tradeoff is obscene weight for much better protection.
Many were fitted with differing Agava sights. As for Agava-1, it never saw widescale production, only being produced in the early-80s in its largest figures, and dabbled upon once again in the mid 90s as better technology became available. Being that the current T-80B in game is an amalgamation of tons of crap, I couldn’t care less if it gets the Leopard 2K treatment.
As for Agava-2, that was serially produced and entered service in the early '90s. Any post-'85 iteration of the T-80U was supposed to get it, most of them being from 1990 and beyond.
It may have been one of the early-on barges from the beginning of the war. A few of them sank due to conditions, and everything from T-72s, T-80s, and BMPs were lost. It may have been that a BMP-3[M] was lost and someone tried passing it off as the 2S38.
That is because most Abram variants have a not very strong UFP with only 30-40mm of armour and because War thunder does not know what to do when an APFSDS rod is supposed to bounce, it just goes through.
No comment from me.
If there has been 2S38’s lost (I don’t know if you would count a couple lost in a river crossing as a combat kill or not, I will need to research on that.) then there would be video or photo proof and it is unlikely that Russia would have deployed them seeing as they would likely have a limited number and they are not even in service. (That I know of.)
Yeah no it’s not real. It’s a mockup of what the arrangement would be in a remote crew station, and I made the joke of it being an M1E3 because of the amount of people circulating obviously wrong images and naming them as the SEPv4 or M1E3.
And we can quantify the weight increases in-game almost perfectly.
The regular M1 Abrams weighs 55.7 tons. The M1A1 gets a larger 120mm gun and a slight turret upgrade from ~390mm to ~450mm. At 57.2 tons. A 1.5 ton increase for a fairly substantial amount - even unrealistic, really.
The M1A1 HC gets DU in the turret, increasing the 450mm effectiveness all the way up to 675mm at 61.2 tons. A mere 4 ton increase for over 200mm of KE protection. Do keep in mind that the Ariete WAR kit is 5 tons in-game, designed to defeat APFSDS, and is currently ~20mm effective.
Then the M1A2 receives various minor upgrades, a better thermal system, and an APU. Which puts it at 62 tons exactly, which is very believable. The APU is meant to provide power even if the engine isn’t running and producing electricity through the alternator, so this should be modeled in-game to not slow down the turret rotation even if the engine is off.
The M1A2 SEP only weighs 200 kilograms more at 62.2 tons, which can be attributed to anything minor. And the SEP V2 weighs 66.1 tons, 3.9 tons more because it gets the entire TUSK kit covering the whole sides of the turret and hull, along with a big CROWS system on the top of the turret?
Basically - a CHILD looking at the Abrams in-game could EASILY, LOGICALLY deduce that the armor has both been added, and that the increased weight has been modeled.
When you say this:
You are being so facetious, that I can only hope that you look back upon what you’ve said with shame.
yup. What you posted is an actual SEPv3. Somehow the suggestion on the new forum only has SEPv2 which served as a tech demonstrator and/or was a test bed for increased weight (the one with weight simulators). The post from the old forum did much better job.
You say the M1A2 SEPv3 got armor improvements but how are you so sure? Is it even against KE threats? The values for NGAP aren’t known, no one knows if it even uses DU at all as the serial numbers have a different prefix.
