No, it doesn’t. If you’d like to quote exactly where I said I don’t think it exists you can go ahead and try… Let alone where I thought it hadn’t been implemented.
I quite simply have not seen a SEPv3 with Trophy. Your failure to procure visual detailing a service-ready SEPv3 outfitted with Trophy seems to have gotten you to the point of overconflating my own views.
In the case that you’re lost, my entire stance in this thread is that the SEPv2 should have had Trophy implemented alongside the TUSK kit given. Adding the SEPv3 with Trophy that we haven’t seen yet is doing nothing but kicking the SEPv2 into a ditch and leaving it to bleed out McCarthy style.
How much of a child must you be to think that any degree of tone is “embarrassing”?
So why pass it off as otherwise? I ask for an image of a SEPv3 brandishing Trophy, you post a link to a SEPv2. It’s not hard to understand that you failed at the most fundamental level of understanding to deliver on my request.
Once again, great job #7.
There is no contention as to whether or not the SEPv3 has or is capable of mounting SEPv3, it’s already been detailed extensively that, if not already applied, it would have been in the VERY near future. That still does nothing to affect the SEPv2 in-game but overshadow it.
Biannual reports are articles, brother… Need I get a dictionary for you?
A primary source stating that something has happened doesn’t grant insight as to the feasible application of the system. As I’ve said 3 times now, an invisible vehicle with nothing more than words on a publication can’t be added to a game. Until it’s shown, it can’t be implemented.
Not reading the rest, it’s nothing more than babble extending beyond your ignorance of my statements.
That thing on turret cheek and hull front is weight ballast made of lead.
It is SEP v3 ‘technological demonstrator’, not real SEP v3. Currently on-field trophy equipped Abrams are all SEP v2.
Nobody here really knows how much of an upgrade it is.
All we know is that the turret cheek and lower front plate composite armour was improved to an unknown degree. Given the fact that armour isn’t that important in the top-tier meta, I don’t see the SEP v3 as being massively better than the regular SEP, especially with the further reduced mobility.
I can only tell you what is publicly available, and that public availability is already showing how big of an upgrade it is.
DU inserts in-game make the M1A1 turret go from relatively easily penetrated frontally to near impossible on the M1A1HC and M1A2 series. Adding improved hull protection alone makes the LFP no longer a weak spot. The Turret cheeks also got a massive upgrade and obscure more of the turret ring than before.
It very much is. Tanks like the Leopard and Abrams, which can take hits reliably when utilized properly, have a massive performance advantage to others like the Merkava, Ariete, and Leclerc. A tank that can take a hit in at least half of its front compared to 0 of its front is going to require the enemy to think before aiming when placing their shot.
Weight does not correlate to mobility on modern tanks. In-game, the only reason many of these 60+ ton MBT get sluggish is due to their lack of things such as Regenerative steering. The Merkava Mk.4 and SEPv3 are both within 80 tons and still move well even on rough terrain, unlike in Warthunder.
To add onto this, if we visualize the front profile of the SEPv3 with red boxes highlighting the area where current in-game 120mm APFSDS shells would NEVER penetrate, it would look like this.
It should also be noted that Long Rod APFSDS in-game bases Post-Penetration spall damage on residual penetration rather than mass like other AP shells. This means that the less armor you have, without an overpen, the more damage you take from being hit. This can be seen here.
This image was taken on the Merkava Mk.3C. The spall generated comes from a 10mm internal plate.
You don’t know that, please don’t pretend otherwise.
The majority of shots in War Thunder are to side armour, in that case the SEP v3’s improvements are entirely pointless.
The turret ring and mantlet make up the second most obvious targets, again, which the SEP v3 does not have listed as being improved.
The lower front plate is stated to have been improved, but you assuming it must magically be 650mm+ (which it would need to be to provide the protection you claimed it to have) without any additional volume being introduced to the array is shaky at best.
Doesn’t really change anything, going from impenetrable to impenetrable is meaningless.
They don’t.
No offense intended, but that just means you don’t understand the meta.
You can reach for examples such as the Ariete (which is a case of being over-tiered), but you conveniently left out the Type 90’s, Type 10, PT-16/T14 or even just the M1A1/IPM1 which despite not being fantastically armoured are still the best 11.3’s in the game.
The Type 90’s combination of absolutely incredible mobility and reload rate is enough to off-set the low penetration, poor armour protection, poor survivability, mediocre gun handling and poor thermal sights. That’s how much more mobility and consistent firepower mean than other metrics.
War Thunder top-tier meta = Mobility + First hit kill/cripple.
Couldn’t be more wrong.
One of the driving forces behind the M1E3 program is a dire need of massive weight reduction, the existing the SEP v3 is simply too heavy to properly function in large portions the eastern European theatre.
I’m getting the feeling that English isn’t your first language or that you’re just not reading people’s replies properly.
Your reply here makes no sense in relation to what I’ve said.
I stated that the hull armour was not increased in total volume. You then show me a picture of the turret cheeks having an increased volume.
I stated that the M1E3 program focuses on significantly reducing the weight of the vehicle. You then tell me that the SEP v3 did not undergo a weight decrease.
I already told you that the turret cheeks were improved with the SEP v3, you don’t need to show me an example of something that I’m already well aware of.
I provided you with a source that explains why the SEP v3’s massive weight is proving to be very problematic in the terrain types and environment that it is currently being fielded. You’ve essentially given up on even attempting to refute that point.
And I already told you that the turret cheeks being improved doesn’t mean anything for the purposes of War Thunder, because in War Thunder the existing 11.7 - 12.0 Abrams variants are already immune to all but one APFSDS head-on (and that singular exception wouldn’t even be in the BR range of the SEP v3 to begin with).
‘‘Additional’’ would be wrong, more so a different and improved internal composite module.
If you have evidence that the lower hull front features ‘‘additional’’ (I.E., external and increased volume) armour package, feel free to share it.
Slightly doubtful given your previous erroneous statements and claims.
If they add just a base SEPv3 (73.59 US tons/66.76 metric tons), it’ll be lighter than the ARAT II strapped down SEPv3 in game. So if you forgo the add-on armor, SEPv3 would be marginally lighter so marginally improved mobility with better frontal armor. However armor is solely up to Gaijin interpretation. So ya know.
Taiwan Military defense minister had said that the Armor of the hull is 700mm-800mm. The turret has over 1000mm+ on the interview of the News about the M1A2T which is a SEP v2.5
