My point is simple. SEP v2 has been fielded extensively with Trophy APS. SEP v3 is an incremental upgrade of the same Abrams platform, with increased power generation and more advanced computing power.
So the claim “SEP v3 can’t have APS because it hasn’t been publicly shown with it” doesn’t hold. Lack of public imagery isn’t the same as lack of capability.
There are no public photos of SEP v3 with Trophy yet, but SEP v2 has already proven the integration.
And? Much like Omsk’s '640, any vehicle in the world can be compatible with others and still lack basic function integrated on prior models. Until the SEPv3’s Trophy integration shows substance it’ll simply be an add-on for the SEPv2.
It would be as absurd as me saying that the '640 should get Arena, pointing to the T-80UM-1’s existence.
Nobody’s contesting lack of capability, contention stands on lack of fruition. Go back through the rest of this thread and read, I’d advise you to remember to breathe as well.
Last I remember this is a SEPv3 thread, not a SEPv2 thread. Are you lost?
I couldn’t give two shits less about whether or not you said A or B, any argument beyond its portrayal in-game is nothing more than a red herring.
If it were to receive AIM-120As in place of AIM-120Bs there would be no issue. It’s a direct replacement to the A with the exact same electrical protocols with no external changes whatsoever. Both interface properly with present MIL-STD-1553 data bus, both respond to the same bit commands.
In what way could the same be said for the subject at hand?
SEP V3 is basically SEP V2 with upgraded power and computing. V2 has Trophy APS, so V3 can too. Saying it can’t because no photos exist is just ‘absence of evidence = evidence of absence’ nonsense.
Your Object 640 → T-80UM-1 analogy is weak they’re completely different platforms. SEP V3 is almost identical to SEP V2. Using V2 as a reference isn’t off-topic, it’s how you prove technical feasibility. Saying ‘this is a SEP V3 thread’ is just a dodge. it doesn’t change the fact that V3 is fully capable of Trophy integration.
And your AIM-120A/B tangent? That’s literally the same logic I was pointing out: just because we haven’t seen it publicly doesn’t mean it can’t work. Capability isn’t dependent on being shown in-game or in photos. Your whole response is dodging facts with irrelevant examples and semantics, while the technical reality is simple, SEP V3 can integrate Trophy, end of story.
Once again, I’m not going to handhold you through the many differences that have already been stated in the thread. If you’re this clueless about it that you don’t even realize that Lima themselves class it differently then you aren’t worth my time.
“T-80UM-1 had APS, so Object 640 can too!!1!”
Except there simply isn’t evidence. Fiscal reports state there’s DEVELOPMENT towards integrating APS on SEPv3s, though as of now there is no tangible proof of such being complete.
They aren’t? The first '640 prototype was quite literally just a T-80UM with a mockup turret. In no way is that a “completely different platform”.
It was shown directly alongside the T-80UM-1 at the VTTV expo.
In '99 when the actual '640 prototype was put out there were prospective models of it with Arena… It simply was not on the vehicle at the time of testing, and still wasn’t there by the time it was axed.
It’s a carbon copy argument of what you’re spewing.
SEPv3 ('640) is an “incremental upgrade of the same platform” in relation to the SEPv2 ('219AS-M1). SEPv3 ('640) should be getting APS because SEPv2 ('219AS-M1) had it, even though SEPv3 ('640) has not brandished it in the same fashion as SEPv2 ('219AS-M1).
So identical that the manufacturer had to grant entirely new annotations to the “identical” spec. Right…
Then show me a SEPv3 with Trophy.
There is no contention whatsoever over the SEPv3 being capable of mounting Trophy. It quite simply hasn’t been shown to yet, and thus it would be ludicrous to believe that a SEPv3 with Trophy would pass Gaijin’s development.
I’m sorry, my AIM-120A/B tangent? Are you lost?
You’re right, capability is dependent on it… Yknow, existing.
Can you show me a photograph of Trophy existing on a SEPv3?
just if other tanks are added, like Leopard 2A8, T-14 Armata, etc.
if that ones don’t get added too, then -1, it would be too OP for what we have rn in WT and it would change how the game is played.
better shell (as i heard, M829A4 is able of penetrating the UFP of a T-90M full of ERA), better armor, 3rd Gen thermals, has the option of adding reactive and slat armor and it can get the Trophy APS.
basically a highly improved Abrams, and if it gets added without counters, it could be too OP.
having such an advanced tank ingame while many others aren’t that modern is like having Su-30SM2 facing extremely inferior aircrafts like Su-27SM, F-15E, Typhoon, J-10A… even Rafale is a bit worse than the Su-30SM2, and rn it’s the only aircraft with an exageratly good radar, decent missiles and amazing thrust, while other nations need to play with a Typhoon, J-10C and JAS39E with a slightly better radar, more missiles and more thrust (still not enough to face toptier like Su-30SM2/Rafale do).
the only thing that COULD be op is M829A4, which Gaijin already said they dont have plans to implement (wonder why (not really)). The rest, we already has everything in game.
Adding the SEP V3 (if added correctly) would definitely add life back into top tier us mbts. Its added armor, aps, new dart, new electronics etc… The us really haven’t had a new mbt added since the SEP so it would be a good refresh. what I think is most beneficial is the hard kill trophy aps which would be good for stopping kh-38. :)
i doubt if Trophy can stop Mach 2.2 AGMs.
i would not have any problem with it being added to the game, if there’s counters as i already said, even if that counters are weaker.
Su-30SM2 would dominate completely if there wasn’t other planes similar to it to counter it.
