M1a2 sep v3

[warthogboy09]

@TheArcticFoxxo

The only purpose it would have in-game is for better damage to helicopters.

That alone is worth its addition

@Yontzee

If it gets better armor modeled (hopefully) along with Trophy, it will be a force to reckon with.

Much like what I said when this was pledged in 2020, there’s no reason when the previous variants have sub-par implementation.

Given the SEPv2 came without its APS, when it could have received it to make it actually unique compared to the SEPV1 regardless of their opinions on its armor, the SEPv3 with APS is a good addition. It’s also unquestionably has improved hull armor, regardless of whether it is a speculative amount or not, in game this would mean at least better hull armor than any Abrams in game.

Should the other Abrams be fixed? Yes, but until that happens, the SEPv3 would at least be an improvement instead of just a backup to the SEPv1

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@warthogboy09

Given the SEPv2 came without its APS, when it could have received it to make it actually unique compared to the SEPV1 regardless of their opinions on its armor, the SEPv3 with APS is a good addition.

I would expect a SEPv2 with APS instead, especially before the SEPv3 with APS. The TUSK-II kit of the SEPv2 isn’t removable, so having another variant with less of it and APS is what I’d imagine will happen.

@warthogboy09

It’s also unquestionably has improved hull armor, regardless of whether it is a speculative amount or not, in game this would mean at least better hull armor than any Abrams in game.

Yerp.

@warthogboy09

Should the other Abrams be fixed? Yes, but until that happens, the SEPv3 would at least be an improvement instead of just a backup to the SEPv1

Or, hear me out, fix the Abrams before adding more Abrams.

[warthogboy09]

@TheArcticFoxxo

Or, hear me out, fix the Abrams before adding more Abrams.

I would like that, but look at the Chally 2s. How many were added? And they didn’t start getting fixed until a premium Chally 2 was added.

We already have 2-4(XM-1s) premium Abrams and if anything the Devblog implies they don’t want to fix them. SEPv2 should have come with APS to begin with, not TUSK II. If it were a Russian tank it would have a tier 4 mod to change the TUSK to an APS.

[Yontzee]

The SEPv3 along with the SEPv2 are a core part of the Army. Anyways, we clearly differ on the vehicle and its capabilities. Oh well.

[GiveMeYourLoot]

If trust me bro was a person.

[Ford1639]

No more Abrams need to be added……They get butchered by the devs and stress me out to the point of wanting to suplex my monitor.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

What?

[MST_Spica]

@EL337GH0ST

Aside from having massively better armor on the turret and mantlet, it also has massively better armor on the hull front, which is a very big deal.

We know Abrams have gone armor improvement. Yes, the Abrams that are currently in game. Yet, Gaijin refuses to give them extra armor (despite increased weight + weight reduction from copper cables > fiber optic). What makes you think Gaijin will honor the changes of v3? 829A3? 829A4? Even M1A2 SEP can do 829A3, yet Gaijin doesn’t give it. What makes v3 suddenly “justified” to receive it according to Gaijin?

US doesn’t need anymore than SEP v2. In fact, SEP v2 would be decent if Gaijin would simply treat it like its own kid as opposed to adopted one for tax breaks.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@MST_Spica

We know Abrams have gone armor improvement.

Yes, the SEPv3.

@MST_Spica

Yes, the Abrams that are currently in game.

No, the SEPv3.

@MST_Spica

Yet, Gaijin refuses to give them extra armor (despite increased weight + weight reduction from copper cables > fiber optic).

The Challenger Mk.3 is 3.5 tonnes heavier than the Mk.2. What does this prove?

Oh… Right. Nothing.

@MST_Spica

What makes you think Gaijin will honor the changes of v3?

Because its technology is known and proven?

@MST_Spica

829A3? 829A4? Even M1A2 SEP can do 829A3, yet Gaijin doesn’t give it.

829A3 was deemed as not needed, as 829A2 is on-par with every other top-tier ammunition. 829A3 is the type of addition needed with next-gen ammo, as it’s… A next-gen ammo…?

@MST_Spica

What makes v3 suddenly “justified” to receive it according to Gaijin?

Capability? BR placement? Balance?

What justifies the Tiger E getting PzGr 39 while the 88mm Flak 37 gets PzGr.?
One is 6.0, the other is 4.7.

@MST_Spica

US doesn’t need anymore than SEP v2. In fact, SEP v2 would be decent if Gaijin would simply treat it like its own kid as opposed to adopted one for tax breaks.

For somebody parroting “muh better abrams” arguments, you don’t seem to understand and support the additions that a vehicle like the SEPv3 will include.

[MST_Spica]

@TheArcticFoxxo

Yes, the SEPv3.

Wrong, the M1A2 SEP has protection improvement over M1A2.

“The M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP V1) was introduced as part of a continuous upgrade path for M1A2 tanks. The kit introduced an armor enhancement in the form of a monolithic and composite armor, and compartmented storage for fuel and ammunition.” [1]
“The M1A2 SEP is builds on the digitized M1A2 platform with an improved armor package of third generation steel-encased depleted uranium armor […]” [2]

@TheArcticFoxxo

The Challenger Mk.3 is 3.5 tonnes heavier than the Mk.2. What does this prove?

This proves exactly what I mentioned: Gaijin cherry picks what it wants to deem ‘reliable’. Just because I don’t mention every single shenanigan happening in the game doesn’t dispute my point. That’s simply yet another supporting argument that SEPv3 will just copy pasted SEPv2 if they rush the addition.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Because its technology is known and proven?

Right, because 2S38 information that Gaijin can somehow scavenge is totally accurate and reliable as well as ‘known and proven’.

@TheArcticFoxxo

Capability? BR placement? Balance?

Ok, and? What do you think its BR going to be? How many other vehicles are going to be added to make sure that BR is playable?

@TheArcticFoxxo

What justifies the Tiger E getting PzGr 39 while the 88mm Flak 37 gets PzGr.?
One is 6.0, the other is 4.7.

Don’t play low tier, don’t care.

@TheArcticFoxxo

For somebody parroting “muh better abrams” arguments, you don’t seem to understand and support the additions that a vehicle like the SEPv3 will include.

No, I understand. But I also understand Gaijin’s behavior of adding things yet crippling half of its performance in the game because muh balance. You think SEPv3 would be a different and stellar vehicle once added to WT. I am saying nope, because that’s for Gaijin to decide. With how they implement Abrams in the game, absolute zero reason to believe how SEPv3 can be remotely accurate to its performance in real life. This is before we even talk about the game modes where most games are just CQB, something the Abrams isn’t made for.

[1] U.S. Army Awards M1A1 Upgrade into M1A2 SEP(V2) - Military Trader/Vehicles
[2] Digital Abrams: The M1A2 SEP Program - Defense Industry Daily

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@MST_Spica

Wrong, the M1A2 SEP has protection improvement over M1A2.

Yes, it has HAP-3 instead of HAP-2.
Are we not talking about the hull, though? The hull of every Abrams up until the SEPv3 is the same.

@MST_Spica

This proves exactly what I mentioned: Gaijin cherry picks what it wants to deem ‘reliable’. Just because I don’t mention every single shenanigan happening in the game doesn’t dispute my point. That’s simply yet another supporting argument that SEPv3 will just copy pasted SEPv2 if they rush the addition.

It doesn’t? There is no cherry picking in this, the Challenger Mk.2 compared to the Mk.3 does not include any increase in armor despite a weight difference.
There is already documentation as to what had been added to the abrams and how much it weighs. None of that has shown any improvement to the hull armor, especially one that gives relation to those that did test hull improvements and those that had it implemented, such as the SEPv3.

There are detailed improvements as to what the SEPv3 adds, what increase in effectiveness it gives, and so on. There is no detail as to the raise in effective armor that HAP-3 adds. Unless you can find that, HAP-3 is just like HAP-2 in the sense that it only has technical improvements.

@MST_Spica

Right, because 2S38 information that Gaijin can somehow scavenge is totally accurate and reliable as well as ‘known and proven’.

It is? The systems on the 2S38 that there is no information for were left out. Most other things like its LWS exist on other vehicles, its ammunition has public data, its optics are working off of stated metrics… What else is there?

@MST_Spica

Ok, and? What do you think its BR going to be? How many other vehicles are going to be added to make sure that BR is playable?

Great question, what would the BR of other contemporary vehicles be?
Another great question, that’s exactly why it shouldn’t be added.

@MST_Spica

Don’t play low tier, don’t care.

I couldn’t care less what you play, you have <10k matches anyway.
The fact still stands. Ignore it if you’d like.

@MST_Spica

No, I understand. But I also understand Gaijin’s behavior of adding things yet crippling half of its performance in the game because muh balance.

What was crippled due to balance? The only things I can think of being held back due to their balancing factors are M829A3, due to a lack of competitive adversaries with comparable ammunition in-game, as well as a lack of modelling detail borne of volumetric’s new age.

@MST_Spica

You think SEPv3 would be a different and stellar vehicle once added to WT. I am saying nope, because that’s for Gaijin to decide.

They don’t decide whether or not it gets HAP-2/3 or NGAP. They don’t decide whether or not it has its improved armor. Given their own ruleset for vehicle additions, as well as their history, they operate off on a philosophy of proven truths. If there isn’t enough backing for a change, the change isn’t done. If there was no backing for the thing to be added, it’s removed.

@MST_Spica

With how they implement Abrams in the game, absolute zero reason to believe how SEPv3 can be remotely accurate to its performance in real life.

The SEPv3 has no relation to the previous Abrams variants. Its armor profile is entirely different, its gun is adapted to datalink-capable munitions.

[MST_Spica]

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?

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@MST_Spica

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.

What purpose is there to talk about the hull?

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.

@MST_Spica

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.

So go talk about that where it’s relevant.

@MST_Spica

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.

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.

@MST_Spica

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?

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.

[MST_Spica]

@TheArcticFoxxo

What purpose is there to talk about the hull?

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).

@TheArcticFoxxo

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.

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…

@TheArcticFoxxo

Not a single 2S38 was lost in Ukraine, because it hasn’t been commissioned yet.

Then it was western propaganda. Someone said a whole convoy including the ‘brand new’ 2S38 was lost in river crossing in Ukraine conflict.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@MST_Spica

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).

L?

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.

@MST_Spica

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 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.

@MST_Spica

Then it was western propaganda. Someone said a whole convoy including the ‘brand new’ 2S38 was lost in river crossing in Ukraine conflict.

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.

[shadvault23]

1. 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.
2. No comment from me.
3. 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.)

[BasherBenDawg8]

I’ve seen this before, what exactly is this M1 looking tank?

[TheArcticFoxxo]

A hilarious mockup used at the FCS modernization program expo.

[BasherBenDawg8]

Awww just a mockup… rip…

[TheArcticFoxxo]

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.