M1A2 SEPv3 addition

[CyrusJacob]

@Just_Baron

The Abrams has exceptional turret protection, a great fire rate, and good mobility. When positioned and managed properly, it’s likely even the strongest tank in the game for long-range engagements thanks to the full kit it brings.

The Merkava IVM is a better tank for long range engagement in War Thunder than the Abrams. It’s also a better brawler. I don’t understand why people are sleeping so much on the Merkava IVM when it’s factually a better tank than the SEP/SEPv2.

The Merkava IV armor might be all over the place but it does these things better than the Abrams:

• Mobility with its superb reverse speed(-64kph vs -38kph) and forward mobility on par with the naked M1A2SEP. In fact, the Merkava IVM has better HP/T ratio than the SEP v.2 with Tusk/no mine protection.

• Armor in hull down.(upper half of the turret armor is really tanky, capable of stopping even shots in the upper mantlet)

• Side armor capable of surviving some autocannons where Abrams would die. Especially useful against the BMPT now.

• Survivability(Merk IV damage model is so SO much better than the Abrams since they added the turret basket to the abrams, meaning you can brawl a lot easier with it)

• Protected ammo in the rear hull means you’re not out of the fight if you get blowout paneled.

• Frontal engine can tank some shots; it’s pretty random.

• APS(Big against the amount of air launched ATGM)

• LWS if not the SEP v2

• Amount of smoke grenade to better survive helis/plane ATGM, especially felt when not playing the updated SEP v2.

• IRST to target helicopters with time fuzed HE shell which is big.

• Ability to rotate the turret 360° without deadzone. Being able to fire behind has saved me quite a few times.

Quite frankly, the M1A2 do only 3 noticeable things better than the Merkava IV. Depression(-10 vs -7), turret rotation speed(40° vs 34° sec) and smaller height, that’s it. All the rest, the Merkava IV is either so similar you don’t notice it or outright better.

[Just_Baron]

@Zannafrancy

M1e3 is a looooooong way off

It’s not. The first serviced models have been ordered to be ready within 1 to 2 years.

I am also aware of some limited testing involving drones with the M1E3, but I do not know how much information about that is public.

[Just_Baron]

@CyrusJacob

The Merkava IVM is a better tank for long range engagement in War Thunder than the Abrams. It’s also a better brawler. I don’t understand why people are sleeping so much on the Merkava IVM when it’s factually a better tank than the SEP/SEPv2.

Lol

@CyrusJacob

The Merkava IV armor might be all over the place but it does these things better than the Abrams:

The “all over the place in question”.

And the non-green still get penned lol

These sure do feel comparable, don’t they?

Don’t forget that the hull front is also an auto ricochet from the front.

The turret neck is also volumetric hell in matches and deletes shells constantly these days.It’s really simple how you play the Abrams. You peak from hills like this.

@CyrusJacob

Mobility with its superb reverse speed(-64kph vs -38kph) and forward mobility on par with the naked M1A2SEP. In fact, the Merkava IVM has better HP/T ratio than the SEP v.2 with Tusk/no mine protection.

The Merkava is more mobile thanks to its transmission alone, but mobility isn’t meta at top tier. The ability to force your opponent to aim for a few seconds is what matters. The Merkava may survive an odd ricochet here and there, but it’s rare.

@CyrusJacob

Armor in hull down.(upper half of the turret armor is really tanky, capable of stopping even shots in the upper mantlet)

Firstly, getting your giant Merkava 4 into a hull-down spot where only the upper turret is visible alongside the gun is nearly impossible. Especially while having the ability to aim back at your target. The tank has 7 degrees of gun depression, 1 degree more than a T-80.

And seriously, I cannot restate just how huge the Merkava is compared to other MBTs. Even the Merkava 1 was bigger than a Challenger 1, so you can imagine how large the Siman 4 is.

@CyrusJacob

Side armor capable of surviving some autocannons where Abrams would die.

It’s really not. For 100mm Side Armor blocks, it doesn’t stop more than an Abrams’ RHA sideskirts.

In fact, now that you point this out, I’m actually in disbelief at how fucked up this is.

@CyrusJacob

Protected ammo in the rear hull means you’re not out of the fight if you get blowout paneled.

If you get hit through the turret, you’re out of the fight in general. It takes ages to replenish turret ammunition, and you won’t survive any shell going through your turret under usual circumstances. I do like the additional ammunition, but it certainly isn’t a plus. If anything, I die to it more.

@CyrusJacob

Frontal engine can tank some shots; it’s pretty random.

Unlikely. Especially with the engine armor nerfs. I’ve had HEAT-FS in the last few days slip straight through my fuel tank, transmission block, engine, and internal 35mm plates.

@CyrusJacob

APS(Big against the amount of air launched ATGM)

A nice upside, but one of few.

@CyrusJacob

LWS if not the SEP v2

A nice upside.

@CyrusJacob

Amount of smoke grenade to better survive helis/plane ATGM, especially felt when not playing the updated SEP v2.

Rosy improves Smoke count for the V2, but yes, the Merkavas do have more smoke.

@CyrusJacob

IRST to target helicopters with time fuzed HE shell which is big.

A great buff, but it also came with an HE nerf involving its penetration.

@CyrusJacob

Ability to rotate the turret 360° without deadzone. Being able to fire behind has saved me quite a few times.

Another nice difference. It hardly makes up for its lack of armor though.

@CyrusJacob

Quite frankly, the M1A2 do only 3 noticeable things better than the Merkava IV. Depression(-10 vs -7), turret rotation speed(40° vs 34° sec) and smaller height, that’s it. All the rest, the Merkava IV is either so similar you don’t notice it or outright better.

Armor, as shown above, is clearly better when positioned. The Abrams also has a better top APFSDS shell, but I doubt anyone cares about a difference in 18mm.

As of present, armor and firepower rule the game. If you can’t be easily killed, you can lay down more shells to threaten opponents. With Infantry coming to the game, the Merkava may prove more useful there, but until then it needs a KE buff.

[Zannafrancy]

@Just_Baron

I am also aware of some limited testing involving drones with the M1E3, but I do not know how much information about that is public.

i know there are some videos of dudes manually shooting with m134 at drones to limited effect

[Just_Baron]

@Zannafrancy

i know there are some videos of dudes manually shooting with m134 at drones to limited effect

It’s different. That’s all I think I’m able to say about it.

[Zannafrancy]

makes sense afaik the m134 testing was separate from the m1e3

[CyrusJacob]

@Just_Baron

And the non-green still get penned lol

Dude, I beg you, do an effort instead of immediately jumping to conclusion.

If you angle the turret a bit to simulate a hull down, the armor suddenly gets much better. FURTHERMORE, multiple of these green spots are NOT real weakspot. It’s just that the shell penetrate enough to damage the optic thus the game consider it a pennable area. This is also why the lower turret has a lot of green spots against HEAT-FS if you check it later. It doesn’t pen but the splash area damage the radiator below.

@Just_Baron

It’s really not. For 100mm Side Armor blocks, it doesn’t stop more than an Abrams’ RHA sideskirts.

In fact, now that you point this out, I’m actually in disbelief at how fucked up this is.

The entire upper area of the side hull is unpennable as you can see. I also did specify SOME autocannons like BMPT APDS, Pantsir, stuff of that caliber. BMP-2M APFSDS will kill both, and even there, you can see how tanky the Merkava IV side armor is against the BMP-2M APFSDS versus the Abrams being entirely green. One more second to rotate your turret is often all you need to kill that autocannon vehicle.

That armor(protect turret ring) combined with the lack of turret basket is big in city maps. Abrams is instantly out of the fight against a side autocannon.

Like, see for yourself how much the game armor protection is lying and how your screenshots are worthless(no offense to you, it’s just the game being like this). Green yet unable to pen:

[Just_Baron]

@CyrusJacob

Dude, I beg you, do an effort. If you angle the turret a bit to simulate a hull down, the armor suddenly gets much better. FURTHERMORE, multiple of these green spots are NOT real weakspot.

Look man. I’m not really sure what to tell you, but this isn’t true. Green = Damage of some kind.

Outside of a couple of random, minimal-sized pixel shots, this entire place will result in crew damage. If we compare that to an Abrams, its much smaller.

Let me remind you once again that the Merkava is huge comparatively as well.

The Merkava 4 is even larger than the Merkava 3 seen in this image.

@CyrusJacob

The entire upper area of the side hull is unpennable as you can see.

No. It’s not.

@CyrusJacob

I also did specify SOME autocannons like BMPT APDS

That’s not a high bar. Any slope shatters APDS easily. Even a 50mm plate alone can stop it.

Luckily, the Abrams side not only has several composite screens, but it also contains a few overlapping plates, as seen here.

@CyrusJacob

BMP-2M APFSDS will kill both, and even there, you can see how tanky the Merkava IV side armor is against the BMP-2M APFSDS versus the Abrams being entirely green.

Once again, that’s an illusion created by bad rendering on Gaijin’s part. The Green means it will hurt something. The location not being green doesn’t mean anything. It’s a bug.

@CyrusJacob

That armor combined with the lack of turret basket is big in city maps.

This may come as a shocker for people, but the Abrams always lost its turret ring before the turret basket. All it does now is stop you from losing your engine with your turret ring.

It also greatly helps delay your death when autocannons rush to aim for your mantlet.

@CyrusJacob

Like, see for yourself how much the game armor protection is lying and how your screenshots are worthless(no offense to you, it’s just the game being like this). Green yet unable to pen:

Nothing is behind that location but an optic. You’re fishing for tiny spots that will seldom be hit.

It’s almost like showing this and claiming the Tiger is the best tank in the game, man. They both have equal chances to get struck. They’re a pixel-sized problem.

But be my guest and be happy with your pixel-wide armor.

[StaszekJones]

@CyrusJacob

you can see how tanky the Merkava IV side armor is against the BMP-2M APFSDS

tbh, is there a problem to penetrate merkava in any autocanon ?

@CyrusJacob

Like, see for yourself how much the game armor protection is lying and how your screenshots are worthless(no offense to you, it’s just the game being like this).

it’s true, merkava has no armor. Abrams too.

[CyrusJacob]

@Just_Baron

Look man. I’m not really sure what to tell you, but this isn’t true. Green = Damage of some kind.

About 80% of the turret green area in this screenshot is only green because you damage the optics. It does no real damage to the tank. That’s my point.

@Just_Baron

Outside of a couple of random, minimal-sized pixel shots, this entire place will result in crew damage. If we compare that to an Abrams, its much smaller.

First off, your image is HIGHLY exaggerated. This is much more accurate against DM53:

Spoiler

There are some unreliable armor microspots DM53 can pen above that but inside red box is the only truly reliable spot to be penned.

Secondly, the one thing I will agree is that DM53 out of the L55 can be scary for the Merkava IV. It makes the pennable area near the turret slightly larger, but the top of the turret is still very strong.

Now, if you check something like the ultra common 3BM59 against it, you’ll quickly notice that the protected area extends to the turret central edge. This is how the turret look like against 3BM59 at 500m, allowing you to peak so much more reliably than the Abrams ever can:

Spoiler

PS: Please spoiler your image. Your post is very hard to read as it is.

[Just_Baron]

@CyrusJacob

About 80% of the green area in this screenshot is only green because you damage the optics. It does no real damage to the tank. That’s my point.

Last time I checked the Merkava’s front profile wasn’t made of 80% optics, but sure.

@CyrusJacob

PS: Please spoiler your image. Your post is very hard to read as it is.

I’m not going to cater to you if information hurts your eyes.

This is an Abrams post anyway. Enjoy your cardboard.

[CyrusJacob]

@Just_Baron

Prove it lol.

That’s a blatant lie.

Easily done, see for yourself:

Anytime the arrow is red or gray means only an optic is damaged or that the shell is absorbed in the armor volumetric hell. Protection map being green or not. The Merkava IV turret has always been much better than the protection map show.

As you can see, there are some small holes in the upper half but also some protected spot near the edge, even against DM53. The turret is a damn fortress against 3BM59.

@Just_Baron

This is an Abrams post anyway. Enjoy your cardboard.

Aren’t we comparing the two tanks right now? This is perfectly on topic.

[exeisdefeatable]

@CyrusJacob

This is perfectly on topic.

Its not. This topic is about about addition of SEPV3 and not comparison between Abram and Merkava

[Just_Baron]

@CyrusJacob

Anytime the arrow is red or gray means only an optic is damaged or that the shell is absorbed in the armor volumetric hell. Protection map being green or not. The Merkava IV turret has always been much better than the protection map show.

Now, find me a hill you can use that’s shallow enough to do that, while not exposing the completely green lower wedge with a decent map view.

@CyrusJacob

3BM59.

This shell isn’t in-game.

@CyrusJacob

Aren’t we comparing the two tanks right now? This is perfectly on topic.

Hardly. You’re just hijacking the topic to talk about the Merkava. I made a brief comparison of Trophy HV and how it would make the Merkava mostly useless. Your disagreement with my statement doesn’t suddenly make this a Merkava topic.

[CyrusJacob]

@Just_Baron

Now, find me a hill you can use that’s shallow enough to do that, while not exposing the completely green lower wedge with a decent map view.

Eastern Europe big, Maginot, Aral Sea, Arctic, Spaceport. Pretty much any map that isn’t flat city like Rhine. Just gotta know the power positions on these maps.

@Just_Baron

This shell isn’t in-game.

3BM60*, you got where I was going with this anyway.

@Just_Baron

Hardly. You’re just hijacking the topic to talk about the Merkava. I made a brief comparison.

You called the Abrams the strongest tank for long-range engagement when both the 2A7 and Merk IV are quite simply better than it for that. You also said giving APS to the Abrams would make the Merk IV pointless due to poor protection, when clearly, it wouldn’t.

@exeisdefeatable

Its not. This topic is about about addition of SEPV3 and not comparison between Abram and Merkava

Yes, the SEP v.3 should be added with APS, LWS, ROSY smoke. The hydraulic pump needs to be fixed, the turret ring needs to be fixed, and the armored fuel tank finally needs to receive their full armor(more armor and fully enclosed instead of being a single wall).

SEP v.3 + these fixes will make the turret protection more reliable when angled, the hull capable of tanking a lot more than now, the turret ring not being penned by the first autocannon you meet, and give a lower profile to the tank due to the smaller CROWS. M829A3 would be a plus but Gaijin is most likely not going to add it.

This topic has been talked to death time and time again. Pretty much everybody agrees with the addition of the v.3. It’s just Gaijin holding the SEP v.3 for whatever reason when it should have been added long ago alongside the Leopard 2A7.

[tripod2008]

@Just_Baron

The first serviced models have been ordered to be ready within 1 to 2 years.

Depending on where exactly the line gets drawn, the first “prototype” has already been delivered as of December;

GD Has Delivered First M1E3 Abrams Tank Prototype, Army Chief Says - Defense...

Our First Glimpse At The M1E3 Abrams Next-Gen Tank Demonstrator

As to whatever the fuck that Blister is in strikeface of the turret I don’t know.

@Just_Baron

I am also aware of some limited testing involving drones with the M1E3, but I do not know how much information about that is public.

Some, but it lacks clarity as to if there is an intent to field it, not just test it out.
For drones, mounting a Mk.19 w/ “M1001 HVCC” (High Velocity Canister Cartridge) would seem like a more optimal solution to me though.

Minigun-Equipped M1 Abrams Tank Being Tested By Army

Though I don’t personally see what exactly it would offer over an M230LF with (X)M1121 (HE-VT) mounted in place of the CROWS-LP.

[exeisdefeatable]

@tripod2008

Minigun-Equipped M1 Abrams Tank Being Tested By Army

Abrams with minigun gonna be fire!!

[tripod2008]

For in game purposes, I’d much rather we get a “CROWS-J” (FGM-148) option, since it’s more useful against the majority of expected threats.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2018/army/2018strykercrowsj.pdf?ver=2019-08-21-155808-197

[MightyBaozi]

Not the way to create suggestions.

Rules, Guidelines & Tips For Creating Suggestions (Check Before Creating A New Suggestion!)

Note: If a thread does not pass the approval process, it’s up to the poster to contact the Suggestion Moderation team for further details and if requested a copy. We are more then happy to assist where needed. Updated the rules: 14-06-2025 [book]General Rules: When submitting a suggestion, there are some basic rules to comply with. By following them, you can easily get your point across and improve the overall structure of your suggestion: 1) Clearly title your suggestion Having a title su…