hopefully eventually everything apart from the actual drives themselves becomes a separate module like on the leclerc
yeah we just gotta wait 20 years for the LFT&E report to be declassified, basically tomorrow
1 Like
Zero data for puma, relikt or t-90m, even the leopard 2a7 armour is just based of some Swedish trial thing, and they can do the same thing using those improved hulls from the 90s
Okay, my first Reddit post is ready! I will prepare a Forum post in consequence to link them on a feedback loop.
I will upload it specifically at the highest trafic hour with emphasis on the American audience, so that it has the biggest impact possible.
According to these sites, that would be in 30 minutes.
6 Likes
A source about the name change: Forecast International
+another source: M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams officially redesignated M1A2C
FORUM POST WITH POLL IS UP! Make sure to VOTE on the poll, WE NEED TO MAKE NOISE by showing widespread dissatisfaction!
I will now make the Reddit post linking the topic.
3 Likes
change your username to american avenger to cater to them even more lol
1 Like
pro gamer move there
this confuses me more why not do that for the hull cause the 3d modelers obviously knew the hull was thicker lol
Well I wasn’t rude in the first 2 bug report and gave more than enough proof but they denied it with a half-assed reason and straight up wrong both times
I knew bug report barely works but now that I get to experience it first hand, it doesn’t work at all.
2 Likes
How many reports declined thus far
Reminds me of the time i put together a nice clean bug report and it sat in limbo until a month later when someone else makes a report of the same issue with less information and it immediately gets fixed and mine labeled a duplicate of that one
The BRM genuinely do not pay attention sometimes
1 Like
How does Gaijin know that the turret was reinforced?
If sources from the prototype phase are considered insufficient because “the M1A2C did not exist at the time” and the vehicles only carried weight dummies, then the exact same argument should also exclude the use of those sources for modeling the upgraded turret.
If the lack of exact values did not prevent the modeling of the upgraded turret protection, why can the same evidentiary standard not be applied to the hull, especially when there are sources indicating a broader armor modernization program?
Here is a source but only about the UBB (under-body blast)
2 Likes
Another Technology Demonstrator Tank for the bloody English.
it very visibly looks different and ballast was required for the trophy which being planned to be put on basically every sepv3
so basically, because the hull isnt visibly different from previous models gaijin has to assume that nothing changed, unless clear sources are provided that say otherwise
it is different IRL, Gaijin have just modeled it wrong.
So far we have many sources:
-
https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-90-57.pdf#page=9
“Heavy armor (DU) added to hull and turret” -
https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2026/Discretionary%20Budget/Procurement/Procurement%20of%20Weapons%20and%20Tracked%20Combat%20Vehicles.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
(pdf page 122, volume 1-98)
"Description:
… The M1A2 SEPv3 incorporates turret and hull armor upgrades, mine blast improvements, reactive armor tiles, lightweight belly armor, improved countermine equipment, Improvised
Explosive Device (IED) jamming equipment, a Total Integrated Engine Revitalization (TIGER) engine, an upgraded transmission, an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), improved power generation & distribution,
Ammunition Data Link (ADL) for smart munitions, Embedded Training, Blue Force Tracker, Block 1 Second Generation Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) technology, and improved computer systems with
Line Replaceable Modules (LRMs) to include microprocessors, high-definition color flat panel displays, increased memory capacity, Gigabit Ethernet, and a new operating system designed to run the Common
Operating Environment (COE) software. The Abrams Tank Production Program funds the costs required for the daily operation of the production plants producing M1A2 SEPv3 tanks and components… -
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/other/2020DOTEAnnualReport.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
(pdf page 69) -
https://blastinjuryresearch.health.mil/assets/docs/injury_prevention/fy16/vehicles/Enhanced_Underbody_Crew_Protection.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
“weight reduction and crew protection improvements for under-body blast
(UBB)” -
M1A2C Hull armor missing - #160 by TheDidact99
This might be very important source:
Appendix A → Table A-1 “Characteristics of Models of the Abrams (M1) Tank”.
“Heavy armor added to hull and turret”
This document does not prove the existence of SEPv3 armor upgrades by itself.
However, it does effectively refute the moderator’s argument that:
“special armor can mean skirts”
or that:
“crew survivability could mean anything”
because the authors of the Congressional Budget Office report use very specific wording:
“Heavy armor added to hull and turret.”
rather than a vague expression such as:
“survivability improvement.”
1 Like
i think i might got something
US general army military law states :
“a covered system may not proceed beyond low-rate initial production until realistic
survivability testing of the system is completed in accordance with this section and the
report required by subsection (d) with respect
to that testing is submitted in accordance
with that subsection”
doc
This is a pre production M1 sepV3 during live fire testing
Why would they slap the steel plates on it if not to simulate the add on armor
Before it enter production
This proves the hull got extra armor
1 Like