you made a false statement and i used an example to prove it wrong
even if not the one on the T14 the development of the gun on the Object 292 which was put on a tank and fired APFSDS rounds. that would be an emerging threat as well
I dont understand how gaijin knows for a fact the armor got improved on the SEPV3 and then they refuse to improve it under the basis of “we dont know exactly how much it was improved by”
Like seriously were in the age of modern vehicles that are almost completely classified being a game just estimate the damn protection and leave it at that
1 Like
I can’t see the correlation; the composite arrays of all of the older M1s is already widely known.
Whether SEPv3 has improved (denser) composition or not is completely unrelated to the location or volume of the original arrays.
I believe it is important to avoid dilluting a stellar report by clogging it with unrelated/irrelevant/outdated information to which the technical mods or devs can cling to invalidate the rest of the report.
Our reports must be SURGICAL in giving them undeniable evidence in a silver plate.
3 Likes
Another source, unsure if we can use it. But if we can’t, source is here for the M1A2 SEP Abrams and whatever it lacks in the game now
1 Like
public release is fair game
straight from fort knox too with US Army as a controlling office.
1 Like
There is nothing in here referring to armor upgrades after the M1IP.
I am avoiding putting it in if there isn’t any significant outlines for the SEPV3
2 Likes
modern hardkill APS reference in 1997
also tank HMD which the chinese showed off very recently, and Merkava has had since 2016
Are you talking about the last sentence?
I think it would be more valuable to point out that Target Tracking…Although Im sure more detail would be prefered by gaijin
no i just thought it was cool they had all this in a paper from 1997
i think target tracking is a thing IRL but gaijin probably doesnt want it
1 Like
Agreed! Definetly!
1 Like
If it can help you, Gaijin didn’t give Leo and Abrams the air tracker because they use something different from what the other tanks use (automatic tracking)
They use automatic lead, it requires some manual input it usual goes something like “laser moving target wait a second then laser it again” and then the FCS will move the sight to account for lead, the issue with auto lead is if the target stops or changes direction/speed the lead will be wrong (didn’t see if they added it for SepV3 in devserver)
(If i remember correctly in game only Leo/abrams/leclerc miss this feature)
2 Likes
Okay, sorry if that was unnecessary information, I’l keep looking for more modern armor stats, but I agree that is is of upmost importance to give the devs not just bullet proof, but projectile proof evidence aswell.
1 Like
that is what the the older M1s use, no idea if they still do
but that report is pretty clearly talking about IR auto tracking like what does let MBTs track aircraft in game
Okay, thank you! Sorry if that info was unnecessary.
1 Like
Indeed i have the doubt for the SepV3, for the rest it’s already confirmed by others that they do not have an air tracker (even if tbh gaijin could add it for the sake of parity)
If there is a way to make laser continuous or just automatically update every second or fraction of a second then you could resolve the issue.
But yeah, I’m aware Abrams shouldn’t get air tracking and that other tanks do, I’m just talking about ground tracking since there are tanks ingame that can but do not have it for valid balance reasons
Please keep it stored with you, as I am doing the same for future bug reports
1 Like
As i answered to the other guy, i don’t know for sure if SepV3 fixes this problem/adds a different unit/gets an effective tracker like others, don’t have sources at hand to be sure
I spoke more generally about why abrams don’t have it, i seen that document and it’s not the first time i see it either
1 Like
Inb4 “too long didnt read closed because not enough information”
2 Likes