Except you don’t know from a video if it is the override or not. You just assume. You asked why would an operator raise the turret before going over the engine deck right there.
thats not what happened in this clip though, he already had his gun raised and lowered it to wiggle it as seen a few seconds later, he probably had full control override the whole time which isnt normal as most FCSs in modern tanks provide a good degree of automation
While the actual armour arrays inside are likely also improved to some degree, this should be sufficient to at least increases the thickness of the current armour arrays.
Key word
yeah a keyword that applies to both sides of the argument though
So is the video enough proof or no?
I don’t get how they are this allergic to using that 35% value from the 90s. I almost want to ask if Smin even knows about that document.
I just wish some of the bug reporters handling the SEPv3 armor reports would actually think instead of believing with their pre conceived biases.
6 Likes
He said “if DM53 and L27A1 have the anti-ERA capability” recently, chances are he knows less than most casual forum users, seeing as you can find RHM stating at least that DM53/63 do have that, even DM53s brochure mentions it.
I just wish some of the bug reporters handling the SEPv3 armor reports would actually think instead of believing with their pre conceived biases.
It’s likely TrickZZter/David_Bowie/Ralin, fyi. I don’t have a solid confirmation yet, but chances are it’s one of those three.
3 Likes
Unfortunately we will never know.
Who said we won’t ;)
Hmmm? 🧐
Stay tuned :)
3 Likes
not for removal of the gun depression restrictions
plus gaijin have already made their opinion clear on this video specifically
if youre trying to catch me out with a “so if this video isnt enough for proof why is the video of the leopard enough for proof?” you wont, because the video of the leopard isnt enough alone, because we know the limitation exists from more than just that one video, crew attestations and the user manuals (which I cannot find unfortunately)
Except we know the limitations from a video what other documents have shown the limitation. You say crew or documents say it but I haven’t seen it and you can’t find it.
Now this piqued my interest.
I do hope this isnt what i think it is…
1 Like
still cant find it for the leopard (cannot find an online copy of the leopard 2a1 manual where I here it is quite clear about it) but heres the proof it at least exists for the M1 though no specifics
according to it the fire control mode needs to be set to manual and the cranks must be used to manually lower the gun over the back deck
page 2-188
1 Like
That’s what I’m saying.
Leopard 2A7V got a guesstimated armor based on Swedish trials.
M1A2 SEPv3, instead of getting a guesstimated armor based on the +35% KE figure of the proposed upgrade package in the 2000s, retains the same as the 1979 M1…
The German equivalent would be as if Leopard 2A7V still somehow had the exact same hull armor as a Leopard 2A5.
Well, going from being vulnerable to all 9.3 shells onwards VS being able to withstand even 12.7 stock rounds is a big change, isn’t it?
And you underestimate how much it would do even against top rounds;
The fuel tank areas add up to 50-100mm KE depending on the angle. If the armor was made to be even just ~540mm KE, that would mean the fuel tank areas could provide even more than ~600mm KE. That makes those zones immune to half the Top Tier shells, including 3BM60, L27A1, KE-W, OFL F1, etc.
And you are also not considering RANGE; not all engagements take place at point-blank range. And also, angles; not all shots happen on perfectly flat frontal angles. The slightliest the angle, the more effectiveness.
At 1,000m and 10°, a fixed SEPv3 would be providing 600-ish mm KE, again protecting against half the Top Tier shells and even more; while the dad 1979 hull doesn’t even reach 500.
9 Likes
Exactly. Even 35% is extremely conservative and lowballing; but at least it wouldn’t be 1979-armor level of aberration.
Heh. I remember some time ago when I was annoyed that “Gaijin would probably use ‘only’ the outdated 35% figure”… now, seeing how they are so hellbent on the damn 1979 hull, EVEN the obsolete 35% figure would feel like a blessing lmao.
6 Likes