Yeah i was looking at those changes before
Good stuff but right now the only major thing damage model wise that is actually functional is the turret ring changes and the hull being volumetric now
Mantlet got reworked to be correct but is currently only a visual fix and does not change the armor performance there yet which is hopefully still being worked on
I also noticed the fuel bulkheads seem to be unfinished or just dont match the original spec from the bug report
For me the big things of the M1A1 rework that i really hope are not final yet is the mantlet and bulkheads as both of those would provide a decent uplift of armor performance if implemented
Then of course fixing the hull armor but i feel like thats a separate issue at this point
EDIT
upon further examination of the mantlet it does effect the armor performance adding more protection
However im not sure if its correct or not so i asked the “experts” about it under the original report thread
I am still awaiting a response
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
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.
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
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)
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
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…
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:
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”
