Sep v3 rolled off the lines in 2017-2020 yet they use sources from 2006 to justify there changes. Also ngap the armor the abrams uses, is stated by the manufacturer to have depleted uranium. The manufacturer literally states “ Non-US export versions of the SEPv3 Abrams utilize NGAP/NEA technology customized to omit depleted uranium” why would they omit it if it doesn’t include depleted uranium? Gaijin is straight up lying and getting away with it because none of you players decide to actually fact check there sources. The pictures they used in the blog arnt even found in the document. They made them up to screw this blog in thier favor and you players do nothing
9 Likes
That is not Hull that is Relic ERA angle.
Against what ? Artillery ?
It’s 44 for Abrams vs 68 for T-series difference is 24 degrees.
2 Likes
We don’t know the answer for many of the top tier tanks. Hell gaijin doesn’t even know if Relick is actually as effective as it is in the game.
1 Like
The US is already an incredible top tier nation even without the SEPv3 hull armor buff lmao.
4 Likes
Overall I’m glad they addressed it and didn’t resort to we just don’t believe its possible like other times. and they have decided they will strengthen the plate, would i prefer they tell us how much now yes but its gaijin it wouldn’t be a dev blog without a completely unnecessary vague important statement lol,
Am i slightly upset its not going to the sepv2s yeah but that’s fair we need real figures for that which with time we will get and it will just eventually be something we laugh at the gaijin devs being obnoxious regarding it.
however this situation did as always point out some big issues within the dev teams handling of the situation and the bug reporting system.
the first being they knew it got an upgrade of sort and knew how (i.e. the new weld line on the underneath of the hull they use as a source here), but instead of what they did with the turret cheeks they just pretended it didn’t exist vs making a very underestimating prediction like there doing now anyways.
Why not mention a slightly improved hull in the dev blog if it would be a minor change in gaijin’s books anyways.
Now the bug reporting forum, once again as with almost every single controversy so far to “DATE” handled this so poorly to the point where it was actually infuriating to witness and i think incited more anger and just shear disappointment with gaijin in the community.
At a certain point the bug reporters have to only consist of either payed employees or interns who can face internal punishment for purposely mishandling or not bothering to even properly investigate the sources sent after controversy’s like this so the next time it happens they have a reason to properly you know do there job ( doesn’t apply to all bug managers/ volunteers).
now giving the benefit of the doubt not all of the reports were handled poorly, and a lot of the sources were repeats that tend to rely on viewer interpretation so I could understand them just skimming over highlighted sections.
But when we have large quantities of very well researched large sourced bug reports, denied and vaguely responded too in under an hour it is disappointing.
(once again, cause i feel like someone’s gonna complain possibly, not all the reports were as well researched. I’m am not crying that bad or vague reports were closed succinctly. The complaint here is that the few well made reports, were closed in under an hour. Which is simply not enough time unless meth is a common stimulant for the bug reporting managers to properly investigate and review the larger bug reports, that are more dense with sources.)
what makes it worse is both of the groups at fault for this decision most likely don’t care as they don’t have to deal with the player base, the only people that get insulted, complained, constantly annoyed by us, for something out of there control are the poor community managers.
who I’m starting to think get given a single sentence on topics from the dev like its some cryptic ancient puzzle and the mods are expected to keep all of us happy with that.
Its unfair too all players of the game, and the community managers every time they do this and it keep happening more and more frequently as they get more wishy washy with there standards for implementation as we progress in time with more modern vehicles.
still its really just time to wait and see how strong the hull is on the dev cause minor could mean like 20 mm rha lol or it could be like 50-100 since they also call a incorrect channel loss of 20-25% ish a minor difference from the standard 5%.
since the original blog i gave up all interest in the sepv3 and was enjoying the sepv2 trophy tanking 8 lmurs from 6 trophy shots was a pure bliss experience lol, but depending on the implementation of the hull increase even if only a bit i am gaining interest back in it.
The nearly 1milion rp barrier does kinda push it back a lot when you realise that doesn’t even include the stock grind of it.
Either way all the community managers handling of the situation was great or at least the best it could be. Considering gaijin themselves didn’t seem like they were intent on being helpful. And hopefully what seems like a small success by the player base here can lead to some other minor nation fixes i.e. challenger trunnions and the 100 of others that were held back because there wasn’t “exact figures” on still classified vehicles lol.
2 Likes
true and i know people will disagree but man the trophy itself was already enough for me this update, like are the Abrams the best tank for me personally no, but i don’t think i have ever struggled with the US not being a top nation( it 100% is and might be THE best now with the combined 16 jagms and 20 gbu 53’s cas options lmao, there balancing seems to getting worse each update lol as if eft’s with spice and the lmur spam wasn’t enough)
1 Like
I dont think this is the argument. I think its very simple. The hull armor of the MBT of the strongest military in the world hasnt changed in 40 years? Its one of the best if not that in game anyways. Its just a more honest approach from Gaijin would be best. Also the two tow hooks contributing significantly to weight come on
1 Like
I don’t feel that’s true. I don’t really have any US vehicles beyond 6.7 but I play against them a lot. The Abrams is the only top tier tank I feel confident pushing 100% of the time, even in weaker vehicles I have deliberately uptiered such as the VBCI. The reason being that I know I can always destroy them frontally no matter what I’m using. I’ll give it a try at some point but I’m willing to bet I could probably manage 1:1 using a Panzer IV Ausf. H against Abrams.
They are pathetic and I don’t fear them at all. That hardly seems like a realistic state for the MBT of the worlds premier military power to be in.
While everything I just said is super anecdotal, I think it reflects well enough in the winrates. And it’s not like the average US brainlet Clickbait player is any more or less skilled than a T-80U-E1 premium player.
To summarise, I feel bad for the US teams and I’m getting kind of sick of winning. It is just sad to play USSR because of how easy it is.
7 Likes
The Abrams is an incredible tank that scales more with skill than any other top tier MBT.
The only MBTs that is arguably better thsn the SEPs are the Strv 122s/2A7s.
2 Likes
If we go off your stats you’re achieving only about a 53% winrate in the SEP v2 and 51% in the regular SEP (I’m not insulting you. I think you are probably a good player) while I manage 68% in the BVM despite us having similar K/D’s. I’m slightly lower in the T-90M at 64%.
Clearly you don’t play USA. Back to your FOTM.
Short version ‘they did things to save weight in the tank, but because the tank didn’t have enough weight added to it it can’t have protected the tank that much more against APFSDS rounds’.
The first statement is right - not everything in the tanks weight is armour. Between using different materials - like aluminum, between being more efficient in internal design and systems where it maybe needs less wiring, or newer screens and other electronics weigh less, you can start adding up a lot of little saving that total in to something bigger. If the engine now uses some lighter parts, if there’s less weight in wiring and electronics, etc you can start looking at hundreds, if not thousands of pounds in saved weight that offsets armour weight increases. Aircraft have had similar trade offs forever (something I know more about as I’ve always been more an aircraft nerd than a tank one).
That said, at last check, the goal with tanks has always been ‘maximum protection, minimum weight’, namely post WW2 - to have the tank that is the most survivable while also the most mobile. While also at times having to fit within certain restrictions for transport by rail, ability to operate on roads, etc. And to that end - the use of other materials, geometry, composites, etc explored. But the SEP v3 if what I’m looking at is right has entered service inside of what - the last 10 years? You can not tell me, in the last 30 years - that they haven’t probably found ways to make armour that’s lighter and stronger than previous iterations to increase protection with minimal weight gain. Not when new kinetic and chemical threats are emerging all the time and the simple cyclic nature of ‘hey, we built a round that can beat our own protection - we should work on something that stops it in case someone else does’ and ‘we built armour that stops are best round - we should build a better round that can punch through it in case someone else does too’.
2 Likes
well yes and no for the Abrams specifically it has a detachable APS system so in my opinion it would be a modification since you can take it off
Agreed
Top tier Russian winrate is widely known to be carried by their CAS.
I have a 67.8% WR in my M1A2T while having between a 2.5-3.0 K/D in it.
2 Likes
So does other APSs, like i said no other tank in game has a modification for the APS.
There are Chinese players with their Abrams overperforming both russian tanks and american Abrams. I think some people invest more in learning the game and using tank capabilities. It usually reflects with good abrams stats.
or ZTZ99A…also missing actual tons of Armour and Spall Liner…but Reports on it accepted by now also like three years old
well yes and no for example Merkava Mk4M isnt meant to be detached unless at a depot and the Challenger 2 BN too my knowledge cannot be detached like the Abrams where the field commander can have it detached to reduce weight
Where do you get that the m1 is field detachable? Also i dont think that the Trophy is mission specific either.