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’.
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.
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
Oh the entire wiring system being replaced to make it lighter not to mention the hydraulic system for the turret drives being replaced with eletric drives, alot of the road wheels replaced with aluminum wheels to save weight, etc etc but hey lets only focus on WEIGHT to say no armor was added since the 80s even though new materials have been made that are somewhat stronger and lighter. Yes im ranting but at the same time WEIGHT is a horrible explanation for Gajin to make this argument.
Okay I feel like I need to correct some things, since it was 4:00 in the morning and I might have typed some stuff wrong causing a miscommunication:
I said the Abrams is one of the best top tier MBTs, imo the 2A7s/122s are still better.
I didn’t mean to say that the SEPv3 should remain unchanged. I meant to say that even IF Gaijin decided to leave it unchanged, the Abrams would still be one of the best top tier MBTs.
The player who constantly praises the U.S. tech tree actually has a higher win rate in Russian MBTs than in the American Abrams tanks he constantly praises.
1- I am aware they were talking about Leopards. What about my response makes it feel like I thought they were talking about anything else?
2- Vehicles being changed between the WIP iterations of a Dev Server and the Live Release is not a “SEPv3 exclusive” thing.
3- This is a topic about M1A2 SEPv3. It was never the time or the place to make it about Leopards, yet you claim that “American players have victim complex” while you’ve got German mains here hijacking our thread to whine about their unpennable 670mm KE hulls not being even more unpennable 800mm KE hulls, but oh, God forbids America gets a single Abrams with more than 355 miserable mm KE on the hull. Really?
To be fair in game there 30 other bullshit mechanics that can affect results on top of that theres also player playstyle preference.
From a objective dot point view hes right but from a in game stat or like general ven diagram of its strengths in a low tier hand vs a high skills hands will show it as mediocre.
And tehnichally both are right but when talking about something desperatly needing buffs hes right since thats an objective point of view question not subjective or qol one