It would have been, if it was added with the Leo 2A7V, Strv 122B+, and T-90M. If it’s added with the next generation of tanks (going off of Gaijin’s estimates, which will likely be massively underestimates) it will be essentially useless.
Then why was the T-90M, 2S38, or Challenger 3 TD added, if speculation truly is beyond Gaijin?
And this disproves my point that it should’ve been added with the 2A7V and T-90M how?
Source needed.
Again, source needed.
You’re really trying to argue that the Abrams has better armor protection right now than the Leo 2A7V???
I personally don’t see much of a reason for it not to be added, if the main selling point was simply its armor. People are focusing heavily on M829A3 when there’s only 2 available vehicles that can reliably deter it. NGAP, however, offers indiscriminate protection. An early addition with M829A2 would be very well balanced, and as more subvariants of nations’ tanks are added M829A3 would be an amazing round.
The T-90M has been stated to use the T-72 hull array of the 1990 pattern, while the interior / dimensions and overall capable are heavily documented.
The 2S38 is currently a public display test demonstrator. You could literally go to an arms expo and get inside it 4 years ago.
The Challenger 3TD is largely identical to the previous chally variants, only having a slightly bulkier hull and minor changes to the turret and systems.
Every defining factor of these vehicles is known. The defining feature of the SEPv3, being its new armor package, is not. Its systems are already known, its ammunition availability and interfacing systems are already known. Imagery and videos of the interior are already out to the public as well.
There’s simply nothing of substance that can be used, and claimed figures are few and far between.
It doesn’t, if you’d refrain from cherry picking my statements you’d understand what my counterpoint is.
For… What? Would you like me to cite a lack of evidence…?
Again, for what?
No? I’m trying to argue that some parts of the Leo turret are less armored than the Abrams.
But there were turret side, hull, and turret cheek armor improvements before SEPv3 (during the 1990s).
Gaijin already thinks it wouldn’t improve much, so I mean (in terms of what Gaijin thinks) I agree.
I doubt it would be modeled to have armor better than the Abrams’ current cheek armor, which would make it worse than the T-90M and 2A7V still.
But the armor is all we’re talking about, of which they are guessing.
The issue with that is that the 2S38 has purely theoretical (last time I checked) APFSDS and HE-VT rounds.
Gaijin could implement it anyways based on estimations, regardless. Waiting until they have enough information would mean that US top tier is always behind everyone else.
Something that would suggest not much has been modernized, yes.
Some small portions maybe, but why bring that up if you’re not trying to argue that the Abrams’ (in game) armor is not as bad as it actually is?
Gaijin’s Standard
The only thing ERA wrong in this game is the 90 degree impact angle but most the case where a rounds hit in game is mostly at engage angle.
This, they did not release any docs about KE protection, they only post the result with the most popular thread which is RPG-7, even their ERA’s STAGNAG standard also state for 30mm only, not for large caliber APFSDS
The only thing Gaijin should do is model the ERA base on percentage and pass-through effect for modern Darts, that’s all.
I’m jumping into the middle of a conversation, so apologies if I’m missing context, but the turret sides were definitely improved on production model M1’s, starting from the M1A2 SEP IIRC.
I’m inclined to believe the SEP v3 will have slightly better armour for both hull composite and turret composite armour if/when it comes to War Thunder.
The only way I could see Gaijin not implementing it is by claiming they don’t know the exact values, but they have showed sources in the past that concretely state the SEP v3 received upgraded protection for both hull and turret.
we showed /proved gajin that the leo 2a7v has at least as much armor as the strv122 if not more but here we are gajin prefering to use 30 year old armor test and giving germany the worse tested german variant
In terms of armor gajin wont do anything if you dont find documents speciyign exact values
If Gaijin releases the SEP v3 on the dev server with the same armour values as the M1A1 HC, I can guarantee there’ll be another mass negative review wave on Steam.
hes talking about the ERA, and the ERA alone should stop 25mm APFSDS at 500m, which would result in also being able to stop 30mm APDS (from the BMP-2M) at point blank, not the whole side add-on.
Must by why the 2014 amendment (which is synonymous with “making it accurate” (or, to be literal; it’s an addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation)) actually contradicts that by clearly stating DU is only in use with the turrets, huh?
Can have does not equal does have, at the same time, the 2014 version also declared that DU was only cleared for the turrets.
On that note, the 2006 version, which as you claim “has removed the limit on use of DU within M1s hull”, comes with an enclosed application, so more than likely it’s referring to the 5 hulls the previous document had talked about (hence “renewed” and not “amended” as was the 2016 form…).
It says a new type of heavy armor was added. This could mean many things:
Pre-DU Abrams (M1, IPM1, M1A1) → Turret-only DU packaged M1A2
Pre-DU Abrams (M1, IPM1, M1A1) → Turret-only DU packaged M1A2, meant purely for ballistics testing
DU Abrams (M1A1 SA or later), but turret only → M1A2, but with a better generation of turret armor
DU Abrams (M1A1 SA or later), in turret and hull → M1A2 with a better generation of turret armor, but still has the earlier generation of DU hull armor
The fact it says “new heavy armor packages” (as opposed to adding just any form of heavy armor, which had been around since 1988) leads me to believe it’s either the third or fourth option, with the fourth option seeming more likely due the removal of the hull limit in August of 2006.
The wording is rather odd, but the limit is the only thing that has been changed between the two. Going off of the letter that was sent with the license, it looks like the Army let the February license expire in March and then after a period of five months they renewed (i.e. activated again) the February license with the limit removed.
I mean it explicitly states “several additions and modifications have been made to [the] NRC license,” of which the only changes made were the removal of the hull limit and the exclusion of repair or maintenance.
No they don’t, and you’re off topic.
DU hull is SEP 3 forward, which explains the dry weight increase of around 3 tons.
Vs the negligible mass changes of M1A2 - SEP2.
That’s correct, it’s referring to first-generation NGAP/NEA, a DU-based armor meant to replace HAP of the third generation that was in use ever since the SEPv1 entered service back in 1999, and it had been installed in what I call “M1A2 SEPv2 mod 2” that entered service in 2014.
What it also states right below what I had underlined (which, it appears, has made you hyperfocus on that while ignoring the rest of the paragraph), is that the new armor is only authorized to be installed in the turrets, but not the hulls. A bit strange, isn’t it?
I mean it explicitly states “several additions and modifications have been made to [the] NRC license,” of which the only changes made were the removal of the hull limit and the exclusion of repair or maintenance.
Which is why I don’t consider the 2006 renewal form to be of any help with the Amendemnt no.7 missing, and no.8 contradicting it.
Clearly, between August 2006 and December 2014 (amendment no. 6 renewal and amendment no. 8, respectively), something must have changed for them to go from “Alright, you may use DU in yours hulls now” to “No, you can’t use DU hulls anymore”.
