No it wasn’t. FST2 was not representative of any real tank.
FST2 (Future Soviet Tank 2) was a set of performance figures which western analysts believed a future Soviet tank might be capable of, based on previous trends. I.e. “if you want to design a tank that is future proof. It should be capable of battling a tank with these characteristics”.
even the 2a5 for some reason has a better hull, than the 2a4 with, basically no recorded improvements from what im aware
you got an example buddy?
k nvm, u’re actually right, checked like 50 reports with #1 #2 and #3, all in order.
Firstly i strongly suggest that you stop insulting staff.
That’s just the first one who responds, it is not tied to a specific individual.
If you think a report warrants a second review you can use the report function on the bug report site:
my question is why the ammo is not modeled in the russian auto loaders but it always modelled in the oplot…while shooting at an oplot the ammo is present but not t80, t72s or t90s
Please guys, if you wish to add documentation to the discussion, make sure to provide a clear proof that the document is available to the public, i.e. it is NOT classified or restricted (front page, sources, etc…).
All mighty vehicle with unmanned turret 2S38(hidden 12.0) - proceed to be killed in turret
If I would be that mod and read last sentence of “best” report I would close this report the second I read last phrase
1: the 2s38 died because it spalled into ammo, 2: obviously the hstvl is going survive some autocanon fire and hmg lol
bro what are you doin lmao. do you not get enough attention irl or smthn?
Yeah that was some grade cherry picking by WestDeserved.
Imagine feeling the urge to lie like that because you have an emotional need to be right over a video game.
Imaging calling great fun tank worthless because of your personal skill issue
Forum and Reddit made russian mbts look like boogieman using cherrypicking for years. But when you do it backwards is big no-no
Yeah sorry try using it against the bmpt - which is the thing everyone spams right now. Which you actually know is the issue here - so again you’re being dishonest with your argument.
Its great against mbts - always has been. But since the current meta is all about BMPTs… yeah no bro.
Also, I don’t use reddit. So whatever standard you’ve got issue with take it up with them. Doesn’t make you less responsible for your personal choice to engage in it - it’s a weak mans tool in arguments.
M1A2 SEPv3 (M1A2C) Hull Armor and Driver Protection Reassessment Request
I would like to request a reassessment of the M1A2 SEPv3 (M1A2C) hull armor, particularly the frontal hull and driver protection area, based on publicly available information regarding the vehicle’s documented survivability upgrades.
I am not claiming access to classified armor values, nor am I proposing specific protection figures. However, multiple official and publicly available sources consistently indicate that the M1A2 SEPv3 received significant armor and survivability improvements compared to previous Abrams variants.
Official U.S. Army Statements
When introducing the M1A2 SEPv3, the U.S. Army described it as:
«“The most modernized configuration of the Abrams tank, having improved force protection and system survivability enhancements.”»
The same U.S. Army release also specifically states:
«“The Abrams Tank will continue to advance its ballistic protection to counter the latest threats.”»
These statements clearly indicate that survivability improvements were not limited to electronics or networking upgrades.
General Dynamics Statements
General Dynamics, the manufacturer of the Abrams, explicitly states that the M1A2 SEPv3 features:
«“Upgraded armor.”»
The official GDLS Abrams page further states:
«“Upgraded armor, a new protection package and an ammunition datalink improve crew protection.”»
And:
«“Incorporates Next Evolution Armor and blast survivability upgrades.”»
These manufacturer statements directly reference new armor and protection packages beyond previous SEP variants.
Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP)
Several defense publications reference the implementation of the Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP) on the M1A2 SEPv3.
Open-source reporting also documented test vehicles carrying surrogate weight packages intended to simulate the additional weight of the NGAP during development and testing.
This strongly suggests that armor-related modifications were physically incorporated into the vehicle design rather than being purely software or electronic improvements.
Increased Hull and Turret Armor Thickness
One of the most important publicly available references is the technical information summarized on the M1 Abrams documentation page, which states:
«“The M1A2 SEPv3 increased the LOS thickness of the turret and hull front armor.”»
While exact protection values remain classified, the statement itself is significant because it specifically mentions both:
Therefore, there is public evidence indicating that frontal hull protection was increased compared to earlier SEP variants.
Vehicle Weight Increase
The M1A2 SEPv3 weighs approximately 66.8 metric tons compared to roughly 64.6 metric tons for the M1A2 SEPv2.
While some of this increase comes from new electronics, power systems, and APS integration, the existence of documented armor upgrades, NGAP implementation, and increased LOS armor thickness suggests that at least part of the additional weight is associated with survivability improvements.
Survivability Testing
The U.S. Department of Defense DOT&E reports confirm that live-fire survivability testing was conducted on the M1A2 SEPv3.
The public report states:
«“DOT&E continues to analyze the live fire test data to evaluate the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 survivability and force protection.”»
The detailed results remain classified, but the existence of dedicated survivability testing further supports the fact that protection improvements were a major component of the upgrade package.
Conclusion
Based on publicly available evidence, there appears to be sufficient justification to review the current armor modeling of the M1A2 SEPv3, particularly in the frontal hull and driver protection areas.
This request is not asking for speculative or classified armor values.
Rather, it is based on multiple official statements confirming:
Given these documented upgrades, the current implementation may not fully reflect the publicly acknowledged improvements incorporated into the M1A2 SEPv3 platform.
Thank you for your consideration.
I did those stat from stock to top with terminator sitting at 11.7. And?
It’s great against russian and chinese mbts… and ariete, because you can one tap them both frontally and from side.
Any other NATO mbt almost imposible to kill in one shot frontally and from side. +BMPT, yes it is a harsh enemy. But your reaction was to T-90M? You can one tap him frontally and from side easily, like common, why you started crying all of sudden?
Now show how much BMPT survives
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
