yeah and it feels a bit odd with the timing
seems like they might want people to stop complaining and wait a week until they just say something like “lol, no” and then argue that its too late to change it before live
1 Like
all the data that gaijin hasnt rejected is CLASSIFIED, gaijin has pulled numbers out of their magic hat on previous occasion or by using weight and other data to make a general estimate of the actual values, but they refuse to do anything of the sort for he abrams,
1 Like
Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case but we shall see. I honestly feel like there going to say we don’t have enough info there for can’t implement any changes.
3 Likes
In the meantime, enjoy facetanking Mango to the LFP :)
1 Like
Where did they say it was next week?
“Next week, we’ll cover the Abrams, so please keep an eye out on the forum for another post.”
Because there is literally nothing indicating that the KE protection of the LFP was increased whatsoever.
Literally just people making stuff up they cant source, meanwhile abrams LFP is already overperforming against KE compared to GDLS protection charts presented during the swedish MBT trials (by ~50mm)
the Swedish tank trails happened 33 years ago you really think a military with a trillion dollar budget was incapable of upgrading their lfp on the tank that has been in service for 46 years
4 Likes
Prove they did it.
Literally the same argument people made for spall liners on SEPv2 and guess which tank didnt have them.
army fiscal year docs literally state there where upgrades to the lfp but obliviously they aren’t going to declassify its specs it probably has du inserts like the turret cheeks do
6 Likes
You don’t want to argue with someone who’s already set in their way.
He can sit in a position (with gaijin) to say there are no improvements. Yet documents show there are improvements in the Hull and Turret which increase effectivness in prior reports, but there are no explicit data.
Additionally, this is how people derail forums. By provoking and asking for sources, while there is active search for sources and available data within the forum.
10 Likes
I’m suprised he’s still here instead of retrying to get his DM53 anti ERA properties.
He would be taking us off topic, which is his goal, alongside trying to start debates which he can easy sit on a throne and side with gaijin.
This is essntially how the debate goes when it comes to this. A waste of time, and a derailment to the topic at hand.
4 Likes
Oh I am for sure gonna believe that you have them and break any NDA that you may have signed to get them. Too bad none of the available ones support this.
“Armor with Urban Survivability Enhancements”
Almost as if this goes in line with improved underbelly/mine protection.
The common threats in urban environments arent other tanks, they’re IED’s, mines and RPG’s aswell as other handheldt anti-teak weaponry featuring CE warheads.
the army fiscal year docs are unclassified open source docs you can look up for yourself
3 Likes
theres 5 tons of armor that surely does something(and is probably similiar to older attempts to improve armor)
1 Like
I never disagreed with the idea that SEPv3 had armour improvements, I however strongly disagree with the idea of it specifically being the LFP against KE threats as is claimed here numerous times without a singular source even indicating it being the case.
It is explicitly stated that they received improved mine / IED protection & underbelly armour aswell as internal structural improvements.
If you didnt know, mine protection is heavy - >3t on a Leopard 2A6.
Combine that with the other things above, aswell as whatever they added to the turret and you are getting very close to that weight discrepancy.
I am certain you’d be able to quote the one listing the LFP?
I mean that would literally be the breakthrough we need for any related report, wouldnt it?
you see the word HULL right there after turret what was the only turret upgrade the sep 3 got so one can assume it applies to the hull as well
4 Likes