evidence of gaijin changing turret on M1A1 /M1A1 HC
no hull increase, both have same thickness, different KE multiplier, same M829A1, why not to the hull? roughly same 40-42 degree angle
evidence of gaijin changing turret on M1A1 /M1A1 HC
no hull increase, both have same thickness, different KE multiplier, same M829A1, why not to the hull? roughly same 40-42 degree angle
1 Like
Sorry for spam but M1A2C turret stuff - the tank only has the 150mm ballast boost
1-2 img is same Sabot
3-4 img is same HEAT
all armor upgrade is congruent with the 150mm plate, no upgraded composite
2 Likes
I see that talking here won’t change anything. As someone who just started playing, I thought this game was fair and equal for everyone, but there’s a Russian bias in the game, and they’ve made their vehicles more durable than others. As someone who started playing and invested a lot of money, I stopped donating when I saw things like this. I play Germany, and I see how the new generation tank like the 2A7V has been weakened. You can only see it yourselves. When there are issues with armor or modifications, Russian players always consider themselves the best players, saying it’s a matter of skill, but what makes them durable is the game’s mechanics; they’ve made their tanks durable. Even the 2A7V tank wasn’t new; they applied it to an old model and nerfed some things. This happened because of complaints from Russian players. So even if they make new armored vehicles like the 2a8 or the upcoming Sepv3 Russian tanks for you and us tomorrow, they’ll still nerf them due to the whining of some players who say it’s a skill issue, just like when the 2a7v came out.
5 Likes
The most specific you can get on open source is the budget documentation which states “turret and hull armor upgrades”. That’s separate from the mine blast improvements, reactive armor tiles, and lightweight belly armor also mentioned, so it’s clearly referring to the base armor.
Since mine blast improvements is a separate mention, the hull armor upgrades are not focused on blast pressure and therefore must be direct fire threats. As for location of the upgrade, well it’s clearly not the hull sides, rear, or top RHA plates being thickened as SEPv3s are built off M1A1 base hulls (and you can use the sniff test on hull production photos and see they are no increases in thickness).
There’s only one place on hull where there is composite with an internal upgrade package and that’s the LFP.
Now of course, there are no numbers or specific threats. And you won’t get that because that’s legitimately classified (no not just CUI like the TMs everyone in the forums freaks out about but actually secret). So if the developers need RHAe values, then everything starts and stops at the Swedish tank trials. Something which is now over 30 years out of date. If that’s the standard so be it….
….however that’s clearly not the standard. We have armor values in game for Merkava 4’s, the Type 10’s, late model Chinese tanks, but I’ve never seen any official source list specifically the protection in RHAe for any of these vehicles. Hell, even the new welded turrets for the T-90A and the later T-90M. Or the composite used in the “turret” of the BMPT? Where is the official primary source for the RHAe of those?
And one final most damning example, is that on the same vehicle in question here (SEPv3), the developers made a complete guess on what the “turret” part of “turret and hull armor upgrades” means for the tank in game.
The developers very clearly guesstimate all the time and I think generally the player base accepts that, even if they don’t agree with the final specific number. What is extremely irritating is the double standard. Some vehicles get completed guesstimated armor (that is questionably balanced) without any source and then you get the current situation where a main tree’s ultimate MBT doesn’t get the main upgrade that makes it better because the player base doesn’t have classified documents.
26 Likes
That’s my whole point is if they made a number from some sort of document for the turret, there HAS to be a paper trail, and if the numbers are obviously stated (as they “were” in the previous documentation used to justify current numbers on the SEPv2 and older) than there has to be a number figure or documentation to prove that for the SEPv3 as well, and as of yet where is that documentation? And to get an objective answer, a mod that deals with these kind documents a lot (Gunjob, etc) could pull these things up
5 Likes
I think it is more of “if something working then don’t touch it”, they see Abrams performing well, so they consider A3 gonna be enough for new abrams tanks
For other MBTs they needed at least create some sort of “shape” for gameplay, abrams already has this “shape” performing and they don’t want touch it more than needed
Hi guys, in fact, we have overlooked an important point, which is the new ammunition M829A3. Despite its projectile length being over 100mm longer than the M829A2, its penetration depth has only increased by 4mm. Although it has a new ERA mechanism, a penetration depth of just 633mm is not sufficient to reliably penetrate a contact 5 tank. More importantly, its speed is only 1555m/s, meaning its ballistic drop over long distances will be very significant, which is very unfavourable for long-range combat. This is quite a downgrade, so in many cases the M829A3 performs worse than the M829A2. This is a typical case of apparent improvement but actual decline. The M829A3 is one of the most powerful anti-tank munitions in service, and all analyses suggest it should outperform the existing DM53 in the game, but its penetration of 633mm is even much weaker than the DM53, which is ridiculous. We should ask the developers to remaster the M829A3 to match its real-world penetration.
6 Likes
I mean I’m not a marketing expert, but adding a new highly requested MBT and instantly making it redundant doesn’t seem like a good strategy to gain hype.
It doesn’t need to be overpowered, but it should at least have a reason to exist for there to be hype about it.
7 Likes
The penetration value is raw value, it doesn’t show if there are different effectiveness against different armor in those numbers. try going to protection analysis and comparing the “equivalent armor” values shown for the different projectiles when aimed at ERA.
4 Likes
It is more than sufficient…
Right but it’s now or never kind of situation.
I saw that someone stated that Gajin claimed to not balance vehicles via armour. Which is great imho, there are plenty levers available like internals, reload speed, munition, lineups for balance the game.
All I want is to keep as close as possible to reality and do the best to keep the balance. This is a thread about Abrams so I won’t start with minor nations MBTs or BMPT.
Is upgraded sepv3 a 15.0 candidate? So be it, add it when you are ready, decompression would be very welcomed, just don’t cope Gajin. Don’t close bugs reports like immature teenager - just because - and don’t post ridiculous claims.
3 Likes
Despite this, the m829a3 still performs poorly, and its penetration depth at long distances is not as good as the m829a2. Its initial speed is also very slow. If it only has a 633mm pen in the end, it will not be as effective as the m829a2 when facing tanks equipped with Relikt or other countries at long distances. Currently, it is only a type of m829a2 with anti k5 effects and reduced initial speed
4 Likes
SEP V3 weighs 66.8 tons now
Sep V2 trophy weighs 66.5 tons now
Sep V2 weighs 64.3 tons now
All in base configuration
6 Likes
It’s semi accurate actually. The penetrator is two segments: a 690mm x 25mm DU rod and then a 100mm x 25mm tungsten or steel tip (depending on which patent you like, I lean tungsten).
Patents in question:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6662726B1/ - DU rod/WHA tip, timing matches M829A3
US8985026B2 - Penetrator round assembly - Google Patents - WHA rod/steel tip, likely for KE-T which was a proposed export M829A3
Now using a 690 x 25mm rod you get around 600-610mm of flat pen using the LO calculator, pending on the details. This is actually less than ingame. However from US8985026, we get this awesome graph:
This shows that adding a (in this specific patent steel) tip increases penetration into semi infinite RHA by 5-10% across various ranges. The current pen against non-ERA in war thunder fits in albeit at the lower end of that range. In a way, it’s a good model for KE-T.
There are however two issues:
First is that M829A3 uses SDU, an improved DU alloy first used in M829A2. This increases penetration vs RHA by 3-7% compared to the original DU 3/4 TI alloy used in the LO calculator and by Gaijin.
Second is that M829A3 most likely uses a tungsten tip, not steel, based on the patent released during its development. A tungsten tip would probably improve performance non-ERA targets compared to a steel one but I admit that’s just my sense of it and conjecture.
Overall vs non-ERA targets it’s probably slightly underperforming and more akin to KE-T than M829A3 but meh.
As for ERA, that’s a whole other can of worms
4 Likes
“Not as good”, dude it is nearly identical, at 2 km you have 2 mm difference…
I believe it is steel though on on the dev. My simple calcs even if not 3.8 tons, and instead 3 tons, show that math aint mathing as currently its just rha. Even heavy elements like uranium where density is 19g/cm3 it doesnt quite add up although I dont have all the dimensions to make proper volume
1 Like
It feels like the only way they are going to even consider the change is if we somehow have extremely classified data. People have talked about using the 35% hull upgrade from the 90s as a substitution as all data is classified regarding all armour improvements for the hull on the sepv3. It honestly just feels like they are intentionally denying it, which is weird because the turret improvements are just as classified as the hull? And now in game, genuinely what is the point of the sepv3, its just a significantly heavier sepv1 while retaining no real advantages as the turret cheeks are virtually impenetrable anyway.
5 Likes
the dimensions are roughly 90x600x1400 (mm), which is about 0.0756 cubic meters, so if u multiply it by the density of Uranium, it will be about 1440kg per cheek ( if it was made entirely and purely of uranium which it is not), that only accounts for a 2.88 ton increase. espeically considering they saved two tonnes from switching to fiber optic alone i dont know how they are going to explain the 4 tons more weight over the sepv1 if this is all that was changed.
2 Likes
also i feel like it’s not even just russian bias anymore, its just relikt, SPAA and 2020s Russian Bias
anything post only composite/pre-relikt is going to be very painful, basically dooming the Kontakt-5 series or Kontakt-5 equipped vehicles, M829A3/Nerfs to the ERA itself as well as most tanks only barely equipped with the armor, this is just making players buy the BMPT rather than any actual skill T-series premium, (probably why they’re never letting BMPT on sale)
1 Like