Which is why we can only guess with publicly known figures. To be honest I’d rather Gaijin just fill the gap with RHA within the weight constraints.
1 Like
Well, we roughly know how the tickets changed and how the weight has changed so gaijin should be able to compare to it other armours by density, but their probably just going to give it a bare minimum buff which is appreciated anyways
Did it LOLPEN it at all reasonable ranges for top tier? 1.2km to point blank? No. Okay there’s a reason I used the term “LolPen”. Context. Context. Context.
I swear it could like only pen if the hulls were touching and the Abram’s was aiming downwards
1 Like
I sincerely doubt that this is gonna be good news.
6 Likes
Yuuuup. 1
Almost at a thousand votes on this poll
Real SEPv3 hull compared to ingame visible changes, IRL hull wields are moved back and hull front
extended, suggests armor change
Click on one of the images and use ← → arrow keys to switch between them and u can see the differences
3 Likes
I know it’s not exactly related to the new Abrams… but HOLY RAGEBAIT… they gotta teach me how to achieve this:
Genuinely gaijin needs to lowkey just “fire” (they’re not even employees) all these pricks working at the ticket triage.
3 Likes
We might have a issue with the physical model on the the in game abrams appears smaller. But that doesn’t mean they are missing armor. The values of said armor could equal the correct amount. Although that is all ball parked.
I will probably side with the report manager on that one. There are far better reports that have been denied.
Almost believable if it wasnt confirmed in US budget reports about the SEPv3 program incorporating hull armor upgrades
The screenshot was more to highlight how basically ANY reports concerning the abrams armor is being treated, and that one was extra funny because of the passive-agressive response… like brother doesnt even WORK at gaijin yet he’s acting like he just received a 10 pizza order before closing in.
As said before hull armor improvement is broad it is known and lumped into the hull armor improvement ied and mine protection. Does that eliminate the possibility of frontal armor improvements no. But it means we need something pointing to the front of the armor not just hull.
I was asked to relay this information concerning the armor of Abrams:
M1 Abrams: 55.7 T
Turret: 38 mm RHA, 360 mm NERA, 101 mm RHA
Hull: 32 mm RHA, 360 mm NERA, 101 mm RHA
1.5 T for 440mm increased turret thickness
M1A1: 57.2 T
Turret: 38 mm RHA, 800mm NERA, 101 mm RHA
Hull: 32 mm RHA, 360 mm NERA, 101 mm RHA
9.6 T for no turret nor hull thickness increase…
M1A2 SEPv3: 66.8 T
Turret: 38 mm RHA, 800mm NERA, 101 mm RHA
Hull: 32 mm RHA, 360 mm NERA, 101 mm RHA
Make it make sense.
5 Likes
Yeah I was asked but I see you have. That might hold some weight in a bug report.
I would honestly, but I dont have any documentation at all unfortunately. But if someone that already has good sources wants the info, its free picking.
Well you can probably take the photo of the extra turret armor and just use that to show. Unfortunately I don’t know if that will change protection values because that information might just be like the stat card where it’s purely cosmetic.
2 Likes
Its listed seperately from ied and mine protection
Source: The FY2026 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles justification document, page 122
1 Like
They literally do though. The “Bug Reporting Manager” title only refers to employees now. Everyone else gets a “volunteer” title.
And that report really is kinda trash. It doesn’t even say each version has improved armour relative to eachother, just that the Abrams family as a whole has improved hull armour (compared to what exactly?).
The Abrams tank family (M1, IPM1, M1A1, and M1A2) has an improved hull armor envelope