Again its yes and no, they are planned to restart production but they for now are stripping old M1A2s, which still doesn’t make them the “same as 1980s Abrams”. For the amount of upgrades the SEPV3 has gone through its entirely new.
Also known as “Ship of Theseus paradox” if you build a ship or tank in this case with entirely new parts is it the same tank as before? No, because almost nothing is orignal.
Ah so when the Abrams uses older refurbished hulls then its great and they’re basically new but when someone else does it it’s
The main difference is the abrams hull has had proven and visible changes to the armor on the internals. The leopard 2 series on the other hand has not had its issues reduced. On the other hand SEPS have improved the abrams and its flaws have been reduced. For example the commander optics have always been sub par on the leopard at least compared to nato standards but as i mentioned earlier in this forum its nice to see the upgrade. Not everything i said is negative towards the leopard.
Oh boy, I wonder where those M1A2’s got their hulls from:
So then apply the same logic to the Leopard 2’s?
Again, its not the the fact its old is the issue its the fact all these upgrades for the leopards have come out and still have yet to fix alot of main core issues.
For the image you sent it doesnt really say much, it even says "overhaul chassis and “engine / transmission”. They made a whole new turret for the M1A2 series as it even says in your photo you sent, along with many other major upgrades. Even then the sep v2 had more armor added to the hull, now the sep v3 which you can see the armor upgrades and the new sensors. So calling it “the same 1980s abrams” is just denying the fact the entire vehicle was remade from the shell of the chassis.
SEP 2 and SEP 3 side by side
The M1
Germans use insensitive ammunition.
I’m fairly certain someone else already explained this to you a number of comments above, so I’m not sure why you’re mentioning this again.
What’s that even supposed to mean? You’re being incredibly vague with that description.
Turret =/= hull.
You’ve made it very clear on numerous occasions now that you’re referring to the hull.
Don’t move the goalpost.
You’ve still not shown any evidence that the SEP v3 doesn’t use refurbished old M1/IPM1/M1A1 hulls.
[Citation Needed]
You keep moving the goalpost, making up strawmans so I don’t really see this discussion going anywhere productive, I’ll leave it here.
Yea i agree with that especially when i give several sources but when then fail to match your opinions its not “a source”.
I said it here, remade from the ground up using the same “shell of the chassis”. I never moved that goal post, i agreed and said yes its the same hull but entirely refurbished.
Bru you used Google Gemini as a source and the other sources you brought up dont even support your claims. What are you talking about?
Insensitive ammunition isn’t the be all and end all tho.
I assume that most insensitive ammunition’s are somewhat similar, and according to a French paper on their own variant, they still say that it’s only insensitive to KE, fire and HE, however it will still detonate if stuck by a HEAT jet.
Tbf, the hull is supposed to resist standard HEAT from both RPG and other tanks from the front and side, but they are still probably not completely protected from drone attacks using HEAT on top of the hull, meaning that this specific situation could bring a catastrophic ammo detonation.
If u may look at my Quote they simulated the ammo getting hit by an RPG 7
What you mean? Hot-Hot makes Boom-Boom, everybody knows that!
That’s interesting. Are they also insensitive for HEAT shells ? This is only for the propeller. The insensitive paper for French munitions covers both the propellant and the explosives.
That i dont know.
The PDF only mentions it as a propellant of different ammo not as a warhead filler.
In this case the HotHot dosnt make BoomBoom but only pffffshhhhh
The “armor” argument ya’allake as to why it wasnt accepted is so funny considering the weight difference doesnt exist, it was just flat out worse.
Jesus, thats not really new. Read the sources about recent Rheinmetall nitrochemistry. There are slides where they present how the struck DM63 shells (first ammo type using SCDB safe propellants) with kinetic force, throw it into a fuel fire, apply a RPG7-like heat jet direktly on a shell…and nothing. Its not hard to understand. it simply does not detonate. Leopard tanks just using these ammo types should be safe to fatal ammo detonations. Under certain circumstances HE fillers (HE shell types) might conflagrate, but this is already the worst which can happen. To counter this, Leopard 2A7 and later models’s ammo storages have several sensors + automated fire supression, which might suppress a conflagration in parts of a mere second.
Thats likely one reason why all Leopard 2 tanks are stuck with 30 yo DM53. DM63 wouldn’t have more pen, but the safe propellant is likely the reason Gajin will ever allows more advanced shells.
Well we do have DM11 already.
But here as well gsjin just doesnt care
