M1A2 SEP V2 was released simultaneously with the Leopard 2A7V and T-90M.
However, the Leopard and T-90M are equipped with stronger armor and spall liners, whereas the M1A2 SEP V2 lacks such advantages in comparison. It is a heavily burdened TUSK II, significantly reducing its mobility compared to the existing M1A2.
As a result, its offensive and defensive capabilities are actually inferior to those of existing tanks.
Gaijin delayed the introduction of the M829A3, assuming it wouldn’t be effective against modern armor and ERA. However, in order to penetrate the armor of the Leopard 2A7V, T-90M, and Strv 122, a powerful M829A3 with strong penetrating power should be provided.
Additionally, ARAT reactive armor should be installed to counter RPGs, along with an IED jammer in areas prone to IEDs like Vikir and Khrizantema.
Considering these factors, I believe Gaijin should supply the M829A3 for the M1A2 SEP V2 and convert the TUSK II into a detachable one.
M829A3 is optimized to deal with ERA; on Alliant Techsystems patent there no mentions of improvements versus NERA, only that the new design offer around 5% higher relative armor penetration versus RHA than a conventional hollow steel nose.
Given that M829A3 (25x680-700mm) uses a similar main penetrator rod to the one used by M829A2 (22x680mm)-but fired at a lower velocity-, i can understand why Gaijin didn’t added it with SEP V2 release.
TLDR: M829A3 offers minimal raw penetration increments over M829A2. Until Gaijin decides to code anti-ERA tips there no reasons to add it; however, i guess it could offer better postpen since M829A3 dart weights 7kg, 2kg more than M829A2/DM53.
What I want to say is that, compared to the previous version, T-90m and Leopard 2a7v added new armor and spallliner and improved flir, but m1a2sepv2 came out with only a meaningless TUSK2 kit, so I don’t think it can be compared to Leopard and T-90m. do
And, apart from the skill issue in the Americans, I think Spalliner is a serious balance-breaking item.
There seems to have been an error in what was said. It was said that the overall performance of the tank deteriorates due to reduced maneuverability due to the useless weight.
There was an error in the translation, so what I originally wanted to say was that Warthunder does not have an IED, but has an IED jammer.
The ARAT reactive armor installed to protect against RPGs and rockets is not effective against the Hrizenthema Vikir Cornet, so why bother installing it?Unlike the Relict reactive armor, which has a certain level of KE defense, is there any meaning in the existence of the TUSK kit? I wanted to
I’ve been arguing for years that this type of ERA is a waste of time in the META of APFSDS.
I’d much rather have a ‘clean’ M1A2 with better mobility in 100% of matches played, instead of a M1A2 with ERA equipped that only saves you in 5% of matches played.
The ironic bit is that a little while ago ARAT was given a realistic total thickness when they overahauled it’s visual model making it both more realistic and actually useful. But of course we cant have that, and the changes were quickly reverted before the patch dropped.
Honestly the Merkava Mk.4 is the worst of them all.
(I’ve heard the ariete also sucks but haven’t looked into it really.)
The Merks have no armor to speak of,
the engine doesn’t provide armor, it creates more spall.
The entire tank can be lol penned by 500+mm flat pen kinetic rounds, it’s crazy dumb…
It has a massive profile,
and is working with the longer of the manual reloads of 6 seconds (supposedly irl it can have a 5 second reload from the ready rack, but gaijin uses reload for balancing purposes so idk if this matters).
At least it has APS, but lately it’s a gimmick on most vehicles I’ve been playing…
Abrams isn’t the only “MBT” that’s suffering, and in my book it isn’t the “worst”
They probably don’t know what to guestimate it’s armor as so I think you are right, even though it would go against a large part of the arguments they made against SEPv2 better hull armor (not enough increase in weight).
Got proof for that beyond the Trophy counterweights and the pixel search on the turret cheeks?
The V3 has the same exact PR statements made about it as the V1 and V2 did with the same bog standard “improved armor package” for both the hull and turret and neither of the former have any improvements over the original 1986 HC upgrade.