Of what, upgraded composites?
Do you want the NGAP funding docs, the serial number notation, or dimensional changes?
No, the SEPv3 is stated to have NGAP, not HAP.
M1A1HC was introduced in November of 1990, not 1986.
Yep
Array dimensional changes are not indicative of armor improvements per gaijin.
Now prove to gaijin they are different.
The first M1A2 was produced in 1986.
There any evidence that the turret ring area of the Abrams is a shot trap? It wasn’t when first added to game.
Reverting or reducing the area would make the tank more competitive.
SEPV2 has exactly the same thermals as the SEPv1
Doesn’t offer more effective protection than TUSK I.
Everything that TUSK II stops is also stopped by TUSK I lol. And everything that defeats TUSK I will also have no problem defeating TUSK II.
1 Like
That’s not what I was saying
Array dimensional changes are indicative of a composite change. Whether it be more, a different design… Anything.
All it does is validate the fact that SEPv3 uses NGAP.
And the first HC package was introduced in 1990.
And the SEPv1 has gen 2 thermals, unlike the previous Abrams iterations.
We should judge “applicable upgrades” of a new flagship vehicle to the previous flagship vehicle of said nation, which is the SEPv1.
And as of now the SEPv2 has more/bigger applicable downgrades than upgrades compared to the SEPv1.
1 Like
That’s exactly what I did.
M1A2 - Gen 1 thermals
M1A2 SEP - Gen 2 thermals
1 Like
Ah yes I’m sure you did:
Where do you want to move the goalpost to next?
2 Likes
When did I “move the goalposts”? He stated recent top-tier vehicles and their implementations, I added the recent top-tier american tank and its upgrades.
You asked me to compare “‘applicable upgrades’ of a new flagship vehicle to the previous flagship vehicle of said nation”
Hence my response;
You stated that the SEPv2 has the same thermals as the SEPv1. This is not disputed, this has no contention on its basis, and it is the exact same for many other nations top-tier vehicles. Hell, the T-90M has the same thermals as the T-90A and there’s a large BR difference there.
So please, describe in detail how I’m moving goalposts.
I don’t see the normal M1A2 as the flagship US MBT anymore. It was added in 2019 and the SEPv1 took over and became the US flagship MBT in october 2022, which is why the SEPv2 should be conpared to the SEPv1 imo, because it was the new best MBT in the US tree.
I might have been a bit aggresive, because people consider different vehicles as flagship MBTs for different nation. Imo the SEPv1 is still the flagship MBT of the US tree, because it’s simply better than the SEPv2.
Then are we doing a comparison of the SEPv1 to the SEPv2?
Well… You’ll be wholly disappointed, and might want a word with GDLS if you feel that the purely technological upgrades aren’t enough.
What do you want, an internal view with the new crystal displays? Do you want full fan-support so you can feel the beautiful air conditioning on your face whenever you play the SEPv2?
It has nothing to do with being the “new” MBT, it’s an equal to the SEPv1 in pretty much every way.
Both the SEPv1 and SEPv2 are functionally identical apart from the CROWS and the ability to remove the TUSK-II kit, which is something that would be nice.
Also, major L moment
2 Likes
It might be, and I’ve been cautioning people on their false expectations over on Reddit as well.
But I do believe the extended turret cheeks at least present a good case for improved turret protection.
Of course, that doesn’t matter much because head-on the cheeks are already immune to practically everything, but it might be helpful against shots coming from a 45°+ angle.
Cool, I’m not arguing that it uses NGAP.
You have to prove to gaijin that NGAP is somehow an improvement over HAP/HC, which, currently, thats not possible.
And?
Mind telling me what the stock armor array was on the M1A2 which was first produced in 1986?
And per chance, tell me if there is any difference between that stock armor array which is modeled in game on our 1986 vintage M1A2 when compared to the SEP V1 and SEP V2 that we have in game?
IRL, beyond musings about the possibility, there has been no actual proof it is any more of a shot trap than the turret rings of say the Merkava or Leopard 2A5+.
The issue with WT is that sabots can bounce and retain their structural integrity which does not occur IRL, which makes the innermost UFP of the M1 expand where such a penetration can occur, which it should not.
Then keep asking…? Much like that of the Leclerc, it’s guesstimation.
And…
Seeing as I doubt you even know which pattern of HAP the M1A1HC uses, nor its differences…
HAP-2?
Do you mind telling me what “Heavy Common” refers to? I know for a fact it isn’t the M1A2.
There isn’t one? The only difference between the M1A2 and the SEP series is the change from HAP-2 to HAP-3, which did nothing but replace oblique plating in the composite to meshes to increase durability.
Ok cool, so you admit you cant prove that the NGAP is better than the stock 1986 M1A2 array, case closed.
Per your statement, the M1A2 SEP V3 shall have the same armor capabilities as the 1986 vintage M1A2 and M1A1HC that we have in game.
Thank you for wasting my time.
1 Like
I was never trying to?
Please quote which statement says that, and exactly how it implies this conclusion.
Thank yourself for making this needlessly complicated and spewing uneducated information.
I dont know if you are just willingly dumb or just spend your time trolling on the fourms.
You cannot prove that the NGAP is different in protection to HAP/HC.
Every single M1 since the M1A2 in game retains the protection of the original HAP/HC package.
Due to the fact that you are unable to prove that NGAP has superior protection, gaijin shall keep it as HAP/HC.
That is some amazing hypocrisy here.
1 Like
All of the above!
The same as you can’t prove D tech is better than C?
Not a single vehicle in-game uses HAP-1.
Or, hear me out here…
They’ll keep it in the suggestions box, as they have for the last 4 years.
Thanks!
Export armor from swedish trials