ChatGPT is not a source, and R-73 is inferior to AIM-9M in IRCCM.
@_Renzo
You’re glazing Gaijin? Or are you commenting about how people attacking me are defending Gaijin?
SEP2’s addition is as valuable as 2A6’s, and I like the SEP2 more cause it’s pretty.
Technology demonstrator used for suspension tests.
What’s supposed to be special about this…? It’s a SEPv2 with a training sim kit.
Not a Tech Demonstrator
No idea on that one author seems to be on something.
I think he meant the MILES packages used for training, which has a LWS. Still not meant for combat and shouldn’t be added. Only the SEPv4 has a LWS meant to be used in combat.
womp womp
Hmm. “Karl! Grab a blowtorch and a saw! Were going to Fort Moore. We gonna do some silly stuff.”
(Fort Moore has a M1A2 SEPv4 prototype.)
I would have thought it would be at Fort Benning
The U.S. Army Armor and Cavalry Collection has one and it’s at Fort Moore.
I had to look it up Moore is the new name my bad. Forgot Army went and renamed their bases.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that.
Yeah i remember seeing that big suprise its not fixed…
I would compare the SEPv2’s addition more to the the Leo 2 PSO’s addition. Both of them are at best sidegrades, arguably downgrades of the previously added MBTs for their respective nations.
I agree that it looks cool. That is also the only reason why the SEPv2 is even in my lineup to begin with. If I didn’t have 10 crewslots in the US the SEPv1, M1A2 and M1A1 HC would all have priority over it for me.
the SEPv2 will likely also be the first to get yeeted from my lineup as soon as Gaijin finally adds the long overdue SEPv3.
Why would anyone expect an upgrade to the already at the time best tank in WT?
Especially when spawn counts were needed not single-vehicle lineups at 12.3+ [today’s BR].
SEP3, T-14, Leopard 2A8, etc aren’t “long overdue”, they’ll be nice when added, but they’re not the upgrades people think they are either; especially without cut-aways or unclassed docs of armor array/thickness.
Support Vehicles like the AMPV-MC (M1287), Stryker Dragoon (M1296) and Sgt. Stout (M-SHORAD Increment I) could be useful, to help provide additional flexibility to the higher BRs.
The “V3” at least is known to not use the standard Hull Array of the prior Abrams, So Gaijin can do whatever they want in terms of improvements to make things balanced (at minimum I would expect a similar baseline ratio to the change from the basic M1 to M1IP’s turret) and it provides yet another opportunity for any of the multitude of issues with the M1 platform to actually be addressed.
There is also LP CROWS ( the optional Mk19 fit & J-CROWS / CROWS III) reducing the silhouette, improved ammo (e.g. M1147 / M829A3 or -A4 w/ ERA bypass mechanic) both of which are issues, especially considering sticking with the L/44 Gun.
pretty sure it does have LWS, not exactly sure since I don’t have it though
It doesn’t. In game I don’t think any American vehicles have an LWS. Which is accurate, the U.S. didn’t really use many vehicles equipped with an LWS.
might have been thinking of something else then IDK
btw the MH-60, OH-58, AH-6, AH-64 (I think), AH-1z, all have LWS only one I’m not sure about is the ah-64
If that was the case we wouldn’t have gotten the 2A7s and 122B+ lmao.
the SEPv3 without trophy is already a 2A7V counterpart
Anything above 12.0 is produced by aircraft. So when talking about ground lineups it is better to use the tanks highest BR which is 12.0.
Also once again multiple people have said this I have said this. The SEPv2 didn’t add anything to the lineup besides something that looks cool. You are better off taking 1-4 of the 4 11.7 abrams in the lineup. So stop with this farce about single vehicle lineups at top tier.
It’s also already been mentioned the SEPv3 is in reality the 2A7V counterpart yet the SEPv2 was added with it.
As an aside there are also the L/55 or XM360 demonstrator(s);
Also as referenced in the thread the M1 thumper uses an upscaled M256 to 140mm w/ a L/56 guntube; the XM291.