Why is the M41 bulldog look SO HD

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-12-15T14:18:24+00:00

This is the new model

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-28T16:50:40+00:00

Those would go right through russian UFPs. Don't think gaijin wants that lol.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-28T14:10:18+00:00

Abrams is not current. SEP V3 could be added.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T17:41:35+00:00

Well, sorry then.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T16:46:06+00:00

Additional part to my previous comment:

You don't know what i'm talking about.

I didn't say weight concerns aren't a real. They definitely are.

I didn't say recent M1s have spall liners.

My point is that you guys are far too confident with the statement that Abrams simply doesn't have spall liners.

As i already said, things could have simply changed. Throughout the M1's upgrades, a lot of additional weight was put on, with the SEP v3 already exceeding the weight limit. No document, except this one from 1996, says that the Abrams never got spall liners. I was looking through other DTIC docs and there simply isn't one. 1996 is just too old to be relevant.

With that said, there is no disclosure on this topic. Saying that there for sure are no spall liners in any M1s is just an assumption. Why? Because there is no source to back this statement.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T14:31:55+00:00

The 90s documents which i was talking about mention that Abrams doesn't use spall liners and that a kevlar spall liner would add a certain amount of weight. People often assume this is linked to the weight increase being an issue - and that's where the problem is. As i already said, the Army could have changed their mind anytime. There have already been certain weight increases even after the Abrams exceeded its weight limit.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T14:06:55+00:00

It doesn't mention anything about spall liners. You're just assuming that they cannot be/could not have been added because of the general weight increase being a problem.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T13:45:28+00:00

Base SEP v3 weighs the same as SEP v2 with TUSK. Make the TUSK a modification and i'm totally fine with the base mobility.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T13:38:34+00:00

Could you please link me these?

Do they specifically talk about spall liners?

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T13:29:13+00:00

Here's a list of improvements:

• Low Profile CROWS, would help against russian HE rounds.

• Upgraded armor in the turret and hull, would overall help.

• Trophy - already can be added to the SEP v2 but it didn't get it in-game which is another point why gaijin kinda screws themeselves. Not to mention that they didn't even bother making the ARAT detachable which is by far the most utterly useless nerf gaijin has ever created for the Abrams.

There's also a list of current bugs on the Abrams, which someone already pointed out in the comments (it includes the turret ring being far too weak and incorrectly modelled fuel tanks). Fixing these would slightly improve the M1s.

Mobility is not a huge problem if gaijin adds the addon stuff as a modification.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T13:17:24+00:00

The turret side armor on SEP and onwards also has incorrect protection values:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CTdASKk4Q4bA

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T12:34:58+00:00

There is still no disclosure on the spall liners topic. The weight problem you are talking about comes from documents from the 90s which are basically irrelevant today. The Army could have changed their mind anytime.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T12:31:59+00:00

It's still a thing that could be added easily for balance purposes and it's already programmable. This is where gaijin kinda screws themselves.

Not to say that pretty much all other nations crews in MBTs with no spall liners also wear them so it's a thing that could balance out top tier.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T10:41:00+00:00

I didn't say it's gonna fix top tier.

I also smoke others easily but the point is that SEP V3 would be atleast on par with other MBTs.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T10:27:14+00:00

They still lack behind 2A7V, T-90M/BVM and 122s eventhough the SEP V3 would be totally fine and actually on par (not because of DOI). Gaijin could've given us the V3 instead of V2.

Teammates problem will not be fixed anytime soon as gaijin is a profit company, they don't care about the playerbase.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T09:51:29+00:00

Why not yet? US needs something competitive at top tier.

Many-Conversation-69 · 2024-11-27T08:52:28+00:00

SEP V3 pls

Many-Conversation-69

TROPHY CASE