https://www.facebook.com/K01Archive/posts/pfbid0q2LNeeCNzWT1Q6DFo5JapsLqN1qvN1Kkiwbiktz9JJFd5b4bTaq5tv59U7hmWgotl
This graph depicts the weight of M1 Abrams versions in short tons (not metric tons).
The version that USA supplies Ukraine is M1A1SA, not the most modern M1A2 SEPv3.
However, we can see that the M1A1SA is still relatively "new", it was deployed in 2006.
Second, we can see that, from the graph, M1A2 SEPv3 is much heavier than M1A1SA, but that weight surplus is mostly for increasing the front armour. The weak points and vulnerable sectors of the newest version is the same, unchanged. The engine is also the same.
Therefore, the "older" M1A1SA has a notable advantage in the specific context of Ukraine, is that it is less heavier, allow it to be more moblie and maneuverable, and it allow the Ukrainian armed forces to add applique armour to its weak points and vulnerable sectors.
Which mean, the Abrams version that Russia managed to destroy in Ukraine, is not a 40 years old monkey model, but is the most appropriate and suitable version that USA can supply to Ukraine.
Now in a hypothetical scenario if USA supply the newest version of Abrams which is 80 short tons, and Ukrainian forces still have to add umbrella cages and Kontakt-1 ERA to that heavy monster to cover its weak points. You can see it is a nightmare, but nightmare for Ukrainian armed forces.
Probably it is a proper response for SeigSolovyov.
Link of the graph https://scontent.fsgn5-15.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/445533857_984945846668260_716716773728811937_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_eui2=AeE-VSfFU7bkfBUGmOEeYcVlA0XnjwLWiNQDReePAtaI1JcaNu0LjJUr-EKxeaBCLzckTeB8UuHCvZFWuGHv9wME&_nc_ohc=qvBIt_qSBHIQ7kNvgFLQdgA&_nc_ht=scontent.fsgn5-15.fna&oh=00_AYBVlwhnLmb5nulybGfNvdaXsf_Oqi3S0gatcRzVy6-dHg&oe=66634A68