xX_Lord_James_Xx

M1 Abrams Official Thread

Disclaimer: I do not support this tank, or any tanks like it, being added to the game. Unfortunately, I have no control over that, but I do have some control over the misconceptions that people are spreading around about this tank, which is what this thread is for.

 

I also have permission from _Catweazel_63 to place multiple posts at the beginning of my thread:

catweazel.PNG.489aaae2994af8ac859fd0695c

 

 

M1 Abrams Mega Thread

 

5a8708c1543de_Abrams1.PNG.4e17bde58f13795a8708cf3cdbf_Abrams2.PNG.595089f5603a26

5a8708dd2a716_Abrams3.PNG.df9fff96c98c865a8708ed8fe35_Abrams4.thumb.PNG.7093c731

 

Part 1: Early History and Prototypes.

 

After the cancelation of the MBT-70 program, the US Army was still looking for a new tank to replace its M60s. In 1972, Congress approved the creation of the Main Battle Tank Task Force (MBTTF) at Fort Knox, Kentucky, whose initial goal was to create standards for the new tank, and several concepts emerged between February and August that same year. For developing the vehicle, General Motors and Chrysler Defense (later, General Dynamics Land Systems). Initially, both companies were given specific directives: GM was to create a tank based on technology from the XM803, while Chrysler was to create a tank based on an evolution of the M60. At first, the program was designated XM815, but this was changed to XM1 soon after.

 

Work proceeded quite rapidly, and the first concept was codenamed LK 10322, which was conventionally designed with the driver in the front, turret in the center, and engine in the rear. At this point, the project was mainly focused on possible protection schemes, with many different armor designs appearing. Basic protection requirements were as follows: protection against 120mm HEAT from the front, and 23mm AP all around. Projected vehicle weight varied anywhere from 37 metric tons to almost 60 metric tons, and the dimensions, armament, armor materials, etc. changed constantly, some designs only lasting weeks before a new design was deemed “better”. It was also during this time that a major question came up: What would we use to power these tanks? Two ideas came up; the AGT-1500 Gas turbine and the AVCR-1360 Diesel. 

 

5a87090ee7ef5_LK10322.thumb.PNG.9ee6459a

 

This is the first major design of the LK 10322, featuring a 105mm gun and some kind of special armor along the hull front, turret front, and turret sides. Some other interesting features to note would be the AGT-1500 engine, unsecured ammo, and a commander’s remote turret. Attempts were made to reduce the vehicles estimated weight, as well as increase the fuel capacity to feed the glutinous AGT-1500 turbine. Several solutions were implemented which saved an estimated 3 tons as well as increasing the hull length from 6.8 meters to 7 meters, which increased fuel capacity from 1100 liters to 1300 liters.

 

Soon after, MBTTF created a list of possible components for the new tank, which could be combined in any order, with any of the arrays that had been developed earlier in the program:

 

Armament:

105mm Rifled gun M68

110mm Rifled gun (British design)

120mm Smoothbore gun (Rhm 120 L/44)

 

Fire Control:

Modified FCS from the XM803 program, sans commander’s panoramic sights

Modified FCS from the M60A1 with day/thermal sights

 

Engine and Transmission:

AVCR-1360 Diesel with X-1100 transmission

AGT-1500 Gas turbine with X-1500 transmission

DB1500 Diesel (also known as MB 873) with RENK HSWL-354 transmission

 

Suspension:

Torsion bar

Hydropneumatic

 

Tracks:

T142

Diehl

71cm lightweight tracks

 

 

            But before any designs could emerge, the MBTTF added several restrictions to the projects: the tank must be under 50 metric tons as well as be immune to 115mm APDS-FS from 800m along the frontal arc. Later in the design phase, several other restrictions were announced: designs cannot use the 110mm British gun due to the weapon presenting no significant advantage over the 105mm; designs cannot use the 120mm L/44 due to projected time overruns and delays; and tanks using the AGT-1500 engine were eliminated due to the risky development and unproven technology. With all these restrictions, only 16 different designs were left to choose from, only differing in engine, fire control, and some other minor aspects. At this time, it was understood that the protection levels required would not fit within the imposed weight requirements. In the end, MBTTF decided to loosen the weight requirements as protection was seen as more important.

 

5a87092088832_LK10352.thumb.PNG.b3b0e82e

 

This is the LK 10352, a 52 ton design which is very similar to the previous LK 10322 with a new armor array and lengthened hull. Interestingly enough, it is said that the armor was some kind of glass between steel plates, similar to the siliceous core armor developed during the M60 program. A later version of this tank used BRL armor, which is an American version of the Burlington array developed in Britain for their Challenger I tank. The BRL came in 3 different levels:

 

Level 1 “Light”: 115mm AP with no HEAT requirements.

Level 2 “Medium”: 115mm AP with 81mm HEAT (basically RPG-7)

Level 3 “Heavy”: 115mm AP and 125mm HEAT.

 

The last level (Level 3 Heavy) was chosen for future development.

 

           

            During the wooden mockup phase, several problems arose. New armor arrays developed after the Burlington technology transfer kept changing the design of the turret and front hull that they could no longer agree on a single shape. It was decided to develop only 2 concepts, both with isolated ammo storage. Armament was to be the 105mm Rifled cannon M68 (which is not a license L7A, but more on that is in the Armament section), a coaxial 7.62mm M73 machine gun, and a 12.7mm M85 above the commander’s station. Several other proposals were suggested, including a coaxial 25mm cannon and even TOW launchers, but nothing ever came from those proposals.

 

XM1s.thumb.PNG.8aea4ccbef22d49f8d283393c

5a870946f1fcb_XM1CD.PNG.cae5fe284d13ad815a870953db3a2_XM1GM.PNG.f5db3128a1a73896

 

            By 1979, both Chrysler and GM had their prototypes basically finished and ready to present. It is worth noting that both XM1s had two totally different armor arrays, with the GM prototype most likely using an array similar to the original BRL while the Chrysler version uses the Americanized BRL package, which is evident from the shape of each prototype’s turret. The Chrysler prototype also had a major advantage: I still used the AGT-1500 turbine while also being able to use the AVCR-1360 diesel if required, while the GM XM1 could only use the diesel. The Leopard 2 Austere Version (AV) was also accepted for trails against the XM1s.

           

            The first tests were simple reliability and maneuverability requirements, as well as a general over view on crew safety. Since the Leo 2AV did not have separated ammo, it was quickly disqualified. The GM XM1 was also disqualified during this time due to the superior mobility of the turbine powered Chrysler XM1. Final testing began for the XM1, which tested its armor. An XM1 was fully loaded with ammo and fuel, with surrogate test dummies placed inside, and several different weapons were fired at it from various angles. Not only did none of the shells penetrate into the crew compartment, the XM1 was able to move under its own power after the armor testing had finished! After these test results, the contract was awarded to Chrysler Defense for 110 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) tanks to further test and develop the MBT. However, Chrysler was sold to General Dynamics and renamed General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) in 1982, but the chief engineer of the M1 program, Dr. Phillip W. Lett, stayed to continue developing the tank.

 

5a870965c3880_LRIPengineer.thumb.PNG.287

Head engineer Phillip Lett, standing in front of one of the M1 LRIP Abrams. 

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx

BlueBeta (Posted )

Moved to USA/medium
  • Thanks 7
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2: Armor and other Protective Devices. 

 

Over the years, the M1 Abrams has had several armor upgrades, as well as a complete turret overhaul! But before we get to the estimated armor thicknesses, we must first differentiate the different models. 

 

Turrets: 

 

Currently, there are 3 different types of turrets: 

 

Type 1 "Short": Only used on the original 105mm M1, this turret has ~700mm physical thickness (not effective thickness), 3 blow out panels over the turret rack, and a different roof. 

 

Type 2 "Intermediate": Only used on the M1IP version, this turret is basically a Type 1 with frontal armor ~900mm physical thickness, and no other changes. 

 

Type 3 "Long": First used on the M1A1 and all subsequent variants, this turret is structurally different from the first 2 turrets, making all Type 3 turrets new builds rather than upgrades. 

 

Hulls: 

 

Type 1: Used on the M1 and M1IP, frontal hull armor is ~650mm physical thickness, and lacks an NBC system. 

 

Type 2: Used on the M1A1 and later, frontal armor is kept the same (thickness), but upgrades were made to the structure, and it now has NBC system. Type 1 hulls can be upgraded to Type 2 standard, but not easily. 

 

There are also serial numbers to differentiate between models, with turret serial numbers representing the type of armor is placed inside and hull serial numbers representing where the tank was built: 

 

Turret: 

 

XXXX- Original BRL-1 or BRL-2 armor package (M1= BRL-1, M1IP/M1A1= BRL-2) 

XXXXU- Early Heavy Armor Package (HAP), which is when the first depleted uranium (DU) armor came in (M1A1HA, M1A1HC, M1A1 AIM v.1) 

XXXXM- Later HAP arrays, with more DU and most likely a revised composite layout (M1A2, M1A1 AIM v.2, M1A1 FEP) 

XXXXA- HAP for the Australian M1A1 AIM tanks, replaces DU with other materials 

XXXXE- Export armor package for Middle Eastern clients, replaces DU with other materials (M1A1M, M1A2S, M1A1SA) 

 

Hull: 

 

XXXXD- Tank produced in Detroit Arsenal 

XXXXL- Tank produced at Lima Tank Plant/ Joint Systems Manufacturing Center 

 

I.E. if you come across an Abrams with turret number 2119U and hull number 1976L, It's an M1A1 with early HAP package, made at the Lima Tank Plant. 

 

5a8720f674f77_M1armorestimate.thumb.PNG.

 

 

Now that that's all over with, we can get down to what ever is underneath all the armor. Since the Side armor is clearly visible, lets start with that: 

 

5a87220c8dbad_M1sidehullarmor.thumb.PNG.

5a8722c3c8eb5_M1sidehullarmor2.thumb.PNG

 

Here we can very clearly see the side armor, and we notice it is made from 2 separate plates. Unfortunately, we don't know the exact thickness of these plates, but using the man as reference, both plates are 40-50mm thick, making the side armor between 80mm and 100mm. We also don't know what kind of armor plates these are made of, though it's probably safe to say that the outer most plate is HHA while the inner hull is normal RHA, which would technically also make this a composite array. 

 

5a8724e1c4de3_M1sideturretarmor1.thumb.P

 

Here we can see a damaged M1A1 with part of its side turret armor array sticking out. It's clear it has several layers of (most likely) double bulge NERA. The (edited) green pipes are there to help support the NERA array. Unfortunately, we cant see very far into the array, towards the passive back plates, so there's no telling what's back there. 

 

5a8724f9f2d23_M1sideturretarmor2.thumb.P

5a87265a9121f_M1sideturretdisproof.thumb

 

Here's a picture of the turret bustle array, and as you can see, it's strikingly similar to the declassified CIA document. The thickness and composition of the final layers is not known, though. Do note that the internal, passive layers for the turret bustle are also most likely present in the turret side where the crew sits. 

 

Image result for Damaged M1 Abrams

I would like to point out that, in this picture, the side arrays were removed. 

 

5a87282034da4_damagedM1.thumb.PNG.f10e92

 

I personally haven't seen any IRL pictures of damaged Front hull, Turret, or Mantle arrays, so we're simply left to speculation on what they look like. 

 

 

Extra Armor: 

 

5a872ac4bf7b4_M1A1Tusk.PNG.2b317492de2dd

 

During combat, it was found that the M1's side hull armor was inadequate to deal with RPGs and other HEAT weapons. To combat this, the Army released the Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK). These upgrades added new M19 Abrams (explosive) Reactive Armor Tile 1 (ARAT-1) to the hull sides, as well as a shield for the loader's machine gun and slat armor over the engine exhaust port, among other upgrades. 

 

5a8729d2be47d_M1A1Tusk2.PNG.83760e08cfa8

 

Next, came the TUSK II package, which adds M32 ARAT-2, which is a modular system that could be placed on top of current M19 tiles or separately on a special frame, as well as some other upgrades. 

 

5a872a98a6e13_M1A2Tusk.thumb.PNG.c379d77

 

Countermeasures: 

 

Like most Tanks, the M1 Abrams comes equipped with smoke grenade launchers 2 banks of 6 to be exact, which can be filled with either smoke or chaff grenades, or a combination of both. And unlike in game, these grenades detonate mid air for maximum coverage. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODr5NKNuCg

 

5a872d47f3460_ANVLQ-61.PNG.d90a642a8f0c0

 

The only countermeasure devices that did not come standard to the M1 is AN/VLQ series of IR scramblers. Basically, the work like a flood light, blinding the missile and causing it to stray off course. These scramblers could be place on any number of vehicles, from the M1 Abrams, to the M2 Bradley, and even the M109A6 Paladins! These devices were only used in combat on Marine Corps M1A1s. 

 

5a872d5088c5b_ANVLQ-62.PNG.f58b3a3849e51

 

And last but not least, the US Army has just made a deal to equip roughly 300 M1A2 SEP v.3 Abrams with the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System (TAPS). How it works is it uses radar to locate and track incoming projectiles. It then sends out a small, shotgun-like device that literally shoots the missile out of the air, several meters away from the vehicle. It is a combat proven system, used on Israel's Merkava Mk.4M tanks, and will greatly increase the new M1's survivability to ambushes. 

 

5a87304463846_M1Trophy.PNG.33f92644545ae

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx
  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 3: Armament and other Offensive Capabilities

 

 

The Abrams has been equipped with many weapon systems throughout its life, from the venerable 105mm M68 to the mighty 140mm XM291, but only 2 weapons have ever made it to production: The M68 and M256.

 

 

M68 Rifled Gun

 

Ok, first thing’s first: The M68 gun IS NOT a license version of the British L7A. The M68 started as an independent development codenamed T254E2, which was also a 105mm rifled weapon. During the T254’s development, it was decided that the gun should be compatible with NATO ammo. This eventually evolved into the M68 we know and love today. The main difference between the M68 and the L7A is the breach:

 

5a89b2fd66503_M68breach.PNG.d9c3329b7d5d

5a89b30810f25_L7Abreach.PNG.eeecb7ea9f83

 

As we can see, the M68 is noticeably more compact, and uses a different recoil and breach mechanism. It should be noted that the M68 does share a barrel with the L7A, which is probably how this myth got started, but that’s about all they have in common.

 

Now that that’s out of the way, the original M1 and M1IP mount a variant of the M68, the M68A1, which is a slightly modified version with a higher rated chamber pressure, which means it can fire more powerful shells. However, initial M68A1 guns could not fire M900 APDS-FS, but this was rectified after ~1000 guns were manufactured (can’t remember the exact number), though this upgraded gun still kept the M68A1 designation.

 

105mm Ammo:

·       M735 APDS-FS: ~360mm @ 0o  

·       M774 APDS-FS: ~380mm @ 0o

·       M833 APDS-FS: ~400mm @ 0o

·       M900 APDS-FS: ~600mm @ 0o

·       M456 HEAT-FS: 400mm @ 0o 

All values are for point blank (<500m)

 

 

M256 Smoothbore Gun

 

It’s a similar story for the 120mm M256, the barrel is similar to the Rhm 120 L/44, and they can both shoot the same ammo, but the breach is much different:

 

 

 

 

 

             Looking at the videos, we can clearly see a difference in the shape of the breach. It should also be noted why the US sticks with the L/44 gun rather than “upgrading” to the L/55 like the new Leopard 2s: This is due to the US using mostly DU shells. The Depleted Uranium (DU) alloys used in most US shells “self sharpens”, which basically means the shell doesn’t get dull as fast when penetrating armor (there’s some other things going on too, but I don’t want to delve into that). Also, DU doesn’t perform well past 1700 m/s (5250 ft/s), where it has the tendency to shatter and not “self-sharpen”, so why have a canon that shoots at 1700 m/s or greater when your shells are less effective at the speed? And lastly, the US has great stocks of DU, but is lacking Tungsten, so it would be cheaper to use the DU rather than to import Tungsten. I would also like to point out that Tungsten is just as poisonous to living things as DU, as both are very heavy metals.

 

120mm Ammo:

·       M829 APDS-FS: ~600mm @ 0o

·       M829A1 APDS-FS: ~700mm @ 0o

·       M829A2 APDS-FS: ~750mm @ 0o

·       M829A3 APDS-FS: >800mm @ 0o

·       M830 HEAT-FS: ~600mm @ 0o

·       M830A1 HEAT-MP: ~400mm @ 0o (this shell is significantly faster that M830, 1400 m/s compared to 1100 m/s).

All values are for point blank (<500m)

 

 

Experimental Guns:

 

Along with the standard weapons, several experimental weapons were placed on the M1.

 

M256E1:

 

CZNEJgb.jpg

 

This is the 120mm M256E1 L/55 Smoothbore cannon, a domestically made L/55 gun. It’s basically the same as the Rhm L/55, but for the M1 Abrams. Is not used due to ammo restrictions (see M256 Smoothbore, above).

 

XM360:

 

Image result for XM360 cannon

 

Experimental 120mm cannon, meant for the doomed Future Combat System (FCS) program. It includes new, advanced materials making the gun lighter but able to fire more powerful ammo as well as a new recoil system. It’s slightly longer than the typical M256, at roughly 48-50 calibers long (L/48 - L/50). 

 

XM291 Advanced TAnk Cannon System (ATACS):

 

Image result for XM291 cannon

 

A mighty cannon, the 140mm XM291 is the largest anti-tank weapon mounted on the M1 Abrams’ chassis. We can also see the hefty XM964 APDS-FS compared to 120mm M829, displaying just how much power is behind this cannon.

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 4: Engines, Suspension, and Maneuverability 

 

 

From the beginning, The M1 Abrams was meant to be able to use different types of engine, transmission, and suspension systems. As mentioned before, the first 2 engine types tested were the AGT-1500 turbine and the AVCR-1360 diesel, but several other engines have been tested over the years.

 

Engines:

 

Another turbine that was tested on the M1 Abrams was the AGT-1500 TMEPS (Traverse(ly) Mounted Engine Propulsion System). Basically it was the standard AGT-1500 mounted perpendicular to the hull (sideways), which would free up more space for fuel or ammo. 

LrNiyqr.jpg

As we can see, the engine mounted sideways opens up a lot more space, though this proposal was not pursued.

 

            Some other early engine proposals included the LV-100-5 turbine and the XAP-1000 diesel. 

Oz7s0Bu.jpg

            The top left pic is the LV-100-5, while the other 2 pics are different angles for the XAP-1000. The LV-100-5 was considered for the main engine for the M1 and variants, including the XM2001 Crusader. The XAP-1000 was tested in the 140mm armed M1 CATTB.

 

            Another proposal suggested mounting a 1500 hp version of the AVDS-1790 diesel in the M1 Abrams, both in standard and traverse mount options. 

R8X85Du.jpg

 

 

            It was also proposed that the Abrams be fir with a modified version of the MTU MT883 diesel that’s mounted in the Leopard 2. 

Image result for MTU MT883

 

            And finally, British Aerospace Systems (BAE Systems), the same company who made the challenger tanks, has tested a new hybrid diesel-electric system for heavy vehicles, which could replace the AGT-1500 turbine in the M1.

 

 

 

Transmissions:

 

Currently, there are really only two transmission options for the M1 Abrams, the Allison X-1100-3B and the Allison 5250MX.

 

http://www.allisontransmission.com/docs/default-source/defense/11568_atm_sales_sheets_x1100-3b.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.allisontransmission.com/docs/default-source/specification-sheets/11119_atm_5250mx_sales_sheet.pdf?sfvrsn=2

 

 

Suspension:

 

Along with being able to mount different types of engines, the M1 Abrams was designed to be able to use different types of suspension systems, from torsion bars to Hydropneumatic suspension.

 

gzhLKFW.jpg 

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 5: Conversions and Prototypes

 

 

Throughout the M1 Abrams’ life span, several prototypes and variants based on its chassis have appeared. Though not all of them have entered production, they are all interesting none the less, and I will talk about them.

 

 

ARV90: 

Related image

When the M1 Abrams first entered service with the US Army, the only Armored Recovery Vehicles (ARVs) in US Army service were the M60 based M88 and M88A1. These vehicles were not powerful enough to tow the 60 ton Abrams. It was decided to upgrade the M88A1, with the M88AX program, later renamed M88A1E1, which lead to the M88A2 the US Army uses today. At the same time, GDLS offered an M1 based ARV, codenamed XM90 (but also referred to as the RV90 and ARV90). Initially, the Army preferred the M88A1E1 due to its lower cost, but congress decided that both vehicles must be compared before the Army make a decision. The ARV90 was a 60 metric ton vehicle based on the M1 Abrams, with a 31 ton crane and a crew of 3+4 passengers. It was able to move up to 64 km/h on road. During trials, the ARV90 outperformed the M88A1E1, but the Army sit decided to choose the M88A1E1, which was later standardized as the M88A2 “Hercules”.

 

 

M104 Heavy Assault Bridge “Wolverine”: 

Image result for M104 HAB 

            Based off the M1A2 Abrams, the M104 “Wolverine” HAB is an assault bridge vehicle. The Leguan bridge assembly used on the vehicle is 26 meters long, and can support up to 70 tons. The vehicle can move up to 70 km/h. 44 M104 HABs have been delivered to the US Army.

 

M104 Joint Assault Bridge: 

Related image 

            Also based off the M1A2, and very similar to the M104 HAB, the M104 JAB is an assault bridge vehicle using an 18 meter long scissor bridge. Though the bridge is shorter, it only requires 3 minutes to set up, while the HAB requires 4-5 minutes. Production is designated to begin in 2019.

 

 

M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle: 

Image result for M1150 ABV 

            Another interesting derivative, the M1150 ABV is a specialized mine clearing vehicle based on the M1A1 chassis. It is a 72 ton vehicle, armed with a single 12.7mm M2HB, two 150 yard (~140 meter) long “Linear Demolition Charge Systems” (basically high explosive rope), and a 4.5 meter wide plow to dig up mines. Was used in combat during the 2009 and 2010 invasion of Afghanistan. Currently, about 50 M1150s are in service with the USMC and US Army.

 

 

M1 Combat Mobility Vehicle “Grizzly”:

Image result for M1 Grizzly

An early prototype for the M1150, the M1 Combat Mobility Vehicle (CMV), also known as the Obstacle Breacher Vehicle (OBV), was meant to breach enemy defenses with its 4.5 meter mine plow, or use its 10 meter, 6 ton crane to excavate obstacles like concrete “Dragon’s teeth” or “Czech hedgehogs”.

 

 

XM2001 “Crusader”: 

Image result for XM2001 

 

A very advanced weapon for its time, the XM2001 Crusader was an autoloaded artillery system based off the M1 chassis. It came with the XM2002 ammo carrier, also based off the M1 chassis, which could replenish the Crusader quickly. The system could fire a 155mm, 100lb HE shell out to ~30km, at 10-12 rounds per minute. The barrel was cooled to maintain a high fire rate without damaging it. The 43 ton vehicle could reach a speed of 48 km/h and had a crew of 3. Though being absolutely superior to the M109A5, the program was eventually cancelled due to high cost ($11 Billion!) while also not being as mobile or accurate as expected. Is currently sitting in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, USA. 

 

 

M1 Tank Test Bed: 

Image result for M1 TTB

An early prototype that placed a remote control turret and autoloader on the M1 chassis. This advanced tank had a completely separated crew compartment in the front of the vehicle, with an automated turret armed with a 120mm M256 with 44 rounds.

 

 

M1 Component Advanced Technology Test Bed (1990): 

E6TFG4L.jpg 

The first version of the 140mm armed CATTB, nicknamed Thumper. This vehicle replaced the turret with a new one housing the massive 140mm XM291 Smoothbore, as well as an autoloader for the large ammo. The turret front is said to about 1 meter in physical thickness.

 

M1 CATTB (2000): 

dWYeVny.jpg

Image result for M1 CATTB

A later version of the CATTB, with a new, modular armor array and modified 140mm gun. This new armor array is said to be over 1 meter thick and is most likely similar to the M1A1HA/ M1A2 arrays, which should make the turret front impenetrable to any tank launched munition currently. This tank uses the XAP-1000 diesel engine, as stated earlier.

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments and misconceptions 

 

Feel free to comment 

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

infromative thread.

 

Given your intent is to provide information to end misconceptions spread about this tank I would add that you  should clarify in Op that those stats provided are Estimates and are not definitive armor Protection statistics to those areas of the M1 series,  and  thus should be taken with a grain of salt.  

 

 

Edited by kev2go
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as I have a minimum BR10, I have no problem. The only problem I have with this is that ...

 

to have this wonder I will be forced to grind the whole North American tree from scratch and the rest of nations will disappear to me as if they had never existed.

 

Edit: Thanks for the excellent compilation work.

Edited by DarkHearth
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume that the M1 Abrams with the M68 will be added to go along with the Leo2 and CR1. If they model it somewhat accurately and give it at least competitive ammo the M1 will be the best mix between the speed of the Leo and the armour of the Chally.

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i was hoping it would never come; i'm glad you decided to clear up the misinformation and propaganda floating around instead of just tossing in the towel. Looking ahead to more information : D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, IOC_000 said:

Well i was hoping it would never come; i'm glad you decided to clear up the misinformation and propaganda floating around instead of just tossing in the towel. Looking ahead to more information : D

 

The next section (armament) is actually where a lot of misconceptions are, so stay tuned! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome thread. Keep up the good work. This will be only the second MMO where I can drive an Abrams, outside of Armored Warfare, so I'm looking forward to it. Also, when naval comes out you can pit your Abrams against a(n) [insert famous ship here]. Expect Wehraboos to try to duel your Abrams with tiger tanks, too.

 

Also, to the video claiming that the Abrams can go on just about any terrain: mud would not be one of those terrains. As is view-able here:

 

 

As this video also makes clear, the upper glacis is about 60-80mm thick, sloped at 10-15 degrees. That's autobounce territory for most anything in Warthunder, though you'll probably be able to ricochet it into the turret ring if you can't hit the LFP. Either way, a hull-down Abrams is going to be an extremely tough nut to crack.

 

Also featured:

 

When T-90 Offroading goes wrong, mud edition:

 

 

Edited by Nomad_Gaming
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the now the perfect thread for discussing the now incoming confirmed M1 Abrams...

 

Thanks!

                           -Minseoki

 

Image result for Keep calm and Abrams on

Edited by Minseoki
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nomad_Gaming said:

 

As this video also makes clear, the upper glacis is about 60-80mm thick, sloped at 10-15 degrees. That's autobounce territory for most anything in Warthunder, though you'll probably be able to ricochet it into the turret ring if you can't hit the LFP. Either way, a hull-down Abrams is going to be an extremely tough nut to crack.

 

the UFP is ~60mm thick, sloped at 82o, which comes out to almost 420mm LoS. Also, long rod penetrators (APDS-FS) tend to shatter rather than ricochet, so there's no danger of that. 

 

11 hours ago, Nomad_Gaming said:

Awesome thread. Keep up the good work. This will be only the second MMO where I can drive an Abrams, outside of Armored Warfare, so I'm looking forward to it. 

 

Except it'll be no different than AW with made up armor and penetration statistics, cause all those things are classified. 

 

8 hours ago, Minseoki said:

This is the now the perfect thread for discussing the now incoming confirmed M1 Abrams...

 

... As of typing this, the M1 Abrams has not been confirmed. 

 

 

On a separate note, I've added in the Armament section. 

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

the UFP is ~60mm thick, sloped at 82o, which comes out to almost 420mm LoS. Also, long rod penetrators (APDS-FS) tend to shatter rather than ricochet, so there's no danger of that. 

 

I was going from the horizontal, so the nubers match up approximately (18 degrees from the horizontal). Re: shattering, I'm talking about in Warthunder, not in real life. In real life modern APDS would go through the UFP no problem, but Warthunder isn't real life.

 

10 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Except it'll be no different than AW with made up armor and penetration statistics, cause all those things are classified. 

 

I wasn't saying that it would be different. I was just stating that it would be nice to have the Abrams in game (Even if I'm nowhere near close to it in the US tech tree).

 

10 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

... As of typing this, the M1 Abrams has not been confirmed. 

 

However, Iraqi_Pumpkin's leak has held out thus far, excepting aircraft and a few other vehicles which may not have been in the roster at the time of the datamine, so there's a better than average chance that the M1 Abrams could be coming.

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thread. I was looking for information on the M1A1's battle overdrive, but couldn't find anything on it. It's like a WEP that only works for a short period before damage occurs; I think it basically ungoverned the tank. I was hoping it would be modeled in game. If you have any questions, please feel free to message me as I had the honor of serving on a M1A1HA with Delta company, 2d Tank Battalion, 2d Marine Division, FMFLANT, USMC. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, *maxmillian said:

Nice thread. I was looking for information on the M1A1's battle overdrive, but couldn't find anything on it. It's like a WEP that only works for a short period before damage occurs; I think it basically ungoverned the tank. I was hoping it would be modeled in game. If you have any questions, please feel free to message me as I had the honor of serving on a M1A1HA with Delta company, 2d Tank Battalion, 2d Marine Division, FMFLANT, USMC. 

While no one is looking, tell us the real armor values. ;)

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snipe_Man_Mike said:

While no one is looking, tell us the real armor values. ;)

Tbh, I thought that I actually knew classified info on the tank until I started reading stuff online. The Wikipedia about Chobham is pretty accurate to my knowledge. After doing some reading, I'd say the only thing that's secret is the composition of the materials, as in what alloys are used. 

However, I heard from a guy whose wife's cousin's brother's uncle did some testing, and he said the M1A1 can stop a railgun at 5 meters  o_o

Edited by *maxmillian
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, *maxmillian said:

Tbh, I thought that I actually knew classified info on the tank until I started reading stuff online. The Wikipedia about Chobham is pretty accurate to my knowledge. After doing some reading, I'd say the only thing that's secret is the composition of the materials, as in what alloys are used. 

However, I heard from a guy whose wife's cousin's brother's uncle did some testing, and he said the M1A1 can stop a railgun at 5 meters  o_o

I don't believe you, they wouldn't let you in a tank if you didn't know what could penetrate your tank and what couldn't.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, *maxmillian said:

Nice thread. I was looking for information on the M1A1's battle overdrive, but couldn't find anything on it. It's like a WEP that only works for a short period before damage occurs; I think it basically ungoverned the tank. I was hoping it would be modeled in game. If you have any questions, please feel free to message me as I had the honor of serving on a M1A1HA with Delta company, 2d Tank Battalion, 2d Marine Division, FMFLANT, USMC. 

 

:salute: 

 

My father is a retired marine and I have a friend going through armor school now, though I don’t know that they’re going to have him do (probably loader  :D). Anyway, there’s another former M1 tank man in the forums that I know of: @PantherAl

 

5 hours ago, Snipe_Man_Mike said:

While no one is looking, tell us the real armor values. ;)

 

You do know tank crews don’t know much about the armor right? They mostly know how to operate and fix their tank. 

 

4 hours ago, *maxmillian said:

Tbh, I thought that I actually knew classified info on the tank until I started reading stuff online. The Wikipedia about Chobham is pretty accurate to my knowledge. After doing some reading, I'd say the only thing that's secret is the composition of the materials, as in what alloys are used. 

However, I heard from a guy whose wife's cousin's brother's uncle did some testing, and he said the M1A1 can stop a railgun at 5 meters  o_o

 

The Wiki on Chobham isn’t that good, as it’s just another “it could be” article. 

 

Also, it’s not hard to stop a rail gun projectile, as they typically shatter the moment the hit hard armor. 

 

3 hours ago, Snipe_Man_Mike said:

I don't believe you, they wouldn't let you in a tank if you didn't know what could penetrate your tank and what couldn't.

 

Yes they would... 

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.