As somebody who worked the program I can confirm an M1A1 SEP V.3 hull is structurally identical to an M1A1 hull.
There is no reason you can’t do DU.
They do matter, but Gaijin can’t do anything about it because it’s all sensitive/classified. When it comes to composite armor they only have shown documents about Chally 1. The rest is pure guesswork. They could basically make the numbers whatever they want. It’s fake. All of it (excepting the Chally 1)
They.
Have.
No.
Clue.
I feel like this is another “I am a 19kilo division sigma and delta i was in an Abrams” moment but hmmmmmmmmmmmm
suree
from what i see ingame and irl the frontal hull of abrams are about 50cm thick base on the ufp cut out, so it is likely they increase it to around 60cm or 38.1+400-480mm composite and backplate 101mm
Weight
im lazy, can you just point out the quote so i can ctrl+f
Also USMC and M1A1, he has a 40% chance of being on an M1A1 FEP
USMC veteran and active War Thunder player Conte_Baracca shares his recollections about active service in the M1A1 Abrams, and how this tank feels in our game.
Goes for literally any tank in the entire game.
Moot point.
Can have =/= Does have.
A T-72B3 ‘‘could have’’ Relikt ERA all over it instead of Kontakt-5 as was done with the T-72B2.
But that doesn’t change the fact that T-72B3’s don’t have Relikt.
We’ve been over this many times by now, I’d be fine with armour upgrades for certain models that are new/vague enough in terms of available sources, and/or just implement the SEP v3 which is concretely known to have upgrades hulls.
But for once, I’d like to see anyone try and mention armour upgrades for M1’s without once using the term ‘‘DU’’. It seems nigh impossible these days…
In not even 2 years time, A certain country has lost around 68% of it’s supplied number of M1A1 SA’s in combat.
You’re providing me with a large wall of text, but without any sources it’s all meaningless.
Anyone can claim whatever they like regarding armour changes, that’s why referencing sources matters.
I was USMC Liaison Officer from PM Tanks (SYSCOM) to PM Abrams at TACOM from 2008-2012. My duties primarily revolved around informing PM Tanks and PM Abrams what each side was doing. I did however do user advising to General Dynamics Land Systems (I was integral to the long abandoned M1A3 project). Another key task was to seek commonality between Marine and Army projects. I also toured the Abrams production facility in Lima, Ohio.
The TWMP is compatible with both the older and newer suspension systems and comes in at 4.5 tons and it’s center of gravity is well out from the LFP. The weight really isn’t an issue. It’s the costs associated with doing so IRL. DU Armor is highly classified and toxic. You can only work on it in a special part of the Lima facility.
I operated the M1A1. The M1A1 HC (including combat) and the M1A1 FEP. I also have test drives on the T-55A and the Stryker MGS (which is tremendous pile of shit IRL). I got to crawl around on the LAV 105 too. Which didn’t work well IRL but would be FANTASTIC in War Thunder.
Your skepticism is very appropriate. This is the internet and a forum after all. But I do know what I’m talking about.
Things I assess not from personal experience. There are things I know about T-80 tanks from classified briefings but I never use that information. I just fall back to historical performance and the fundamentals of tank design. The carousel loader has significant physical limitations as well as greatly reducing tank survivability. I have worked with Canadians in an after action process for their Leo II use in Afghanistan and though it is hard to quantify it appeared to be less rugged. It’s rugged, but not as rugged as an abrams, for lots of reasons. I also think their turret layout is inferior, particularly in reference to Maing Gun ammo and their commanders weapon station is vastly inferior. The M1A1 FEP and SA/AIM have the best commanders weapon station of all the abrams and it’s power is underrepresented in the game.
I could go on. I am 1000% okay with the level of detail currently in the game. It’s a simple simulation and it’s authentic enough to give the players a good feeling they are somewhat recreating real life. Tank combat in War Thunder is NOTHING like real life, but that’s okay, mechanically the tanks are very tank like. The issue I have is that the pretend to be more accurate than they are. They present a public position that is inaccurate. I understand why, if they admit they are as ignorant as they are people would not like that. People fail to understand that given the complexity of modern tanks and the amount of details that are classified Gaijin does as good a job as anybody could reasonably expect. I genuinely think it is unfair how they treat the Abrams. DU hull armor, to me, is a no brainer for the M1A2’s, M1A1 AIM, and the SA and FEP when they get added.
Gaijin does ammunition based on balance. It gives flares to F-104S and ASA when the Italians never used them. In fact many planes in this game have CM suites because it is possible, not because it existed. The Radkampfwagon turret never could traverse IRL. I could go on.
This is a game. Top tier is not an accurate representation of real life. Of course they can give DU armor to Abrams hulls.
Don’t forget Iraq. Now what are the losses of top end Russian tanks that were actually deployed to combat???
There are no sources other than funding documents. But, since it’s all fake anyways Gaijin can do whatever they want and be just as inaccurate as they are now.
HAhahaha,great gaijin,great.
Could not function without them.
I’d also request some sources on that as I don’t think either of us are fully qualified on that topic.
Again, literally wouldn’t function without it.
M1 functions perfectly adequately as it is, the M1A2 SEP being on the upper end of the various 12.0 MBT’s in War Thunder.
So once again I come back to my T-72 example: Are you in favour of the T-72B3 receiving comprehensive Relikt coverage? The T-72B3 is currently one of the worst MBT’s in top-tier matchmaking, clearly that would qualify as it being justified in your eyes.
Pre-war estimates were around 80-160 T-90M produced.
Production of T-90M’s has been on-going with estimates being around 90 per year. We’re now 3 years into this conflict, and 127 vehicles are listed as lost in combat.
That’s somewhere around 35% being lost.
The flare package was developed by the Germans for the 104G. I contacted an Italian F-104 pilot via Starfighters association. It was something I was trying to get Gaijin to do.
It flies just fine without flares. There are tons of jets without flares.
That is an opinion that is not backed up by any publicly available statistics.
The USA doesn’t have a single Abrams performing near as well as the T-80BVM or T-90M.
But they are not deploying them all to theater after they lost so many. I’m asking about the ones deployed. Which appear to be suffering catastrophic losses.
Playing the game entails more than just flying.
Occasionally you’re actually required to fight other players.
At that point not having flares on a plane that couldn’t turn meant that you couldn’t enter combat. I.E. it was impossible to balance without providing it with flares.
Come on… You can easily double-check this stuff before making a claim like that. We both have easy access to this data.
The M1A1 is not only performing better than both the T-90M and T-80BVM:
It’s performing MUCH better than them and almost equal with the darn Leopard 2A7V in terms of K/D and K/M:
Even the M1 KVT is giving the T-90M a run for it’s money in terms of overall stats. And that’s pretty damning for the T-90M considering the state of the average premium KVT player.
The only reason it’s winrate isn’t as incredibly high as it’s K/D ratio and K/M ratio are is because it’s forced to fight alongside clueless Click-Bait teammates.
You seem to have an overinflated opinion on how Russian vehicles are doing right now:
The bottom of the list is pretty much dominated by Russian stuff:
(Data from 12-2-'25)
I understanded
Ive read parts of your interviews
But i have a few questions, how thick is the roof armor of it can you remember, how fast can the turret traverse or is WT accurate and if the AGT-1500 was fairly quiet because during Force on Force testing of the M1 it gain the nickname Whispering Death while the Diesel AVCR-1360 gain the name Old Smokey.
Im eager to wait for your answer but with that aside the current issue it seems like Gaijin will likely cripple the Abrams due to turret basket not eating some of the spall but actually create more spall and they modeled it as “full size, extra large” turret ring
Which supports my argument for DU armor on the hull.
I mean it could have been a lower BR.
well. I guess I should have been more clear. Any Abrams 11.7 or above. You know the ones comparable to the T variant tanks we’ve been talking about. Those are the ones I am recommending for DU armor. I always never said the M1A1 should have DU. I have also said that it should probably limited to the top tier Abrams to keep them more distinct from each other.
Never talked about it. It’s like an inch and half tops I think. It’s really only for shell splinters.
I would have to google it. We didn’t talk about raw stats like that because it wasn’t that related to performance. Actual tank on tank ranges are much much further than what you see in WT so IRL relevance is much lower.
It is super quiet. Much much quieter than any piston tank engine. In fact, when you are going at speeds above 20 mph or so the sprocket grabbing the track is louder.
The basket is these thin wire mesh sheets. It’s virtually irrelevant to spall or damage issues.
Oh nice i wonder why it create more spall and cripple the entire tank in dev server then
god damn it gaijin
You continue to act as though these M1’s are in an unplayable state.
Meanwhile, the most knowledgable and skilled players this game has to offer continue to explain how the vehicles are fine, and that the issue lies squarely with the players.
''Idk, after bullying 11.3 US for a while I decided to check out how bad it really was. And honestly it is just like every other time people say the issue is the tank. It just is not the Abrams. It is just a player issue. […] But I really do not understand people who shit on any of the Abrams. ‘’
''Great Premium, No the shells are fine. It doesn’t need M833 because it will only go up in BR. ‘’
I’m sure there couldn’t possibly have been any issues with subsonics consistently forced to fight a F-104 they can’t touch.
This was a pretty infamous debacle at the time, any chance you weren’t active back then? It was hard to miss.
You did say: ‘‘Not a single Abrams performing near as well as the T-80BVM or T-90M’’
This M1A2 SEP is already performing virtually identically, and that’s me being generous by placing a lot of value on that 3% winrate difference which can easily be attributed by Click-Bait newbies dragging it down.
On this point we’re basically wasting eachother’s time, because we agree the SEP v2 could easily receive armour upgrades.
Anyways, I’ve already been spending too much time on this and quite frankly I’ve got more important stuff to spend time on these days, I’ll leave it here for now.
