General Motors XM-1 - History, Performance, and Discussion

A place for discussion of the General Motors XM-1 and possibly of its’ counterpart, Chrysler’s proposal.

Known issues in-game;
In short:

  • The XM-1 (General Motors & likely also the Chrysler) had not yet tested or implemented a tank thermal sight.
  • The XM-1 (General Motors) primary gunner’s sight field of view should be reduced in zoom from 12x to 10x
  • The XM-1 (General Motors) elevation should be increased from 15 to 20 degrees
  • The XM-1 (General Motors) should have a commander’s sight
  • The XM-1 (General Motors) should have gun slaving (designation) from the commander’s sight

@Rastmust reported the majority of these inaccuracies highlighting the issues with a 1978 primary source covering the fire control system in great detail.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8rEHVNo2RSiI

@Smoak741 covered the elevation and zoom inaccuracies respectively.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/oWWYlNTRdiQN
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/NCqhabvYfYc6

This is a thread to discuss the vehicles, as well as request more open sources detailing the performances of these two vehicles.

Gaijin wrote a wonderful article on their history and implementation here;

4 Likes

Placeholder

Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank by R.P. Hunnicutt is a great source for the Abrams prototype stages, primarily referencing reports and official documents.

Jane’s Armour and Artillery 1979-80, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 also give history and details although they are somewhat inaccurate.

1 Like

The XM1 Chrysler’s fire control system was chosen for the production M1 Abrams, including the Thermal Imaging System (TIS) used on it.

I don’t think Hughes thermal imaging system was tested on the Chrysler XM-1. Did you find a source saying otherwise?

Should probably change the thread title to General Motors, as General Dynamics was who bought Chrysler Defense later on in 1982 and now makes the M1 tanks.

2 Likes

A silly mistake on my part lol

I guess the Chrysler prototype didn’t have thermals since this Hughes brochure says the TIS was installed nine months after the contract (last sentence). I reported it.

1 Like

Why is there no mention of this car on the official SITE? It’s like they quietly added the equipment to the game!!!

1 Like

Those are relatively old vehicles, that is in-game:

1 Like

Дякую , забута машина якась .

If anyone here has and enjoys the xm1 you better get your last games in cause gaijins made a dumbass decision to add it to the pc store which is gonna make it go up in br to 9.3 which will virtually ruin the tanks performance so its best if you get your final stats in before they ruin it

Which is a good thing tbh

2 Likes

Pucara/bmpt/t58 situation. They milk good money then nerf it.

1 Like

Why would it go up? noobs spamming it could actually make it go down lol

Which is a good thing. If it’s ever considered to be moved on first place. People that migrated their accounts to PC from Console still has access to the XM-1 (Chrysler) which will come to Gaijin’s attention to move this vehicle to a more appropriate battle rating like the late japanese main battle tanks situation before their battle rating changes.

Yeah after few years of milking. See 2S38.

Bruh, im a US main. Lets compare something really fast.
At 9.0 f2p players does have xm803 and m60tts. The closest one to the xm1 C is the xm803, so lets compare them.
F2p player:
Xm803
-7.5s reload
-lrf
-64km/h max
-152mm gun (wich is bad a hell talking about post pen damage, just good for the heat)
-285mm pen apfsds
-380mm pen heat
-U can use low speed missile
-No armour
-0 survability after a shot

Then, wallet warrior player:
Xm1 C
-6.7s reload
-lrf
-thermal
-75.1km
-good 105mm gun
-292mm pen apfsds
-400mm pen heat-fs
-U can use hesh
-Good armour
-Extreme survability even to 125mm apfsds

Both the same br, it makes sense when Xm1 is 100% even better than Mbt70,Kpz70 and also Xm1 gm wich are 9.3 . So yeh, rn Xm1C is almost an abrams at 9.0 with m735 and a lil bit less of armour which it defends thanks to its extreme survival capacity.
So yeh, a 9.0 that is even better than some 9.7 tanks its something to think about. No skill issue, Gaijin fault, if u do have the tank and u are making great matchs, enjoy it, if they make it 9.3-9.7 and u keep playing good with it then u will know u are good, if not, then u will know u only were doing kills because u had an OP tank.

1 Like

Yes, and there is dumb people that falls for it lol, i wont buy a single premium in my life i just have 2 premiums and bought them with warbounds and tbh, both tanks are kinda mid btw, they wont ever put a single op tank to buy with warbound so f2p players that actually grind wont be able to get a single op tank and wallet warriors will be the priority of gaijin always because they milk their money. Just a reminder.
“We dont want our players to pay to reach their way to the top”
Some years later
“All the mid tier/top tier premiums we add will be always inferior to a normal tech tree version tank”
Yeh, sure. As always gaijin and their greed, then u talk about the reality of the game and how they are working less and less every year because there is no competitors rn they remove your post and even ban u because u cant even feel free to say they are selling virtual tanks at the same price or even more price than an actual entire AAA game.

Ya no.

The armour isn’t good on the xm1c if you know where to aim. Pretty much aim for the gun mantlet, and the upper front plate (above the angled down plate) both of these sections have zero armour and are quite thin.

No the actual reason the xm feel strong is it’s speed and power to weight ratio. It’s pretty much a baby m1 without the armour. Like I can see the thing going to 9.3. It any higher and it becomes a glorified light tank