I think I’ve shot at it’s mantlet 30 or so times and only a couple of times I haven’t done crippling damage, while using a round that’s worse than M774.
This makes me to believe mantlet is pretty usable weakspot you can exploit.
Not much to say here, I believe it’s faster reload is more than enough to balance out it’s weaker shell, but I guess everyone will have their opinions and preferences.
I don’t think M833 would break any balance.
Look at M774 compare to M833
Giving that M774 are overperform (not a lot but still).
So they should fix M774 and give M833 to a lot of vehicles that “should” have it. M60A3 TTS , XM8 , etc
Some tanks at that BR have 500+mm pen yet the M1 Abrams doesn’t even get a 400mm+ penning round
What people really need to understand is that the vehicles that get those high-penning rounds usually have very little going for them.
See Ariete (P), DM33 is literally its sole selling point, if you take it away and say, give it DM23 instead - boom, this is now a tank that basically just a slightly better Leopard 1A5.
Challenger 1 Mk.3; again L26 and rather fast loading speeds are its selling point. It’s slow, it has bad gun handling and nearly no armour, it also has zero survivability.
See the problem now?
And to make this even more obvious, look at the Leopard 2A4 - which by many is considered to be the staple for a 10.3 MBT… problem with that is that it’s pretty much inferior to the M1 (that only gets M774) in nearly everything that isn’t named “penetration”. It has lower acceleration, it manouvers worse, it reloads slower, it has less gun depression, it has significantly worse armour on the hull (which was an unhistorical nerf mind you), and has far more weakspots.
Basically all those tanks trade nearly every metric in comparison to the M1 to be better in terms of raw firepower.
Some lower tier vehicles should indeed receive M833 (such as TTS), but M1 is not one of them, at least not in today’s landscape.
Basically, as @MotorolaCRO stated before;
“A tank should have some mediocre stats when compared to it’s contemporaries, otherwise it would be too strong for it’s BR.”
M1 Abrams might be “a bit” better than leopard 2a4
Mobility (27.3 hp/t vs 27.2 hp/t)
Reload rate (aces 5sec vs 6sec)
Gun depression (10 degree vs 9 degree)
(RB / SB stat)
No way M1 Abrams will leave Leopard 2A4 in the dust with M833 adding.
Giving that Leopard 2A4 could get it’s armor fix and receive DM33 + move up later following M1A1. while Leopard 2A2/A3 get add later as a replacement
Though i do agree that lfp armor on Abrams are stronger due to fuel tank can also act as armor. But then again Abrams has turret ring big weak spot that even weaker APFSDS round can pen and its ufp still bounce shell into turret ring or botton of turret face.
T-80B might need to go 10.0 though
You’re completely ignoring the fact M1 has significantly better armour coverage and far less weakpoints (pretty much just a small portion of the LFP and the turret ring + mantlet as opposed to 2A4s entire hull, mantlet and like half of the right turret cheek).
In fact DM23 can only penetrate like 1/3rd of the LFP, and it will fail if shot at any sort of angle (partly because M1s hull armour is unironically overperforming, for some reason Gaijin gave it BRL-2 that was only put on the Abroomz starting M1IP).
If M1 does get a round comparable to DM23, then might as well scream for DM33 so that 2A4 retains its firepower edge because it will still be worse in every other regard, otherwise it will be straight up inferior i.e lose the sole advantage it has, would basically be in the same spot as other MBTs with high penning rounds at similar BRs.
Case in point, M1 vs DM23 and 2A4 vs M833;
One image is with consider camera angle option, the other is without it. In both cases 2A4 is just so much worse.
M1 basically clicks it anywhere that isn’t the left turret cheek, but 2A4 has to actively aim… greatest of balances.
will edit later
Actually the part of hull are that strong because of fuel armor that gaijin add later.
The parts covered by the fuel tanks range from ~430mm to ~530mm effective protection. The non-covered part is ~380mm.
Both however overperform because Gaijin gave it armour that it never had (BRL-2 was, once again, only used starting M1IP/M1A1).
But again, if M1 gets M833 it will be better than 2A4 in every single way - which is why at that point please advocate for the latter to receive DM33, simple righto?
(Half of this could of been avoided if Gaijin didn’t magically nerf 2A4s hull armour into oblivion).
This is M774 vs Leopard 2A4
This is M833 vs Leopard 2A4
So muh has change rite
Bonus M829 vs Leopard 2A4
So nothing change (or barely) incase of M774 and M833 vs Leopard 2A4
If anything it that Leopard 2A4 need its armor fix or reduce BR. not handicap M1 Abrams ammo
As far as my source goes
We didn’t know actual number for M1 Abrams hull armor. but we do know what inside M1 Abrams hull armor look like
people estimate its armor base on this. Becasue as far as i’ve seen BRL-1 source goes. it didn’t included factor like armor LOS , angle , etc for M1 Abrams armor (if it there i’d like to see)
For M1 Abrams turret reveal by CIA document in 1982 (1982 no M1IP nor M1A1 in service yet)
400mm vs KE and 750mm vs CE
As for M1IP / M1A1 / M1A2 hull
At a place with no fuel tank should be about 350mm vs KE
Reminder that the M1A1HC and M1A2 have non-du improved armor outside of the Swedish trials (which are now rather dubious overall but thats besides the point) as the M1A1 AIM procured by Australia is cited to have it’s hull armor brought up to the M1A2 standard, which, should not need to be a required change if all of those M1 variants had the same actual hull armor.
I would expect the M1IP and M1A1 and possibly the M1A1 HA share a non-du hull of lower constructional quality than the M1A2, with the M1A2 having a hull quality above 350mm KE, as the M1IP is known to have a hull quality at or around 350mm KE.
I would also wager the M1A1 HC and the future FEP could also have this hull improvement along with any future M1A2s.
I think they just search for a tank at a given BR that has the best round and then claim: “best round, gib to me as well”, “proof of bias”, etc.
Meanwhile, they will often ignore many disadvantages those high-penning tanks suffer from.
But tread lightly, these types of threads are filled with people that demanded IPM1 to get M900 and to stay just 0.3 BR above 80B, 2A4, M1 and the company.
Only thing I like more on 2A4 is spalling, but that’s kinda given since it has 120mm gun.
In many of those areas M1 will only have a slight edge over 2A4 so it’s not a complete blowout though, like when you compare it to some other 10.3 tanks.
Also, I’ve noticed front fuel tanks casually eating shots, while not even requiring you to expend your FPE to get rid of it.
Wait, I thought only Russian tanks are overperforming, or that’s what I’ve been told lol.
I recently started playing 10.3 with US, and from reading stuff people wrote on the forums I expected a paper thin vehicle, but so far they’re actually pretty well armored.
But I guess, people overinflating stuff is pretty common.
In your dreams. I’ve made a thread about this on the old forum as well and got jumped on by pretty much every Freeaboo in existence.
When I made a thread about US stomping 10.7 with M1A1 and M1IP I got laughed at as well, then both went to 11.0 shortly after.
I recently started playing 10.3 with US, and from reading stuff people wrote on the forums I expected a paper thin vehicle, but so far they’re actually pretty well armored.
For some reason people try to shoot the highly angled UFP on Leopard 2s, then die, and complain “gaijob how leo 2 no die???!!!”. That plate has shatter mechanics.
That document is for the M1IP (“one version of the M1 turret armour” - > it is dated to 1982, two years after M1 had already entered service). This is confirmed btw because we have the SR(L) 4026 from the Brits now where M1A1s turret armour is rated as 460mm RHAe vs KE in a 20 degree arc (this would roughly equeal ~400mm in a 30 degree arc). In case you haven’t noticed, frontal arc protection for M1IP and M1A1 is exactly that.
M1IP and M1A1 had identical armour. Both had improved armour over the M1(105)mm. All we basically need to do is look at M1 vs M1IP turret difference (350mm arc versus 400mm arc), then subtract that difference. Boom, very first M1s hull armour.
Well I guess loads of people will have unrealistic expectations when it comes to their favorite vehicles.
Those threads were peak cringe if you ask me, alongside discussions about Leopard I being bad at 8.0 or something equally dumb.
From my testing, only ~50% of that plate will actually stop rounds, so shooting at an area around the drivers hatch is actually one of the easiest ways to OHK 2A4 and it works every time, at least from 20+ shots in testing with 105mm DM23 (which is a worse round than M774 they complain about).
Are you testing it via the protection thingy? Cus when PSO came out, me and mah friend took the 2PL and PSO and compared both, the only area where (mind you) DM53 could go through was the driver hatch and the small area around it, nowhere else.
We did it in a custom fyi.
I used that custom match where you can fire at loads of different tanks, and was able to penetrate that plate anywhere that’s on the right from the mantlet pretty reliably. Though I can’t be for certain how much of the actual plate is pennable, that ~50% was just eyeballing.
Was just testing a claim that 2A4’s mantlet is not reliably penned by M774 (which is false) and that it’s LFP can resist M774 for the most part (which is also false).
Well, based on 2A5/6s test;
I’d say ~80% of the plate is actually immune.
Ah, i see. It made sense now
which mean this is what CIA meant all along
Then we would have to rely on estimate on M1 Abrams turret armor .
Lowest are 325mm vs KE for XM1 presumably XM-1 GM because XM-1 Chrysler met it’s requirements.
350mm+ vs KE for M1 Abrams cheek seem reasonable. But i’ll check in game later. atm didn’t have access to my PC.
For Turret cheek it is obvious. As turret cheek LOS are increase when compare M1 Abrams to M1IP , M1A1
Hull LOS stay the same though.
Did any source state any change in the hull armor from M1 to M1IP or M1A1 ?
Here what i found US Army technical report document state that M1A1 had “additional armor on the front slope of the chassis” improvement over M1 MBT . This could mean either UFP or LFP.
If it meant LFP. Then M1 Abrams LFP ingame are overperform.
But If it meant UFP. That mean M1A1 and later variants had thicker ufp than 38mm. while LFP might stay the same
This is interesting. Need more source to clarify.
For M1A2. If i remember corectly. They try to improve them by putting DU armor in both LFP and turret cheek. But due to weight and cost problem thus only turret armor has DU .(though there are 5 M1A2 that has DU in the lfp )
So basically M1IP , M1A1 , M1A2 have the same LFP protection. M1 Abrams “may or may not” be the same.
