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.
No, what is seen on that particular picture is the armour for the M1A2 for Sweden, however it’s hull armour was by all means identical to the US vehicles, due to lack of DU (there was basically no need to change the hull armour there).
The ± 30 degree arc is for the turret only.
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 )
They never cited weight as an issue to using DU armour in the hull, to put it simply, said armour was never considered beyond a few testing vehicles.
Instead US was looking towards ceramic armours, creating the so called Tandem-Ceramic Armour which would improve protection against KE threats by ~33% and CE threats by ~25%.
When this armour was mounted to the Abrams exactly however, is not really known.
I might be going on a tangent here, but here are my results from spading M1 Abrams.
I’ve did it in 86 battles, with 64% WR and 2.7 KPB / 3.7 K/D, so the overall experience was really good and I never really felt I was handicapped in any way while using it.
Yeah, post-nerf M735’s performance isn’t really anything to speak of, but once you get to M774 it’s more than fine. It might not be the best round, but will surely do the job done.
Only thing I hated about M1 is it’s engine noise, absolutely aggravating.
Yes i edit M1A2 diagram to made that picture (because this diagram already show ± 30 degree arc line for turret ). I didn’t put hull armor value there as i don’t have specific value for hull armor.
So i only put turret value (As you said M1IP) from CIA source there.
But if Hull armor are the same as you said. Then M1 , M1IP , M1A1 , M1A2 have the same LFP protection. Which is good to know
Well as i look further in the old forum for more source
Page 23
They state that “the entire Block II package will bring the tank’s weight to over 72 tons. This exceeds the Army’s 69.5-ton weight limit.”
And they said it might increase logistical problems as well as create problem for tanks suspension system .
This however isn’t about DU based composite for the LFP, as I already stated.
It true that in document i posted. They didn’t state anything about DU armor in the hull.
However they state that there are multiple block II modifications purposed .
I think it safe to assume that some of the purposal would included DU armor in the Hull. (or at least consider)
But still we don’t know for sure
(tbh there are a lot of page missing. Judge from missing page number. Probably due to classified information)
conclusion i still don’t know the reason why they don’t try to put DU hull armor into M1A2. if weight are not the problem.
I never said it’s bad.
Adding M833 wont help a ton but it will atleast get it a little closer to other rounds at the BR range
I think it would be a perfectly fine addition to the M1
M900 is out of the question though
yes
Either way it’s fine as is rn. :D There is no need to change rounds etc., you can do well in the M1 Abrams with current rounds with no issues.
That’s true. Now I’m bit more used to the Abrams and I’m performing much better than before.
But M774 can be quite inconsistent sometimes. I think they can add M833 without any issues.
Just checked now. The M833 is litteraly the M413 in Israel tree whitch has 421 pen. That will do and BR should not be moved in any direction. The 9.3 modified Pattons have it as well as Merkava on 9.7 yet abrams on 10.7 does not … Also the Israelis have LWS/LR on 9.3 … So yeah Abrams M1 standard version should get that round and get demoted to 10.3 or the Israelis uped to 9.7 for pattons and 10.0 or 10.3 for merkava …
So let me get this straight, you want the M1 Abrams to be a Leopard 2A4 but improved in virtually every single regard, yet stay at the same BR?
You must really think your smart with all those stats you listed huh… with half of them not even being true and the ones that are; are so negligible it barely makes a difference.
Before i get into this, i come from the standpoint that the Leo could also use a lowering of br or something to make it better performing bc these tanks are both doing poorly but the abrams is doing much worse. but thats a different discussion as this is about the feesability of the M1 Abrams getting a better round.
Acceleration is slightly better on the abrams at 1342 Hp vs the leos 1327… wow so much faster
Top speed on the abrams is slightly better at 72kmph vs leos 68kmph… again wow so much faster
Nuetral pivot barely makes a difference as the T-80 series tanks dont even HAVE a nuetral pivot and have upwards of .7 higher Kds than the m1 abrams the last 7 months according to statshark (red boxes mean kd is significantly below average)
As for Forward and backward pivot: again these pivot stats barely make a difference to in game performance as shown by the KDs on stat shark. the only reason youre adding them is to add more data points to your stupid comment to seem smart.
Reverse Speed is the only data point so far that makes a meaningful difference and even still teh difference is negligible witht he abrams at 38kmph backwards and the leo at 32kmph… wow so different, you act like the leo has the reverse speed of a t90-A
Your Cheek Armor Stat is so disingenuous i struggle to fathom how you even come to that conclusion: The 2a4 has SIGNIFICANTLY better cheeck armor than the abrams at combat
and the left side being even more protected with an initial collective thickness of 520 in the FIRST set of internal armor components then backed by another set of internal armor that is 600mm thick collectively meaning the left side of the turret is over 1120mm thick collectively.
Meanwhile the abrams has what?: equal protection on both sides besides slight angle difference on right side but still only 38mm+360mm+101mm so 499mm? on either side. Again i have no idea how someone comes to this conclusion… as you genuinely have to turn your brain off.
if you want we can compare both of them to the T-80b and see the true winner (T-80) as the leo and abrams BOTH cant pen the T-80b ANYWHERE frontally except the lower plate.
Upper front plate: both have significant deflection angles at or around 83-82 degrees so you should have said “tied”.
lower front plate, this is the only metric the abrams wins in but regardless its still negligable because both tanks can pen right through eachothers LFP with relative ease. ill give it to abrams but still a tie in practice especailly whe you consider other tanks at the same br have significantly more penetration than both the leo and abrams.
Mantlet armor is slightly better on the abrams but this is again a negligible stat because this is a weakness spot on nearly every tank in the game at this br including these two… almost every vehicle at this br can punch right through both the leos and abrams mantlet with ease.
Turret Traverse as you said is tied but even this stat rarely makes a difference in game at this br as everyones turret traverse is fairly similar aside from a few exceptions.
Gun depression: “wow the abrams has 1 more degree of gun depression what a game changer…” said no-one ever… ridiculous
Reload speed:this is the first stat youve listed that can make an impact on the course of engagements and its a single second higher than the abrams with ace crew. this does make a difference and the abrams is better in this regard so ill give it to you but still, 1 second… cmon man.
Secondary armament… 50 cal is nice to have i guess, ill give it to the abrams
Penetration: Again, a brain off moment from Necrons… Leo has 408mm at 0 degrees and 236mm at 60 degrees.
M1 Abrams has 371mm at 0 degrees and 215mm at 60 degrees. So WTF are you even saying here? Patently false… SMH
Muzzle velocity goes to leo as you said
Thermals the same
Gun Depression Limitation arc: Literally who cares
Ready Rack size: barely makes a difference in game
Crew layout is basically the same although the ammo in the leo assistant driver seat position does make for a considerable weakness but both tanks suffer from one shot potential on the lower plate anyway so this is still pretty negligible
Finally Turret basket, shitty that they both suffer from this and russian tanks dont but yeah tied.
Seeing as how you took the time to type all those things out as if you checked each and every individual stat to seem smart and in the same breath didnt provide any proof or explanation to your conclusions i can only surmise that you knew of these falsehoods and put them on your list anyway to seem smart… nicely formatted though!
This instantly tells me you’re new/inexperienced and you’re not well informed on the game’s mechanics.
The manner in which the transmission is modeled is more impactful than simply quoting some horsepower figures. There are MBT’s which have worse hp/t ratios than others, yet manage to out-accelerate them regardless.
The M1 Abrams has the (slight) advantage in nearly every category.:
Statshark statistics for the following vehicles across the recorded 13 months:
M1 Abrams K/D ratio: 1.11
T-80B K/D ratio: 1.02
M1 KVT K/D ratio: 1.05
T-80UD K/D ratio: 1.04
Thinking that traverse rate does not matter is quite telling about you as a player.
It’s also a very strange assumption to make that statistics on Statshark directly equate to whether or not hull traverse rate matters, as if there aren’t 40+ other metrics which play major roles in determining the final stats.
Now tell me which of the two covers a significantly larger area.
M1’s mantlet being 391mm means DM23 fired from the Leopard 2A4 will struggle to penetrate/spall on the majority of the mantlet at average combat ranges.
You would’ve known that had you actually played the Leopard 2A4.
Okay.
You showing me screenshots of the X-Ray internals is the final nail in the coffin.
You have no idea about the game or any of it’s mechanics, nor how armour is modeled or represented by the various stat cards.
I’m just going to debunk this one here and then leave things be as there’s little point in an in-depth discussion with someone who’s ignorant regarding the subject yet doesn’t seem to understand their ignorance.
Both vehicles achieve around 340-351mm of RHAe against KE projectiles within a 60° frontal arc, however, the Leopard 2A4 has quite a large cut-out for both the optics and the traverse mechanism in it’s right cheek which significantly lowers the protection values to around 190mm in a 60° frontal arc.
The Leopard 2A4’s turret cheeks also cover a smaller area due to how wide it’s mantlet weakspot is (which is also 100mm RHAe less protected).
The internals in the X-Ray feature are merely cosmetic. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL ARMOUR PERFORMANCE.
I’ve also met very, very few players who did not already understand this, so this is quite surprising.
According to your own flawed logic the M1A1 and M1A1 HC should possess equal armour performance due to them having the same X-Ray internals, yet they clearly do not have the same armour performance given that the M1A1 HC sits at 150mm+ more protection against KE threats, which represents the DU armour package this model of M1 featured historically.
