M1 Abrams should receive a better round than M774

I know it’s a “sensitive” topic because USA, but hear me out.

Why crippling the M1 Abrams / M1 KVT to such an underperforming round for 10.3?
Why can’t it get a better round like the M833? and if it did Why would it even be considered for a BR increase? (which honestly it shouldn’t).

It has by far the worst round at it’s current BR and giving it a similar round compared to a 10.0 Chally would be good enough, like the M833 for close ranges that would be true though, for longer ranges past 1km it will start to perform closely enough like a DM33 105mm

I made a fancy graph just for visualization and comparison for other APFSDS found at the same or similarly close BR

And yes i know right now the Abrams performs somewhat decent because of its mobility and aggressive playstyle but there are other tanks that can do that too, like Leopards and Vickers Mk.7


all the western MBTs have older projectiles or projectiles with lowered values, modern APFSDS that’s going to be fired by Leopard 2a7, challenger 3, etc are alleged to punch through nearly a metre of RHA. the soviet and Chinese trees wouldn’t be able to keep up as they have nothing remotely close to such firepower. and the power of most canons is really underestimated, the APDS on the chieftain is weaker than on the centurions despite being armed with a slightly lower-pressure version of the conqueror’s 120, canon, the AFPSDS that challenger 1 used to get the longest recorded tank on tank kill would be like a spitball at the same range in WT. its annoying to see nations intentionally kneecapped just so one which hasn’t really innovated in design since the T64 can compete


IMO I think that since the M1IP gets M833 and M900 as its two rounds, then the M1 should get M774 and M833 as its two rounds. Add in M774 for the M1IP and M735 for the M1 if you want to be gracious with stock APFSDS.


We all should work harder, become a rich man like elon musk so we can afford to create another combined arms game and make our favorite country the stlongest bro. Imagine one day a very rich Chinese man bought gaijin stock and become a majority shareholder, what will happen to USA again? omg…

Funny enough the “stock” apfsds (first level upgrade) of the M1 Abrams is the M735 and it’s a 8.7 round lmao
Max pen is 292mm So if that doesn’t speak idk what will…

1 Like

I always think that it should be something like this

The first tank gets the first version of a round and a second improved one, and the next tank gets those two plus a third, with the original first version being stock/rank 1.

Using the M60s as an example, it would look something like this:
M60A1 (AOS) - M392A2 stock (from M60), M728 (Rank 1 mod), M735 (Rank 4 mod)
M60A1 RISE - M728 stock (from M60A1 (AOS)), M735 (Rank 1 mod), M774 (Rank 4 mod)
M60A3 TTS - M735 stock (from M60A1 RISE), M774 (Rank 1 mod), M833 (Rank 4 mod)

and continue until you run out of rounds or tanks


Yes with a BR increase to 10.7. Same with adding DM33 to the many 2A4s. These are already the best 10.3s and only held back in firepower, while lacking their main rounds.
9.3-10.3 could really use some decompression, with many 10.0s and 10.3s being more than capable of moving up by .3 with at most a new round. For example, the T-72B 1989 is a straight, direct upgrade to the standard B… at the same BR.

1 Like

You should stop playing russian games they seem to visibly hurt you

yea they should get m833 to get on par with 2a4 in firepower

Surely people wouldn’t complain about M1 Abrams getting M833. It isn’t a massive boost in fire power.


Somehow they did complain anyway lmao.


The M1 has a 20% faster reload rate than the Leopard 2A4 for only 11% worse penetration.
Besides that, the M1 also has:

  • Better turret armour.
  • Smaller mantlet weakspot that’s got better armour too.
  • Better upper glacis armour.
  • Better lower glacis armour.
  • Slightly better all around mobility.
  • Better survivability due to no hull ammo rack, armoured fuel tanks and better crew layout.
    1. cals for use against heli’s/thin skinned vehicles such as SPAA or IFV’s.

And now you want to eliminate the only advantage the Leopard 2A4 has? That’ll just make the M1 a 10.7 tank, and once it moves to 10.7 all the US mains are going to lose their minds again and demand M900, putting us back at square one.

That’s not parity, that’s superiority. M1 already reloads faster and is also equal/better in every other category.

IPM1 DOI: 1984
M900 DOI: 1990
M1A1 DOI: 1985
M829A1 DOI: 1989
M1A2 DOI: 1991
M829A2 DOI: 1993
Leopard A1A1 DOI: 1975
DM23 DOI: 1979
Leopard 2K DOI: 1972
DM23 DOI: 1985
Leopard 2A4 DOI: 1985
DM23 DOI: 1985
Leopard 2A5 DOI: 1995
DM53 DOI: 2000
Challenger Mk3 DOI: ≈1987
L26 DOI: 1991
Challenger 2 DOI: 1998
L27A1 DOI: 1999

Penetration is calculated using an equation, this goes for any projectile across any nation.

And the T-80U had 4 metres of frontal armour.
Trust me, I heard it somewhere.

Check their sloped penetration values.

This says a whole lot about your ignorance regarding Soviet/Russian tank development.

Claiming the T-90M isn’t much different from a T-64 is like claiming the M60A3 TTS isn’t much different from a M26 Pershing.


Why distort the implications of the advantages? A fairer way would be to provide the rates of fire in terms of Rounds Per Minute; the Difference between 10 & 12 RPM is only one second, sure it might prove potentially decisive at shorter ranges where aiming is easier, but is far less important when reacting or needing to aim at a small volume like a known weakness.

Also since a target, Aspect & range aren’t exactly specified the the impact of said tradeoff is hard to quantify.

The turret ring is slightly above the autobounce zone so its true effectiveness is somewhat mitigated, and the LFP is practically only going to stop CE and cannon rounds in most situations where it proves relevant also needing to rely on armor as a factor probably indicates something has gone wrong and the strengths of the M1 aren’t being leveraged.

Sure its an advantage but if there was a situation that would actually create a different outcome vs the 2A4 would be few and far between, and not to the degree of complaints about the M18’s armor from people that play it like German Casemate TDs.

In a similar way to the XM1 if your team isn’t supporting you, and due to a lack of caution its easy to overcommit to a push an have issues, where you get overwhelmed or get caught out of position while transitioning between positions of power simply due to the timing and movements of slower tanks.

Pretty sure this could be somewhat mitigated by taking fewer rounds of ammo, and has a tradeoff of a larger bustle stowage and so is easier to hit.

I would hesitate to make a call at this point considering that modules are known to be undergoing an active rework in the next update so until we see the impact of said changes after they go live it may be of little consequence in the future, for example; the difference between the use of a hydraulic and electrical turret drive’s fire occurrence and severity just might make a significant impact.

And the higher fire rate of the MG 3 makes successfully intercepting incoming ordnance more likely, and its not like they get additional access to SLAP rounds, or XM943 which I would consider to be significant to mention.

With the expansion to 13.0 for air, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gaijin also extend things to 12.0 at some point and that would allow some decompression.

If you look at the metagame the US is much weaker, and is oddly penalized, so could probably use a buff to individual units, considering significant things are occurring that will alter the support options for the 9.7+ lineups and as such will have to make do with worse options since things like the A-4, A-10 and A-6 have been shifted significantly.

The impacts of decisions like making the ADATS a Missile TD, not an SPAAG, improperly modeling Stingers (and a lack of later variants of the ATAS / Sidewinders / MIM-72, etc.), changes to the PGU-13 & -14 (Should be reverted to use the AP-I calculator, not the APCR and take DU’s pyrophoric characteristics into account) Ammo, among other further reinforces the odd limitations that impact the US metagame.

A lack of support options like the; LAV-AT(& -ATM) / M1134, LAV-25 / M1296, HiMag, (The other) M10, and assorted members of Cadillac Gage Commando series of Recon cars(e.g. M706E2, V-200, -300 or -600) among others.

And assorted A2G oriented airframes like the; B-57E &-G Tropic Moon III, F-4D / F-4E Late, A-6E SWIP (The TRAM was recently updated to the WSCI configuration with the addition of the AGM-123/B & RWR changes), A-4M, AV-8B(NA) & -B+, F-111F, etc.


This is the definition of being nitpicky.

What does it matter if I describe it in RPM or Percentage?

Not sure what your point here is.
If someone’s bad at the game, they can use their vehicle poorly? Okay.

That goes for any vehicle in the game, at least with a vehicle that’s got fantastic mobility it’s easy to exploit the weaker players via good positioning. There’s a reason why this game revolves around a mobility META.

Which is quite a low amount at around 16, the M1 doesn’t have that issue (M1 also has a larger ready rack IIRC).

The entire hull of the Leopard 2A4 is paper maché, at least with the M1 you’re forced to avoid hitting the UFP or the areas to the sides covered by the fuel tanks.

Surely you’re not going to argue the MG3 > 50. cal.

Intercepting ATGM’s and the like is what you’ll do in 5% of matches. Firing at helicopters, IFV’s, SPAA, etc. with the 50.cal is what you’ll do in 50% of matches.


Once again, the only voice of reason.
I cannot comprehend these people, they’re literally complaining about the BEST VEHICLE IN THE GAME FOR ITS BR.

The M1 Abrams and Leopard 2A4 are far, far, far superior than all of the 10.0s, and have some of the best stats for their BR. They have unprecedented gun handling and mobility, with good armor.

They want to be unrivaled utterly instead of just being the best.

1 Like

The M1 absolutely should have a better round.

And functional armor.

But it doesn’t because reasons.

Gaijin refuses to elaborate but we all know the real reasons why.

1 Like

No, its just making very obvious to those that may not pick up on what happened; the way in which statistical analysis and the way results are presented can be used to overstate the importance or the difference in certain aspects. Thus implying that whatever it is is more or less significant that it actually is, which of course is an issue when abstracting and collating data for comparative purposes.

For a moment imagine someone who doesn’t understand the units, being presented a comparison between;

  • 10hz vs 12hz [Rate of fire, a measure of Cadence]
  • 20% faster(((6-5)/5)*100)) vs ~84% the speed ((1-(6-5)/6)*100)) [Relative difference]
  • One second Slower / Faster. [True difference]

The thing is that they all describe the same thing, even though the numbers are wildly different.

It’s not very different to a news anchor claiming that someone was;

  • killed
  • murdered
  • died

The point I am making is that Context, Modality and Intent make a massive difference as to how a situation may be constructed to suit a narrative.

That having better performance especially surrounding abstract metrics like Mobility (is the tank with better acceleration or top speed, more mobile? I would say that it depends on the map).
Is most useful to players that better understand how to take advantage of it Its otherwise a detriment and effectively relies on either extensive understanding of the map as to take advantage of power positions. As the average player really isn’t that good (and again causes issues relating to the law of large numbers, and outliers. Thus balancing) and tends only know about a handful of them them at best, or how to evolve a route and respond to the match as it develops and so skews performance metrics.

Balancing issues tend to be caused by overly simplistic (SL earnings per hour) Efficiency stats that Gaijin use, not taking into account relative population sizes, and a Skewed Matchmaker optimized for a global 50% W/L rate. Which can only do so much against above average skill players & stacked squads, since as far as we know there isn’t an active system (we know at least one was developed) for skewing RNG.

Because Aircraft were selected as the method to equalize player performance, a tank only mode without a set of overhauled & uniquely developed maps would devolve rapidly into a small number (e.g. a 4 stack squad or two) of players holding power positions and the lines being near static and with little movement as can be seen on maps like Port Novorossiysk [Domination] and Mozdok [Domination] among others.

In the specific and contrived situation of my own construction where the main consideration is sheer Rate of fire, yes it is, and that was the entire point of constructing it in such a manner.

If it was to be compared to something that had a cannon (or alternately the Mk19 or FGM-148 [CROWS -J] mounted) then it might be a noteworthy difference, yes the M2 has more utility but the M1 doesn’t really exist in the space where it often is all that useful as employed by the average player

Let alone the fact later M1 variants are missing its service .50 SLAP ammo which entered service in 1990, that would obviously make a significant difference to the performance of an M1 furnished with said ammo at expected combat ranges, though likely be less impactful than carrying a small number of HEAT, MPAT or Canister shells against said targets.


I’ve rarely seen as much text spilled on things so besides the point, as well as miniscule of importance.


On what basis?

Please feel free to share sources which show the M1 Abrams (1981) is lacking in terms of armour protection, and to which degree.

It probably doesn’t have better armour because the current implementation matches all publicly available sources.
It also doesn’t have a better APFSDS round because it’s already among the best performing 10.3 MBT’s in the game, coppled with having an excellent reload rate and APFSDS round that’s capable enough of dealing with anything it can meet.

Does Gaijin need to ‘‘elaborate’’ on each and every of the 2000+ vehicles in this game?
What even is there to elaborate on exactly?

1 Like
  1. OP makes that very clear why. You’re wasting typing by even asking that.

  2. I’m not interested in checking your card so tell me; Have you actually played the M1? It’s not the only one lacking in armor protection, of course, but it is lacking.

  3. Not really. Not really. Not everyone runs Ace crews so it’s a moot point to try and make and the round it has is not adequate even at it’s own BR.

  4. They need to elaborate why they keep it gimped compared to it’s contemporaries, which they’ve been called on and still refuse to answer.

Don’t worry I had the time to spare. Its not like I get paid for this or need to be concise, so why not practice writing and an attempt at eloquence not often seen on this forum.

In your opinion, sure. But have you considered that it may not have been written with you as the intended audience?

That it could receive one?

We have balancing mechanisms in place, so why not make use of it? It’s not like there is some shortage of suitable M1 variants that could replace it at 10.3 if it an adjustment was required.

Would it be that hard for them to approximate the relative performance of the array based off modeling the ?HAP-1? / ?EAP? configuration seen of M1150’s / M1 SA lost in Ukrane? Considering we now have a good idea of their composition, and the images exist in the public sphere.

And the fact that the relative thickness of the arrays are observable, thus their relative effectiveness able to be asserted.

They could even write up a devblog expanding on why they are(n’t) making changes based on the results, the same way they did with Western MANPADS even though it has been asserted that there are oversights that were made and improper assumptions / simplifications reached.