Now With the M1 being Brought to 10.7, Can We Finally Receive M833?

[tripod2008]

@Necrons31467

At the same time we should keep in mind that it’s very likely that the UFP is overperforming

Well, we know that the the “Cell” armor that the forward fuel tanks should have aren’t thick enough, so it should be increased to ~63mm overall.

So with the current mechanics it’s actually underperforming in terms of “Overmatch” and even then won’t be unless they are modeled with a single variable thickness volumetric plate, due to the way stacking plates currently (doesn’t) properly interact with the overmatch mechanic.

@Necrons31467

extremely vulnerable to the more modern APFSDS rounds found at higher BR’s.

Depends on how exactly things are modeled and how specific tip & impact angle combinations are implemented, and if bending is taken into account (e.g. simplified modeling could be based off Euler's critical load - Wikipedia as a more refined limit impact energy limit).

@Necrons31467

In the meantime, the M1 has consistently shown itself to have among the best statistics of any of the 10.3 / 10.7 MBT’s, aside from that it’s overall attributes also put it ahead of any of it’s competition:

You say statistics, and the proceed to quote characteristics. Then don’t actually properly compare them either, the colors are also not all too useful, since well it doesn’t put any sort off attention to relative capabilities;

For example;

The combination of the poor turret and KE ammo the M1 provides the worst possible “Effective range delta” for the M1 vs all referenced counterparts (and alternately the potential impact of the addition of M833 or M900(A1) would have on the match ups), which defeats the fact that the UFP causes “Auto-bounce” since you aren’t going to be shooting at it in preference to the LFP / Turret (ring) if you have the choice, most of the time.

As an example.
M1 (M774 / M833 / M900A1) vs T-80B (3BM42), as per your table; N/B - 10% performance reduction to penetration of the shells to account for greatest possible RNG reduction.

(0m / 0m / 2000m++) / 2000m+ ( 800m ( vs right side of turret)) Which is very obviously Negative or, slightly positive w/ M900A1.

So isn’t in the M1’s favor.

Do you have actual Statistical modeling that shows the M1 out performing it’s counterparts, and which dataset is it based off?

@Necrons31467

It’s more than a feeling at this point.

I’m working on producing a CDF for various tanks to actually pull (understandable, and relatively useful) non heuristic data from samples, that can at least to some degree take a look at actual relative performance (of the surveyed players), I’ll see if I can get it hooked up to Statshark / Thunder skill / WT Dataproject datasets at some point.

[MechaZelis]

Actually neat. How will you control for team skill? American teams are notoriously bad at the game at the M1s tier, leading to more deaths from things like poor callouts, folded flanks, and feeding kills into a CAS player.

[tripod2008]

@MechaZelis

How will you control for team skill?

That’s what the CFD is for; basically what it will do is effectively place each player in their relative position on the X axis in the series based on K/D, as an example stat (Win rate, battles played, Kills per battle are all some examples of other options).

So with multiple entries the delta(difference) between say the 25 / 50 / 75 / 90th percentile player etc. for each vehicle in question could be compared by running along the relevant value on the Y-axis

As an exemplar the following data shows the performance of tested AGM-65 variants vs slant range;

It should be obvious that the AGM-65B has a much shorter range; and to some degrees is allows for various statistical tests to be applied and other comparative data to be gleaned.

[Necrons31467]

@tripod2008

Well, we know that the the “Cell” armor that the forward fuel tanks should have aren’t thick enough

We really don’t, that bug report leans heavily in the poster’s interpretation and there is no solid evidence provided that I can see which supports their case.

That’s not to say it can’t be true, just that the evidence presented isn’t conclusive for me.

Regardless, it currently makes absolutely no difference, the UFP ricochets any and all APFSDS whether it’s 38.1mm or 63mm.

@tripod2008

and which dataset is it based off?

The only data sets available to us currently: Thunderskill.

I’ve been tracking the various performances of the countless vehicles for years now, and the M1’s have consistently kept up or exceeded their rival’s performance.

You’re also giving a whole bunch of word salad whilst never having played even a single match in Ground RB with any of the M1’s.
Meanwhile, all of the most skilled players around say the same thing: The M1 Abrams is one of the most effective MBT’s at it’s BR and currently has no need to M833.

Meanwhile, the players that only play USA as well as those who’ve never played the M1’s are those that claim it needs buffs/M833. Coincidence?

[tripod2008]

@Necrons31467

You’re also giving a whole bunch of word salad whilst never having played even a single match in Ground RB with any of the M1’s.

You know, This could easily be solved. Just for you if it means you will actually consider what I have to say.

Shame it won’t, isn’t it. Especially considering spading it first and building a proper lineup might help improve the performance of the vehicle.

I’ll even go back to only using M456A2 only, if you want.

@Necrons31467

Meanwhile, all of the most skilled players around say the same thing

We know that Gaijin bases things off the “efficiency” of the average player, and anyway what dictates the most skilled; using K/D or KpB as an indicator as a determining factor is flawed. or are you leaving yourself open to potentially holding hackers and squad stackers in higher regard simply because “number is bigger”?

@Necrons31467

the players that only play USA as well as those who’ve never played the M1’s

If you’re trying to make a point, about me. Have you actually looked at my entire stat card; as netiher statement is strictly true? Also way to go addressing anything I’ve actually raised as potential issues considering you don’t understand the “word salad”.

[Necrons31467]

@rainy2000

Sure, but how much of the total weakspot area is useful?

Here’s what I came up with after doing a bunch of testing:

(120mm DM23 @ 500m distance, head-on)

Here’s some of the test results directly:

A middle ground is assumed with the Leo 2’s ammo, plenty of players take more than 15 rounds and some players take less, hence why an average of only the bottom row is taken.
The M1’s right cheek is right on the edge of whether or not DM23 can pen, it’s 397mm effective vs 401mm penetration at that distance, hence the hashed lines.

I personally didn’t know the fuel tanks on the M1 would prove so resistant to DM23, I haven’t gotten a single instance of DM23 penning the left or right sides of the hull.

The driver’s hatch of the M1 gives wildly different results on every attempt, sometimes the round disappears into a black hole, sometimes it wipes the turret entirely, hence a middle ground it chosen.

Surprisingly, whilst the turret ring penetrations deal loads of damage, the mantlet of the M1 is extremely resistant to DM23. Usually only a single crew is killed and the shell deals very little post-pen damage. The right side mantlet of the Leopard 2A4 usually leads to both gunner/commander being killed, as does the cut-out beneath the gunner’s optics.

Lower glacis on the Leopard 2A4’s right side gives inconsistent results, sometimes it’s OHK, sometimes it’s only 1-2 crew.

It should also be noted that a lot of areas on the M1 show a Yellow penetration indicator, the armour values of the M1’s weaker zones are all close to 400mm, so if the distance were 1km or above, the Leopard 2A4 would suddenly have far fewer valid weakspots to aim for.

[MotorolaCRO]

@rainy2000

Tech tree and Prem M1 Abrams is actually performing worse than tech tree and prem Leo 2A4 in the Swedish tech tree (which both tech tree having ~3000 battles played, and both prem having ~5000 battles).

Comparing minor to major nations is never a good idea, as most players will generally start with one of the big three nations.

@rainy2000

so this means that despite Sweden’s prem 2A4 having 6857 battles (1610 more games than the KVT, so technically greater proportion of ‘bad’ players are using it than the KVT), it still has a better KPS than the KVT.

It must be noted that going from 49% WR to 65% WR can boost up the stats, because in more occasions your enemies will fold and you’ll end up getting a few free kills while spawn camping.

[tripod2008]

@Necrons31467

Here’s some of the test results directly:

You could consider including damage to the Turret drives, in blue as it precludes the effective use of the gun, and considering the erroneous inclusion of the M1’s Hydraulic reserve tank in the module. Most shots that kill the; Driver, Gunner, Commander or Loader also knock out the gun anyway due to the excessive size of the module.

[rainy2000]

That’s much better.
Though I have some nitpicks:
How would it look like if the Leo 2A4 gets shot with M774?
Would there be any difference (for example, amount of green area increases?)

If the 2A4 decided they wanted to be more survivable, they could only take bustle ammo.
I know you decided to take a median opproach, but there’s not really any other way to make the Abrams more or less survivable - unlike with the 2A4. To be honest, 16 rounds of APFSDS is not great, but you can work around it.

Interestingly enough, the top portion of the Abrams’ mantlet (effectively the same size as the 2A4’s turret ring / driver port weak spot) is weak enough such that 120mm DM23 can go through and even explode ammo:

Since the first stage ammo of the Abrams is 22 rounds, the left forehead of the breech should all be red, whereas the right forehead of the breech should be how it already is.

I tried the same with the 2A4, and it seems to be the case here:

So what this suggests is that you can take 16 APFSDS rounds - and expect that top right portion of the breech to be a 1-shot kill for the 2A4.
This also suggests that if you take more than 17 rounds of APFSDS for the Abrams, the right portion (albeit smaller) of the breech is a 1-shot kill too (from a small segment of it to the entire right portion depending on how many rounds between 17 to 22).

You included the small portion of the 2A4’s driver’s port where you can 1-shot the 2A4 - which is fine.
I’d also add the small portion of the Abrams’ UFP, which is only 19mm thick, and is the part where the plate meets the 38.1mm plate:

The diagram you presented only shows the breech as a module.
What if you only include things, like the engine, turret ring, and vertical drive… maybe in a different diagram?

(This is generally a more detailed analysis I’ve done around that area of the Abrams).
Red - non-pen
Yellow - module damage / 1/2 crew kills
Green - almost always a 3 crew kills

Also, I think this also applies when talking about weakspots and survivability:
At far ranges, and for flicking shots, it’s easier to shoot centre mass of vehicles than not, which I assume you agree with.

You need greater fidelity / resolution / accuracy (with your eyeballs and cursor) to shoot for the bottom left of a dot than the center of that dot.

For example, if both vehicles were an array of pixels 7x wide, and 7x tall, we may get this:

I can’t speak for you, but I believe it’s easier to hit the one on the right than the one on the left, if you had only a couple seconds to do so.
If you do miss the Abrams’ 1-shot area, you’d either hit the UFP (nothing), or the breech.
If you do miss the Leopard 2A4’s 1-shot area, you’d either hit the upper UFP (ricochet), or the LFP (which you will get the driver, engine and maybe the gunner).

So I believe trying to go for one-shotting the Abrams is easier than trying to go for one-shotting the Leopard.

[rainy2000]

@MotorolaCRO

Comparing minor to major nations is never a good idea, as most players will generally start with one of the big three nations.

Sweden is no longer a small nation (as well as France) - at least in top tier:

And I have seen plenty of people who started out playing Sweden - same with people flocking over to USA (after they grinded out another major nation).

@MotorolaCRO

It must be noted that going from 49% WR to 65% WR can boost up the stats, because in more occasions your enemies will fold and you’ll end up getting a few free kills while spawn camping.

Sure, though you could also say that the team with the better vehicles will then have more of a chance to get to spawncamp as well - further increasing the team’s (in this case the vehicles’) KPS.

Enemy teams also folding quickly means less chances or number of kills they can get per match (as opposed to having epic battles where everyone spawned in multiple times) - thus reducing their KPS. So for their KPS to be that high (and with the similar battles played) and have a high win rate somewhat hints towards the 2A4 being slightly better than the M1 Abrams, at least for the average joe.

[MotorolaCRO]

@rainy2000

Sweden is no longer a small nation - at least in top tier:

Sweden is definitely the most popular out of all minor ones, but I doubt it holds a candle to major ones.
It also has four vehicles at 10.7 while US has only two.

According to this, Sweden’s five 12.0 tanks have less battles than AIM and CB combined which tells me US is still vastly more popular despite it’s woes.
It’s also worth noting that Sweden’s highest tier premium is the 2A4, while US has both CB and RDF/LT which surely took a large chunk of interest out of the KVT.

@rainy2000

Sure, though you could also say that the team with the better vehicles will then have more of a chance to get to spawncamp as well - further increasing the team’s (in this case the vehicles’) KPS.

I highly doubt that going from M1 to 2A4 will get you 16% WR, it definitely depends on a lot more factors.

@rainy2000

Enemy teams also folding quickly means less chances or number of kills they can get per match (as opposed to having epic battles where everyone spawned in multiple times) - thus reducing their KPS.

It also means you’re less likely to die while trying to reach great spots. Enemies getting clubbed will also reduce their CAS options, meaning you can stay at those spots for longer.

[CodeNameColdWar]

@tripod2008

Well, we know that the the “Cell” armor that the forward fuel tanks should have aren’t thick enough, so it should be increased to ~63mm overall.

So with the current mechanics it’s actually underperforming in terms of “Overmatch” and even then won’t be unless they are modeled with a single variable thickness volumetric plate, due to the way stacking plates currently (doesn’t) properly interact with the overmatch mechanic.

Yep and also not just high angle armor that penetrator has to deal with.
The fuel inside fuel tank would also help act against KE or CE. As liquids can also provide effective protection.
According to first source water has a weight efficiency of 70-75% of RHA against both long rods and CE. Even though fuel are less dense than water. It should still provide effective protection.

APFSDS issues

[warthogboy09]

@Necrons31467

even a single match in Ground RB with any of the M1’s.

Because GRB is the only mode in the game… Right …

@Necrons31467

Meanwhile, the players that only play USA as well as those who’ve never played the M1’s are those that claim it needs buffs/M833. Coincidence?

Oh really? And I say it needs it despite having more games on REDFOR in 10_2 GSB than US.

But do go ahead and make more fantasy generalizations,

[MotorolaCRO]

@warthogboy09

Because GRB is the only mode in the game… Right …

OP has barely any games in Arcade or Simulator, so it’s safe to say he’s talking about GRB balancing here.
Also, talking about sim in 2025 is just a waste of time, as that mode is nothing more than abandonware for years now.

[warthogboy09]

@MotorolaCRO

OP has barely any games in Arcade or Simulator, so it’s safe to say he’s talking about GRB balancing here.

And? A change in ammunition has an effect on all modes.

@MotorolaCRO

Also, talking about sim in 2025 is just a waste of time, as that mode is nothing more than abandonware for years now.

Couldn’t be more wrong, but you do you boo

[rainy2000]

@MotorolaCRO

It also has four vehicles at 10.7 while US has only two.

True.

@MotorolaCRO

According to this, Sweden’s five 12.0 tanks have less battles than AIM and CB combined which tells me US is still vastly more popular despite it’s woes.

Yeah, I can see that. In Top tier, again, I generally would rather have a Swedish player help me than a CB. Though I do believe 122s help them perform better than if they were in a CB.

@MotorolaCRO

It’s also worth noting that Sweden’s highest tier premium is the 2A4, while US has both CB and RDF/LT which surely took a large chunk of interest out of the KVT.

Yes, though I know that a good chunk of people buy the CV90105 instead.

@MotorolaCRO

I highly doubt that going from M1 to 2A4 will get you 16% WR, it definitely depends on a lot more factors.

Well yes, but I also think that it scales.
If it were just one Abrams and one 2A4 player per team, then I wouldn’t say there would be much of a difference in win rate.
But if half the team are Abrams and the other team’s half are 2A4s, then I would say you’d start to see a difference.

But I agree that it also depends on other factors too, though I think vehicles contribute to most of it (if it weren’t for the difference in overall team skills - hence why I didn’t choose Germany (too high of a proportion of bad players) nor Italy (too high of a proportion of good players).

Germany has only one 2A7 (whereas Sweden has 3), but their win rate is much better than Sweden’s (partially because the 2A7 is still generally better due to the much better round, that they get paired up with other good Nations like USSR and Sweden, and that a lot of good players still decide to play Germany Top tier over other nations. This is especially the case now with the fact that the Eurofighter got added for the German Tech Tree.

@MotorolaCRO

It also means you’re less likely to die while trying to reach great spots. Enemies getting clubbed will also reduce their CAS options, meaning you can stay at those spots for longer.

True.

[MotorolaCRO]

@rainy2000

Yeah, I can see that. In Top tier, again, I generally would rather have a Swedish player help me than a CB. Though I do believe 122s help them perform better than if they were in a CB.

Generally minor nation players will have more skill on average, as it’s pretty unlikely that nation is their first one.

@rainy2000

Yes, though I know that a good chunk of people buy the CV90105 instead.

True, I just wanted to show you that Sweden should still be way behind the big tree in terms of player count.

At 11.3 Japan racked up ~27k battles thanks to premium Type 90, but I wouldn’t really say Japan is particularly popular nation.

@rainy2000

hence why I didn’t choose Germany (too high of a proportion of bad players) nor Italy (too high of a proportion of good players).

I think players from all major nations are equally bad, if you know what I mean.
Anything that’s minor seems to be a step up in player’s performance.

@rainy2000

Germany has only one 2A7 (whereas Sweden has 3), but their win rate is much better than Sweden’s (partially because the 2A7 is still generally better due to the much better round, that they get paired up with other good Nations like USSR and Sweden, and that a lot of good players still decide to play Germany Top tier over other nations. This is especially the case now with the fact that the Eurofighter got added for the German Tech Tree.

2A7 is at 68% WR and 122s are around 64% so the difference isn’t huge. Having better thermals and a round that can ignore K5 tanks surely helps though.

Sweden lags behind in terms of helicopters and jets as well, so I bet some of it can be attributed to that too.

[MotorolaCRO]

@warthogboy09

And? A change in ammunition has an effect on all modes.

Different game modes require different balancing as they’re pretty different.
One vehicle needing help in one mode doesn’t mean it needs help in other modes.

@warthogboy09

Couldn’t be more wrong, but you do you boo

No one really gives a damn about Ground SB, at least you have zombers in Air SB that push the numbers up.

It’s basically fighting Naval for the title of most useless game mode in the game, which speaks volumes about it’s popularity.

[Dinfire]

@MotorolaCRO

AIM and CB combined

That’s because newbies buy them and then play them because they don’t care about performance.

[TeodorSan]

Sorry for replying to an old post, I just wanted to clarify that Romania ordered Abrams in the SEPv3 version, not SEPv2.

There’s even a press release about the order:

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/romania-m1a2-abrams-main-battle-tanks