USA top tier needs a change

[tripod2008]

@Necrons31467

The developers of GHPC recently referenced primary US sources that showed M833 had significant production delays and wasn’t fielded en masse until 1985 at the earliest.

Please don’t misconstrue what they said, they specified in Europe as is relevant to their game, also they don’t specify which document they were referring to either.

GHPC developer stream - July 14, 2024

@Necrons31467

M774 was the main service round for the M1 Abrams and IPM1.

as per the following source M833 reached IOC in '84

DTIC ADA135524: Lessons Learned: M1 Abrams Tank System : Defense Technical...

and the M1IP was introduced in December of '84

DTIC ADA135524: Lessons Learned: M1 Abrams Tank System : Defense Technical...

Referring to the same table the basic ( series production ) M1s were conditionally released to units beginning late '81 and fielded in Europe in early '82 so even accounting for an unspecified delay units would have had access to M833 for longer than not by the time of Desert Storm.

@Necrons31467

Even if we ignore that fact, M833 still wasn’t available in the year the M1 was introduced.

To whom and where? and anyway its not as if its an M1 (Early) so why would it need to be held to some arbitrarily enforced initial configuration? (Even the Early F-14A isn’t held to a 1973 ~ 1975 config, but that of the later '78 SAC (and even then is arbitrarily missing features like the AN/ALR-23 IRSTS ) When we know M900 for example was used by M1 equipt units during the Gulf War.

Also things don’t get type classified without stringent and exhaustive testing either.

[Necrons31467]

@tripod2008

Please don’t misconstrue what they said, they specified in Europe

Which begs the question: What other major deployment threatre existed in which the M1 did field M833 then?

@tripod2008

also they don’t specify which document they were referring to either.

And I have no reason to assume that they would be lying about this.

@tripod2008

so why would it need to be held to some arbitrarily enforced initial configuration?

You misunderstand.

I’m not the one that brings this up in these discussions. People generally claim that M833 is the ‘‘correct’’ round that the M1 should be using in War Thunder, and they also claim that the M1 historically entered service with this round as it’s primary shell type.
Therefore they’ll say that Gaijin is intentionally nerfing the M1 by withholding a round it always used historically.

The dates simply do not line up for that argument.

@tripod2008

Even the Early F-14A isn’t held to a 1973 ~ 1975 config

I also pointed this out myself, that the M1A1, IPM1 and M1A2 are using rounds that only entered service after the vehicles themselves did.

I never claimed to be against this.

[tripod2008]

@Necrons31467

Which begs the question: What other major deployment threatre existed in which the M1 did field M833 then?

If I had to guess, CONUS would probably have dibs at least at first since they likely have a less complicated logistical train for newly stood up / converted units. Especially since it was TC’d in early '83 so would have been around.

@Necrons31467

And I have no reason to assume that they would be lying about this.

I never said they were, only that they don’t actually cite or provide the source(s) they are refencing, so its not currently possible to cross-examine the nature and scope of the claim that was presented.

@Necrons31467

and they also claim that the M1 historically entered service with this round as it’s primary shell type.

It may well have been the case for the M1IP units.

Considering M900 (which was likely an only M1 shell, so Marine units with the M60 would have had M774 / M833 at best ) was TC’ed in Dec of '89.

M833 likely had a good chance of being a significant portion of the inventory of Deployed Units (both 105mm M1 & M60) by the late '90s in the lead up to the initial stages of Desert Shield / Storm would have had access to in reliable quantities considering the timeframes and how slow logistics can be.

So is probably where the mistake is being made since it is the first combat action undertaken by the M1 series and so is likely to be what the majority would consider the starting point for the M1 also being much of what would be available without going to lengths to confirm these things, let alone aligning with the experience of those who have written about said events.

@Necrons31467

The dates simply do not line up for that argument.

They may for some specific units but I couldn’t say as a whole since its not like the Army all to much published of the requisite data to make said confirmations since stockpiles tend to be one of those things kept relatively close to the chest.

It depends on the specific arguments being made, and as a whole how much people are actually relying on documented sources, not hearsay. Since there isn’t all too much specific info out there about pre DS M1 Units and their activities, or specifically about the two battalions that used the 105mm equipt M1s.

[Jεcka]

@tripod2008

It may well have been the case for the M1IP units.

Considering M900 (which was likely an only M1 shell, so Marine units with the M60 would have had M774 / M833 at best ) was TC’ed in Dec of '89.

M1IP was introduced into service in 1984. The M900 that we’ve in WT had never entered service, instead the M900A1 did later on (this has been confirmed by Chieftain).

Spoiler

Congressional Serial Set

Marines did use M900A1 with their M60s (especially during DS):

Spoiler

M60 vs T-62

Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1992

Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Years 1992...

[tripod2008]

@FurinaBestArchon

The M900 that we’ve in WT had never entered service

I don’t know what to tell you, primary sources conflict with this

https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/TM-43-0001-28-1994.pdf#page=110

CARTRIDGE, 105 MILLIMETER: APFSD-T, M900

This is a kinetic energy, armor-piercing antitank round intended for use with the 105mm, M68 series gun mounted on M1 tanks only.

Might be an issue with Marine / Army cataloging or so.

[Jεcka]

A projectile receiving classification =/= entering service (cue DM43A1, which had received its classification but never entered service with the Bundeswehr).

Spoiler

^ What’s said in that screenshot is the reason why M900A1 had been developed prior to DS. The M900 had been found to be too hot and too unstable to be used by most 105mm armed tanks.

None of the DoD Fiscal Year documents mention that a normal M900 had been bought; as far as I can see, only the M900A1 is mentioned.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

Is A1 better than the ingame one, gameplay wise? Higher pen or something?

[tripod2008]

@FurinaBestArchon

A projectile receiving classification =/= entering service.

It basically is its effective date that it may be found somewhere as it is undergoing acceptance and other assorted confirmation trials, IOC is that the units basically may have the item in question.

Within this manual, items with the following type classifications are included:
(1) Standard (LCC-A, LCC-B)
(2) Contingency (CON)
(3) Limited Procurement (LP)
(4) Reclassified obsolete (OBS) for regular Army use, but used by National Guard or
Reserve Units.
(5) Reclassified OBS for all Army
use, but used by Marine Corps, Air Force, or
Navy
(6) Reclassified OBS, no users, but
U.S. stocks remain.

Considering M900 is listed as

TC LRP Dec 1989.

Thus It was procured as limited run item so it was obtained in some quantity, and the manual makes no reference to the -A1 modification even though it should post date -A1’s development (and the M1128), also that does raise the question of if the use of M900 for the M1128 is correct, and should be renamed to M900A1 for the M1128, though would assume that they use later production assemblies and so should be rated for the higher pressure.

@SPANISH_AVENGER

gameplay wise?

Probably ever so slightly worse considering reduced chamber pressure, and would only need to be deployed for known Gun Serials within the listed ranges that could not fire the Basic round, of which may not be relevant to any vehicle currently implemented, since they either lack M900 or probably have a sufficiently late serial.

[Jεcka]

@tripod2008

It basically is its effective date that it may be found somewhere as it is undergoing acceptance and other assorted confirmation trials, IOC is that the units basically may have the item in question.

Again. Classification is, for the most part, synonymous with “acceptance for service.” However, that is not “entered service.”.

[AlvisWisla]

“This is the first time Ultramerican has posted — let’s welcome them to our community!”

Welcome to the community. You shouldn’t have started with an anecdote.
Thunderskill is one giant anecdote; and an anecdote about SKILL. ThunderSKILL is about skill, nothing more. On top of that, it has never once claimed its data can be used to determine anything more than the skill of people.

So by citing ThunderSKILL you are claiming Soviet players are more skilled.

@Ultramerican

People flock to what is strong.

If that was true Sweden would’ve been flocked to the moment Strv 122 was released over 4 years ago… except this never happened.
Soviets never had a 70% win rate.
There is also no evidence that the Soviets are played the most overall.

As your screenshot shows… zero vehicles with 500,000 battles. 500,000 is a hilariously conservative estimate on how many top BR ground battles occur every month.

@Ultramerican

They don’t include spall protection

Not sure what the US military’s decision not to use spall liners has to do with Gaijin.

@Ultramerican

they undervalue the equivalent protection of multiple parts of the frontal aspect

They are protected up to and exceeding Swedish trial information.

@Ultramerican

they use a much inferior and anachronistic round in the first Abrams

Yes, due to M1 being the 3rd fastest MBT in the game, people get into strong positions with it.
Leopard 2A4 is in a similar situation.

And T-80B is 10.3, opposite of your claim.
T-80B, with similar armor of a Challenger Mk3 and Vickers Mk7, firing a “slightly worse round” to L26 at the same BR.
So according to your own words, Challenger Mk3 and Vickers Mk7 are under-BR’d.

@Ultramerican

the bottom line is that there is no appreciable difference in average player skill

Then why did you claim there was by citing ThunderSKILL?

@Ultramerican

If Russian tanks arbitrarily had no spall lining modeled

T-90M isn’t all “Russian tanks” and there are few “Russian” tanks in the game; I think you mean Soviet.

@Ultramerican

weren’t given an extra 10% effective UFP and turret armor

They aren’t. They’re given exactly the armor from the 1980s documents that were declassified in 1991.
The most modern composite in the Soviet tech tree is ~2000 with the T-90A turret, which performs about as well as the 1980’s armor composite on T-72B.

L27A1 should allegedly at least barely perforate this shot IRL.
In War Thunder it doesn’t due to the flaw of all rounds not being able to barely perforate tanks.

And with how Gaijin does penetration currently, War Thunder in this case will be inaccurate at either 68 degrees or 0.
At the angles we shoot T-72B composite tanks, they’re accurate; which makes them inaccurate at the angles we don’t shoot them at: 0 degrees.

There are over 10 tanks stronger than T-80BVM in War Thunder, and M1A2 SEP is one of them.

[Daniel8599]

@Necrons31467

The M1A1 has better firepower than the majority of 11.7 MBT’s, all whilst it’s at 11.0.

Important to note that one of the only reasons the M1A1 at 11.0 got M829A1 was because the IPM1 did so terribly from being bumped up by .3BR w/ M833 that instead of reducing it’s BR they handed it M900. At which point the IPM1 then went up to an even higher BR because it had a higher penetrating round w/ a faster reload than the normal M1A1. Which then at some point afterwards the devs gave the M1A1 M829A1 because it was kinda silly that a tank that came after the IPM1 in the tech tree had both a slower reload, worse round, and roughly same protection with slightly worse mobility.

Otherwise the M1A1 would most likely still be rocking M829 at this point in time if it wasn’t for that fact.

[CodeNameColdWar]

IPM1 also can use Smoke round . Which is very useful.
As for me i still don’t see M829A1 worth much of the improvement for M1A1. Since You still have to aim weakspot like you use M829 for the most part. But that just my opinion

Also current M774 are overperform and M735 are underperform

M774 overperform

Fwd: 9/3/2022 M774 and C76A1 APFSDS incorrect performance

Bug report points out that the M774 rod is 34.5 cm long.

With M774 fix M833 would make a good replacement for current M774. It only has 30-20mm higher pen than current M774

[SpardaSon21]

@tripod2008

If I had to guess, CONUS would probably have dibs at least at first since they likely have a less complicated logistical train for newly stood up / converted units. Especially since it was TC’d in early '83 so would have been around.

In the US military things get deployed to CONUS first, Europe second, and the rest of the world third. Desert Storm was a bit of a mess logistically for small arms since you had guys coming from Europe with M1911’s and ammo for such even as units were showing up from CONUS with M9’s and 9mm for them. On top of that the M1911 had technically been replaced as a service arm and so nobody wanted to ship .45 ACP to units that had shortages while at the same time there weren’t enough M9’s and 9mm to go around.

So yeah, the round not showing up in Europe in quantity for a year as CONUS gets first dibs on the stuff that’s coming out of the factory doesn’t shock me.

[Dinfire]

@Necrons31467

If you believe these vehicles are underperforming, feel free to share publicly available source material that proves it.

Turret ring. Turret cheeks. M829A3.

To wit, M1A1s with equipment and armor updates even from 1991 through 1999 received M829A3 when it was released.

And are we really gonna argue that a 30mm autocannon should penetrate and kill the crew of an M1A1 through the turret ring? At any given distance?

[Dinfire]

@AlvisWisla

They are protected up to and exceeding Swedish trial information.

Ultramerican:

Up to Swedish trials of 1994, nothing further, even though M1A2s and M1A2 SEPv1 and M1A2 SEPSv2 all went through suspension and armor updates. Yes, we’ve dealt with that topic, you refused, Gaijin refused, so please cease using it as the reference.

[AlvisWisla]

The biggest improvement from 1994 to SEP2 was allegedly hull armor array.
Obviously DU generation for the turret.
Neither can be quantified without looking inside the armor or having documents though.

[Dinfire]

And they should be. But again, turret ring should not be penned from the front or side by 30mm or 40mm.

[glock991]

There would be an extremely easy fix’s to cull ODL premium spam effectively fixing US winrates dramatically but we all know gaijin won’t do it it because the cash flow$$$ is just too good lol

[AlvisWisla]

Dude, that’s not how money works.

[Dinfire]

It’s not about the money, it’s about the skill set of the players themselves.

---

Case in point.

US players versus USSR and German.

Don’t tell me I don’t see this daily, and don’t tell me that Necrons or any of the older salts got anything to say that would construe a logical point.

Fix the Abrams, and fix the Matchmaking in some way, shape or form.

That would improve others’ playing dramatically.