Why does it seem the M1 abrams is extremely underwhelming?

  • First M1 sits at a higher BR than the T-80UD and TURMS tanks
  • NVD (Which usually entails gen1 thermals), is always a tier 4 modification while most other countries’ mbts get thermals as a tier 2 modification.
  • DU armor was refused, no need to elaborate
  • Latest abrams was introduced in 2008, however it uses a 1994 round (M829A2) while a newer round (M829A3) was released in 2003.
  • Armor upgrades are not modeled, while the extra weight they add are.
  • The turret neck is extremely penetrable. World War two medium tank cannons are able to penetrate it reliably. I don’t have any sources to back this but I highly doubt thats realistic, as well as hearing from US army and (formerly) marine tankers that its at least 1/5th as strong as it would be in reality.
  • 10.3 abrams gets a very weak round, and actually can’t even destroy its own breech frontally.
  • The 11.3 M1A1 HC is mostly similar to the M1A2 save for the fact the M1A2 has a round with about 30 more mm of pen, and besides the mostly useless ERA on the M1A2s, the M1A1 HC is pretty much the same as the later M1A2s.
10 Likes

Because it’s better.

DU armour clearly hasn’t been refused because every M1 from the M1A1 HC onwards has DU turret armour.
If you’re referring to DU hull armour, in that case there is no evidence for service vehicles having DU hulls. If you have a source that says otherwise, feel free to share it.

M829A2 is currently the second best APFSDS round in the entire game, coppled with a 5 second reload makes these M1’s have immense firepower already.
M829A3 wouldn’t offer a significant improvement other than being able to defeat Kontakt-5 armoured opponents easier, but those vehicles (T-72B3, T-80U, T-90A) are already vastly inferior to an M1A2 and don’t pose the same threat a T-80BVM does.

  • The first M1’s turret offers 350mm @ 60° frontal arc vs KE
  • IPM1 turret offers 400mm @ 60° frontal arc vs KE
  • M1A1 HC turret offers 600mm @ 60° frontal arc vs KE

The only further armour upgrades that there is concrete proof of is the turret side armour improvements vs chemical energy munitions.
This obviously isn’t hugely important in War Thunder because everyone is firing APFSDS, not HEAT.

Again, if you have proof that further upgrades are missing, please share it.

This M1 has perfectly adequate firepower at the BR thanks to it’s reload rate advantage.
You get a 20% faster reload for only 11% worse penetration relative to a Leopard 2A4, and nobody ever complains about the 2A4’s firepower.

Okay? So?

21 Likes

So its a BR increase for strikingly similar tanks

Do i even need a source to tell you the M1 Abrams isn’t getting heavier simply because the crew keeps feeding it?

M829A3 would also increase penetration. I’m not sure how thats not a significant improvement. Lets play a little game here. How is the T-90A so much less dangerous than the BVM?

“Chobham-type armor on glacis and turret,armored bulkheads between turret and engine; depleted uranium armor in production since 1988”

Not any better than the M1A2s are to the T-80BVM

3 Likes

So far the only underwhelming thing about the M1 (10.3 BR) is the 105 mm round (M774) aside from that is just the teammates…

If you are wondering about “stats” because why not, Abrams is performing quite nice in 10.3 compared to other MBTs


Cannot say a thing about the higher BR Abrams since i don’t have them unlocked yet.

1 Like

The “DU” armored Abrams in game are based on non-DU export numbers. For more recent examples, when M1A1s were getting sold to Poland they featured “the removal of existing armor and installation of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Armor on M1A1 Abrams tank turrets” (M1A2SEPv2 doesnt have better LFP armour - #988 by Victor_eu).

At least 5 DU-hulled Abrams were made for testing purposes, which is more than the zero examples of operational Yak-141s and the 1-2 examples of T-80Bs having thermals.

It might have good pen, but it is also facing the most armored tanks and is lacking its ability to punch through Kontact-5 under 1.5km. The M829A3 can penetrate Kontact-5 at all ranges, and can still get through Relikt in some situations.

But there are zero armor upgrades from the M1A1 HC onward despite numerous documents saying there were turret improvements in armor, and there are zero improvements in the hull protection at all despite numerous documents saying there were improvements to the hull armor. Gaijin - rather than guessing like they do with other top tiers - just decided to not implement any improvements.

Because the firepower isn’t what makes the 2A4 good, it’s that its got enough firepower while also being heavily armored.

12 Likes

You want the M1A1 HC to move to 11.7 then? Still not sure what you’re trying to say here.

These M1’s feature countless additions and add-ons that all add up to substantial weight increases. This obviously includes the armour add-ons that are represented in-game, but also countless other improvements that have nothing to do with the armour of the vehicle.

This website Army Financial Management & Comptroller > Budget Materials can be used to view all the countless additions and upgrades the M1’s have received over the years, many of which contribute to weight increases.

There’s also multiple sources that point towards numerous possible armour upgrades not being carried out for either budget or weight limitation reasons.

As far as I’m aware M829A3 has roughly the same length of penetrator that M829A2 does.

Okay? The in-game M1’s have all of that modelled, so I’m not certain what you’re trying to say here.

In-game M1 has Chobham-type armor on the hull and turret? Check.
In-game M1 has armoured bulkheads? Check.
In-game M1 has depleted uranium turret armour? Check.

You could just ask for the T-80BVM to move to 12.0, like the Strv 122 and Leopard 2 A7V.

1 Like

If you click the source and stop feigning ignorance, you’ll see all of that is under the category of “hull armor” on that website.

And that has no effect on the increase penetration capability. I don’t get your point.

Well, would you like to give examples or at least direct me to the place on the website that you got this info from?

I’m saying that the M1A1 HC and the M1A2 are damn near the same tank, and I don’t understand why the M1A2 sits higher in BR with that in mind.

3 Likes

Doesn’t matter, they are still based on documents provided by the U.S. based on ballistic analysis done in the U.S. with their best protection modules. And I qoute: ‘‘Shooting attempts against its best ballistic protection were made in the United States.’’ -Rickard Lindström.

And that all makes sense given that the XM-1 was developed with XM587E1 as a threat simulant (hence 350mm KE @ 60°), IPM1 was developed with XM774 as a threat simulant (hence 400mm @ 60°) and the M1A1 HA was developed with M829E1 as a threat simulant (hence 600mm @ 60°).

Further U.S. source also confirm a 600mm RHAe @ 60° frontal arc, such as this one:

Spoiler

image

And this one:

Spoiler

INFANTRY Mar-Apr 1990

Of the M1A1-variety (likely M1A1 HA which we don’t even have in-game), which doesn’t help the M1A2, M1A2 SEP or M1A2 SEP v2 in any way.

Feel free to share them.

Keep in mind I’ve had this conversation hundreds of times with people, and not a single person has been able to prove their case.

Feel free to share them.

M1 UFP: Resistant to any and all APFSDS in the entire game.
Leo 2A4 UFP: 305-313mm
M1 LFP: 378-414mm
Leo 2A4 LFP: 87-278mm
M1 turret cheeks: 398-442mm
Leo 2A4 turret cheeks: 316-440mm

Leopard 2A4 also has a larger mantlet weakspot, gunner’s optics weakspot lowering the right cheek protection to 316mm and worse LFP armour due to not having the armoured bulkheads.

M1’s armour is superior in literally every category. The Leopard 2A4 simply does not have good protection.

3 Likes

Something something about “game balance” and tenderized dead horses…

I’m well aware of that website, as people have pointed out hundreds of times over the years, it’s not a valid source.

It’s a collection of basic information regarding hundreds of vehicles, a glorified wikipedia.
It also doesn’t cite sources of it’s own.

If you truly believe this, then there is little point in further discussion, because it indicates you have no knowledge regarding even the most basic things concerning this topic.

  • CROWS
  • Improvements to power generation and distribution.
  • Underbody IED kit.
  • Hull stiffners.
  • Improvements to the engine, transmission and reiforcements to the suspension systems.
  • Reinforced internal structural supports.
  • (Improvements to) Auxiliary power unit.
  • (Improvements to) Thermal management system.
  • Improvements to battle management system.
  • CITV.
  • Upgraded diagnostics and digitization.
  • Navigational equipment.
  • ICWS.
  • TUSK additions.
  • etc.
  • etc.

My previous comment has a link where this information can be viewed.

1 Like

Do you even play this damn game? Seriously, who the hell told you the M1 is resistant to any sabot in the game ANYWHERE?

1 Like

Im not gonna comb through the whole website looking for the information you say is there.

Time for me to defend the Abrams against misinfo…
1- TURMS has as little armor while being significantly slower. Speed is a massive advantage.
2- K. They’re still thermals.
3- M1 Abrams [the specific model] never used DU armor, this is well known.
4- Date of round is irrelevant. M829A2 is the best MBT round in the game.
5- Armor upgrades are modeled. M1A1 to M1A1HC/M1A2 has DU turret armor.
6- Correct. Volumetric it’d go to ~200mm, but still easily penned by MBTs.
7- Yes, in part due to peoples’ performance in it.
8- M1A2 fires the best MBT round in the game.

Do you? Because my M1’s with 2700 kills total are sitting on a 70+ winrate with a 6-1 K/D ratio for a reason.

Anyways, here’s 804mm LoS penetration 152mm APFSDS at point blank range failing to consistently penetrate the UFP of an M1 Abrams, feel free to test this out yourself:


Anyways, here’s some interesting reads for you:


M1A1 Block II armour

This one is concerning spall liners and not armour, but still gets the point across that numerous improvements weren’t carried out because of weight contraints.

Select any year you wish, here’s one from 2009.

Ctrl + F is your friend.

5 Likes

Still just difficult to grind for no reason, being a tier 4 mod.

Already brought up a source from the US army disproving this.

Leo 2a7 DM53 as well as the Challenger 3 TD both have more pen than the M829A2 (652mm with DM53)

That is ONE upgrade.

Again disproven. The only round that can be considered better than what other countries have in game is M830A1 and not for anti-tank use, but its proxy-fuse capabilities.

Test this yourself. Aim about 9 inches higher than that guy did. You penetrate the tank and kill all crew or most and a breech.

Your source says that the M1A2 wont be protected by all of the armor upgrades. This “all” implies that some of them are still added to the tank. You see how this doesn’t really help your point?

"Survivability improvements include Frontal Armor and Turret Side Armor
upgrades. " Your source, by the way.

2 Likes

image
Let it be known this source states that the armor is provided by the department of energy, which could possibly hint that it is DU, since the department of energy isn’t interested i tungsten and steel. Again, your source.

3 Likes

ignore necrons, he’s had a hatred for the U.S Tech tree for 5+ years, nothing you show him is going to change his mind, he thinks the Abrams has never changed its armor in 30+ years.

5 Likes

Sounds about right. At this point hes providing me with sources that prove my point. hes such a good helper.

1 Like

The first Abrams to use DU armor was M1A1 HC, having DU turret armor, which is represented in War Thunder. Which is what your Department of Energy source is talking about.
There wouldn’t be DU armor added to the hull until allegedly SEP3, which would be a reason why SEP3 weighs 2 - 4 tons more than M1A2SEP1 & 2.
DM53 is 2nd, you’ll notice that the M1A1+ tanks use L/44 guns, not L/55. L/55 increases the muzzle velocity of the rounds.
M829A2 is the best MBT round in the game which you proved by citing L/55 guns to compete against an L/44.

1 Like