Why doesnt the first M1 Abrams have M833

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
56

Since those sources say things like “However, the autoloader itself is capable of loading a round and returning the gun to aim on a target of the gunner’s choosing in only 6 seconds if the gunner chooses not to change ammunition types, so the maximum technical rate of fire is actually 10 rounds per minute.” for T-80. The cyclograms cited in the documents even contradict this since they include the time for the “reload” button to be pressed and show this process takes 6 seconds if you make conservative combat ammunition load, ammunition order and count the bloke pressing a button as if that’s relevant to the strict mechanism of the carousel.
image
T-80 cyclogram.

image
T-72 cyclogram

T-72 cyclogram at least doesn’t count the time to press the load button, but it does count the time to skip 2 shells which aren’t of the type requested and even counts the time for the cannon to recoil when firing, which it does at 7.4 seconds. These are including other things like cannon elevation to the required reload angle, which again doesn’t happen in War Thunder. In other words 7.4 is the normal/average given combat ammunition loadout, load order and practical facts technically unrelated to the strict mechanism of the autoloader operation itself.

I’m not familiar with this document, it states 8rpm (7.5 seconds) for combat and 7.1 seconds for the next shell in the carousel, which seems in line with what Tankograd’s cyclogram says. Unsure if they are counting the time to press the reloading button or not. Since it’s just a plain number we can’t exactly analyse what is measured. It’s possible combat reloading includes aiming at a new target,we don’t know without further clarification.

I’m curious why Fofanov insists 6.5 seconds though, but I cite Fofanov because it’s a reliable expert source. It’s possible that’s the strict time for the mechanism once the gun is properly elevated and until the new shell is in the barrel, presumably still at reload elevation.

This brings into the point that, as an example, T-72B3 would reload differently since the elevation mechanism is like 15 times faster than earlier models. So is this elevation period considered part of the reload rate?

57

No.

It’s simply the speed at which the autoloader completes a full reload cycle.

That’s not a reliable source, it’s an old website that hasn’t been updated in ages from what I recall.

It isn’t, this is a error in the way Gaijin implements elevation speed.

A similar discussion is going on around the Leopard 2A4. The maximum rate of elevation the system is capable of is 45°/sec, but it is limited to 10°/sec for the gunner’s controls.
Similarly, the T-72B3’s practical maximum rate of elevation is 3.5°/sec.

It seems likely that a patch at some point will correct this on all relevant vehicles.

58

If the document you found regarding the 6 second reliad when shooting the same round are true(i tend to doubt because i have not seen any other source agreeing with it)
It would be something i would like implemented but thats not gonna happened, gaijin would need to look at every single tank in the game and exact the same standards upon them,. And even if they were willing to do so, they would need more than one source which agrees with the conclusion you provided, Which i really struggled to find, especially because im a mega newbie at russian(im trying to learn), but looking at thie nunbers we have the ingme reloads dont look particularly inaccurate, despite that i will take happily read any more sources if you have one because it has been fun to have a constructive discussion for once, i will research a bit more on the t64/t80 style autoloader.

I made an edit because i misunderstood your argument, sorry for misenterpreting.

1 Like
59

So it’s sort of like a book in that sense, I’m not sure what’s the issue with citing a website “dead” since 2006 vs when we cite some documents from sometime in the 1990’s. I somehow doubt radical new information has leapt out about an autoloader designed in the late 1960’s.

I only want to point out books aren’t necessarily hugely more reliable than websites. Zaloga as an example just pulls numbers often from thin air, such is the case with many sources on these subjects. Perhaps because they are talking about something secret and uncitable.

So it seems. It would mean Gaijin is at least correct about basic T-72 autoloaders. It leaves the other autoloader type in doubt.

Because they make no seperation between the gunners sights and the cannon in terms of elevation and so on? I would definitely welcome updates which improve the realism of the mechanics surrounding fire control systems and so on.

I’ll believe that when it happens.

I’m unsure if the cyclogram would count as a primary source, but to be honest I’m doubtful crew manuals get so explicit and technical about the exact functioning, that detail is usually reserved for designing engineers only.

Indeed. I’m not trying to prove this to gaijin, merely point out there are lower numbers from reliable sources that Gaijin doesn’t use. As an example, T-64 and T-80 use almost identical autoloaders and yet in-game we see T-80B somehow reloading slower than T-80U??? Seems like a nerf for BR reasons, same with the thermals being added. Tacking bits on to keep at an ideal BR.

I’d advise looking at ovtaga forum, oftentimes lots of interesting information there, but you may become severely mentally ill from prolonged exposure to forum warriors arguing using probably illegal evidence. Sturgeon’s House forum also, but that’s english language so few problems to understand them. Websites like Fofanov and BTVT are just compilations of stuff people posted on Otvaga forum, to be honest.

It’s all good. I’m here to discuss and present evidence and arguments, not some mudslinging match (just don’t look too much at my posts in the abrams threads 💀)

60

It is not. Books cite sources for their claims, that website does not as far as I can find.

Because Gaijin currently takes the maximum traverse rate of the elevation mechanism, not the maximum traverse rate that the gunner’s controls allow for.

My Leopard 2 tank manual has an entire chapter dedicated to the elevation mechanism.

61

They should do that ideally, however the reality is often a lack of citations, citations to poor quality sources, citations that say the opposite or just citations to evidence that is wrong.

Indeed it apparently does not.

I see, would be very interesting to see gunners sights implemented more like how commanders sights are at the moment.

Could still be exceptional, also it’s a bit different since the crew must be somewhat aware how the elevation mechanism functions since you almost constantly have to use it.

The exact mechanisms and functioning of the aiming systems are of paramount imprtance since basically any mechanical property of those systems affects how it has to be used, an example might be what’s the minimal adjustment that can be made to the gun’s elevation or what kind of peculiarities might the mechanism induce in certain types of situations, (tracking a target moving towards you or any situation you can imagine)

The exact functionings and timings of the autoloader systems seems, by contrast, entirely superfluous since the crew don’t really interact with it in the same way. It’s more akin to a trigger on a service pistol. You only need to know if it’s working and how to pull the trigger, basically nothing else about it.
The autoloader is either working, in which case you specify which shell you want and command it to load, or it’s malfunctioning and you have the joyous task of manually loading. It’s not like the crew can even do a huge amount about the mechanism should problems arise, they’re likely a case of more than elementary jamming.
This arises from the degree to which the mechanism is automated and independent of human input or action. Keep your arms out of the way and it does its work.

I’m sure a service rifle manual wouldn’t specify, using a cyclogram as an example, how many miliseconds it takes for each part of the firing motions, bullet moving from the magazine, prior shell extraction ETC.
What you need to know is if there’s a fault, how diagnose a fault, how to fix a fault and how to maintain it so it doesn’t develop a fault. Also how to fire it, but that’s outside the scope of my comparison.

Have you managed to get your hands on, say, an East German T-72 manual? (I’m just assuming you’re German or can at least read German if you have a Leopard 2 manual, pardon me if that’s wrong.)

62

you can get a cell phone and install a translator, scan the words and it will translate german into english.

63

I don’t.
I own the Dutch Leopard 2 manual, I’m not particularly great with German.

That’s the manner in which it is described, it familiarizes the crew with the operating procedures of the mechanisms, and to some degree in how it works mechanically.
It also dedicates a lot of text to troubleshooting and what to do in case of malfunctions, and for that you need to know how it operates under normal conditions.

64

Unfortunately a lot of nuance and meaning is lost with computer translation, especially combined with how OCR isn’t so great especially with old scanned documents.

I wonder what detail, for comparison’s sake, is in the manual of a M1128 MGS or other contemporary modern NATO autoloaders. I wonder if they include cyclograms and other very specific information about the exact function and parameters of their autoloaders.

Since there’s all these stereotypes floating around, I’m less interested in stereotypes and more interested in the actual state of affairs. Hence a Leopard 2 manual compared to East German T-72 manual. Doubtless some reports were written during the reunification to make some comparisons, like how MiG-29 and R-73 were tested.

65

Putting the M1 Abrams/KVT at 10.7 simply because it got M833 is just so ridiculous, M833 doesn’t even punch past 400mm of pen, and extra 20mm of pen isnt going to justify a BR bump in anyway.

Germany gets a 120mm cannon with DM23, 410mm of pen at a flat angle. But ‘god forbid’ USA from getting a decent round since 10.3 USA constantly gets up-tiered to 11.0-11.3 we just simply can’t have them being able to defend themselves.

M774 is such a weird round it can’t even pen through most things and the spalling is so bad it’s almost hilarious, I’ve seen M774 bounce around in a tank like a ping pong ball doing absolutely 0 damage and 40% of the time you get some weird bounce or non pen even on blatant weak-spots, on-top of that it can’t even knock breeches out or barrels even on a direct hit. I’m having more luck using HEAT than APFSDS and that speaks volumes at how awful this round is.

If we dont get better balancing and M1 Abrams/KVT is still being uptiered to 11.0-11.3, it needs a better round.

1 Like
66

The M1 is and always has been one of the strongest MBTs present at it’s Battle Rating.
Any buff is likely going to result in a BR increase given that Gaijin only cares about statistics, and the statistics for the M1 are already outstanding.

The Leopard 2A4 has worse firepower than the Abrams, but you’re still not satisfied?
20% faster reload rate on the M1 for only 11% worse penetration. I’ll take the reload advantage any day of the week given that both tanks have to aim for the same weakspots.

The M1 is doing quite well for itself by any metric you want to use.

It’s got a global 2.1 K/D and 2.4 K/M ratio, personally I’ve got a 6.5 K/D and 3.0 K/M ratio, even when comparing the vehicle’s capabilities it comes out on top:

afbeelding
afbeelding1024×586 80.7 KB

67

how are those excuses? those are the major issues of the T series tanks

68

Well you got your wish, since you thought the M1 was so good, M1 Abrams got bumped to 10.7, and now gets to face 11.3 vehicles. That 105mm with 372mm of pen gonna work wonders for you now.

At least RUs 10.3 didnt get bumped, so you’ll always have a fall back nation that’s even easier than the M1 at 11.3

69

Everything else around it went up too, so the 11.0 tanks it faced are now the 11.3 tanks it faces.

It did get bumped up.

1 Like
70

Nope.
2S38s didnt get bumped,
T-72 Turms didnt get bumped
Strela didnt get bumped
T-80UD didnt get bumped
BMP2 didnt get bumped
Su-25K didnt get bumped
The only things that got bumped to 10.7 were Obj 292, T-72 Moderna and 2S6.
And the 292 should have been bumped to 11.3 at the very least, same with Moderna since its damage model is broken, and 2S6 would have been fine at 10.3

2 Likes
71

Those went from 10.0 to 10.3.

Went up in arcade, but it’s arguably fine where it is.

Both went fron 10.0 to 10.3.

Why does it need to?

I don’t believe that it would be viable above 11.0.

Link to the post with the BR changes

2 Likes
72

Obj 292 with 695mm of pen is better than even the 2A7’s DM53 at 652mm of pen bud, it absolutely deserves to be at 11.3 or higher along with other top tier rounds.

10.0 to 10.3 BR bump changes nothing lmao thats why i said it didn’t get bumped
10.3 to a 10.7 change is significant facing 11.3-11.7 is a big change.

73

Yeah, but it has a bad platform, awful gun handling, a 10 second reload, no MG, no smoke grenades, and poor survivability.

They are equivalent changes because nearly all 10.0+ tanks were moved up by 0.3. The only difference for the Abrams is that it no longer faces 9.3 tanks.

1 Like
74

It has the same survivability (coded buffs) as any other T Series tank. And 10 second reload doesn’t justify a low BR, if that was the case then the Tiger 2 105 should be dropped to 6.0, by your logic, because ‘long reload’

No the only nations that were actually moved up a BR bracket were NATO nations, the difference is they now face 11.3-7 tanks and doesn’t see ‘10.3 only matches’ like it used to when it was actually balanced with the rare chance of a 9.7 down tier, while Russia still gets to face 9.7 matches because a +0.3 BR increase doesn’t compress it upward, like a 0.7 does

0.7 BRs compress up
0.3 BRs compress down

1 Like
75

Strawman argument, try again.

Almost every single tank above 9.7 was moved up by 0.3. 10.3 (now 10.7) tanks don’t face any new enemies.