Cant tell you on Chrysler as i saw it in game maybe two times for 6000 hours. But the GM is basically at 9.3 because it is 9.3 material.
Especially the GM yes
Does it really? It isnt that much better than MBT-70. Maybe slightly worse even.
so thats why M1 sits 10.7, correct
they have worst 9.3 APFSDS and average reload time, lack proper armor but have great mobility. And as they have thermals they are 9.3 :/
its their BR all an all.
Just to follow up on this, the missing composite armor is not some minor omission. Both XM1 tanks were modified early on in their design phase to accommodate the installation of Chobham type “special armor”. A 1981 report “COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF MAIN BATTLE TANKS: LESSONS FROM THE U.S.-GERMAN EXPERIENCE, 1963-1978” argues that the inclusion of composite armor was a defining factor of the XM1 project as a whole, and that the lack of Chobham type armor on the Leopard II at the time hindered it in the eyes of the US Army.
Additionally, the GM and Chrysler contracts were clear: they would each need to build three examples of their tank: one to test the gun and fire control system, one to test automotive components, and one to test the armor. The tank used to test the gun and FCS would be a fully complete prototype, the automotive test tank was a bare-bones hull and turret, and the armor test tank would basically just be a hull and turret to be used for live fire ballistic testing. I cannot see any way that the GM XM1 complete prototype nor the armor test prototype would have not had the composite armor included in the hull. It is one of the driving features of the project.
I’d say the GM is slightly better than the Chrysler but definitely not a 0.3 BR difference kind of good.
Other than the reverse speed, improved suspension controls, and 20mm, the GM is better or just as good in every other way.
A better comparison would be with the KPZ-70, which I’d call the GM’s equal (if not slightly better).