M1A2 Abrams

[Abrams_X 1,234]

M1A2 Abrams

Tank, Combat, Full Tracked: 120-mm Gun, M1A2 General Abrams

 

M1A2 Abrams is further development of M1A1, it features improved protection and better firepower. Entered service in 1992, and participated in the Operation Iraqi Freedom(OIF) in 2003.

It was third improvement of M1 tank, and it also called as M1 Block II. M1A2 incorporates major redesigns to its interior and includes commander's independent thermal viewer(CITV), commander's integrated display, position/navigational unit, driver's thermal viewer and improved gunner's primary sight. 

 

Description

Quote

The M1A2 Abrams main battle tank is a further development of the M1A1. Currently it is one of the best MBTs in the world. Development of improved M1A1 began in 1988. About 1 200-1 500 M1A2 main battle tanks were delivered to the US army. Out of this number approximately 1 000 out-dated M1 main battle tanks were upgraded to the M1A2 standard. It is planned that this tank will remain in service beyond 2050. The M1A2 has been exported to Kuwait (218) and Saudi Arabia (457).

   The Abrams is protected by Chobham composite armor. Protection of the M1A2 was improved by using depleted uranium mesh at the front of the hull and turret. It offers significant protection against all known anti-tank weapons, however overall weight increased comparing with the M1A1. Protection of the M1A2 Abrams is considered as one of the best in the world. All active service M1A1 tanks have been retrofitted with depleted uranium armor. M1A2 tanks supplied to Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia have downgraded armor without depleted uranium layers. Ammunition for the main gun is stored in the turret bustle, fitted with blow-out panels. Interior is lined with Kevlar liner for protection against spalling. The M1A2 Abrams can be fitted with explosive reactive armor blocks. Some M1A2 tanks are equipped with missile countermeasure devices, intended to detect and jam guidance of the laser-guided missiles.

   Vehicle is armed with the M256 120 mm smoothbore gun, originally developed by Rheinmetall and manufactured under license in USA. This gun is loaded manually. Such gun loading system is more reliable than autoloaders used on some other tanks. The M1A2 has an improved fire control system and its components. Range of effective fire in excess of 4 km. The M1A2 has a target acquisition system with hunter-killer capability. Many tanks produced in the early 90s lack this capability.

   Secondary armament consists of coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun, another 7.62 mm machine gun mounted over the gunner's hatch and 12.7 mm machine gun mounted over commander's hatch.

   Vehicle has a crew of four, including commander, gunner, loader and driver.

   The M1A2 Abrams is powered by Avco Lycoming (now Honeywell) AGT1500 gas turbine engine, developing 1 500 horsepower. Essentially it is a modified helicopter engine, adapted for use on tanks. It is a multi-fuel engine, which can run on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. This engine has impressive performance and is compact for its power output. So even though the Abrams tank is heavy and bulky, it is surprisingly agile. It is faster than many other tanks and has superior cross-country performance. Also the engine is remarkably quiet. Due to this feature the Abrams is even nicknamed the Whispering Death. Its gas turbine engine has servicing intervals significantly longer than those of diesel engines, however is troublesome to maintain and has very high fuel consumption comparing with diesels. Engine can be replaced in field conditions within 30 minutes.

   This main battle tank can be airlifted by a C-5 Galaxy or C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft.

Development

Quote

After the introduction of the M1A1, some additional modifications were considered as Block n product improvements. Approved by the Army Vice Chief of Staff on 1 February 1985 and reevaluated in August ofthat year, some of these changes were scheduled for incorporation into the M1A1 production tanks starting in late 1988. With these new features, the tank was nicknamed the M1A1+. The modifications included an improved non-rotating commander's weapon station (CWS), a commander's independent thermal viewer (CITV), a carbon dioxide laser range finder, an intervehicular information or battle management system, survivability improvements, and a driver's thermal viewer. The new CWS featured a larger hatch with periscopes providing near panoramic vision. The ring mounted commander's machine gun was fired manually with the hatch open and the internal power and manual controls for this weapon were eliminated. The CITV allowed the commander to search for new targets while the gunner was engaging a previous target. Prior to the availability of the CITV, holes were cut in the turret roof forward of the loader's hatch on late production M1A1s to permit the later installation of the new thermal viewer. The carbon dioxide laser range finder could operate under the same visibility conditions as the tank's thermal sight permitting the engagement of targets observed through the thermal sight. It also was eye safe, eliminating the need for filters during training operations. The intervehicular information or battle management system utilized a computer to process information required for command, control, or maintenance purposes. The survivability enhancements originally were intended to include improved protection against top attack weapons. However, this feature was deferred to later production tanks. Improved armor protection was obtained with a new special armor incorporating depleted uranium. This feature was introduced into the M1A1 production starting in October 1988. The new armor greatly increased the penetration resistance particularly against kinetic energy rounds. The driver's thermal viewer allowed him to see under the same visibility conditions as the gunner and the tank commander when they were using the gunner's primary sight. Thus he could drive without assistance from them in smoke or fog. Although originally intended for the first production of the improved M1A1, both the commander's independent thermal viewer and the driver's thermal viewer were postponed until later production because of cost restrictions. Also deferred to a later date was an identification, friend or foe (IFF) device. This was intended to identify friendly tanks on the battlefield and to prevent their accidental destruction.

 On 14 December 1988, General Dynamics Land Systems Division was awarded a contract for the full scale development of the improved Abrams. Scheduled for fielding in 1992, this vehicle, to be designated as the 120mm gun tank M1A2, included the commander's thermal viewer, the driver's thermal viewer, a position/navigation (Pos/Nav) system, and a new electronic system in addition to other new features previously described.

 

Armor protection

(click "Reveal hidden contents" to see)

Spoiler

Turret front composite armor is replaced by second generation depleted uranium armor package. Other parts such as gun shield, hull front and turret sides retained same protection as M1A1.

 

During Swedish new MBT trials, US did fire test against it.

 

M1A2 used titanium alloys to reduce it's weight.

 

Firepower

M1A2 features improved ammunition, such as M829A2 and M830A1

M829A2

Spoiler

 

Type classification: STD - 29 Sep 1992.

stepped tip DU long rod penetrator

as shown above, total length of M829A2 projectile is 782 mm and diameter of the projectile is 21 mm.

Muzzle velocity of M829A2 is 1680 m/s.

Projectile weight is 7.9 kg.

M830A1

Spoiler

Type classification: STD - 29 Sep 1992.

M830A1 High Explosive Anti Tank Multipurpose Tracer, also known as MPAT, is designed to defeat light armored vehicles, low flying aircraft and helicopters.

Its switchable fuze can work as both Point Initiating Base Detonating(PIBD) fuze and Proximity fuze.

cutaway of M830A1

M830A1 test against helicopter

Explosive filler is Composition A3, and it has muzzle velocity of 1410 m/s. Projectile weight is 11.4 kg.

Rate of fire is 10-12 rounds per minute as shown above.

 

Specification

Spoiler

Dimensions and weight

Weight: 63 t

Length (gun forward): 9.83 m

Hull length: 7.92 m

Width: 3.48 m

Height: 2.44 m

Armament

Main gun: 120 mm smoothbore

Machine guns: 1 x 12.7 mm, 2 x 7.62 mm

Elevation range: - 10 to + 20 degrees

Traverse range: 360 degrees

Ammunition load

Main gun: 40 rounds

Machine guns: 1 000 x 12.7 mm, 12 400 x 7.62 mm

Mobility

Engine: Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine

Engine power: 1 500 hp

Maximum road speed: 67 km/h

Range: 425 km

Maneuverability

Gradient: 60%

Side slope: 40%

Vertical step: 1 m

Trench: 2.7 m

Fording: 1.2 m

Fording (with preparation): 2 m

 

Improved Commander's Weapon Station(ICWS), Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer

Spoiler

Another major change of M1A2 was improved commander's weapon station and commander's independent thermal viewer. M2 machine gun is on flexible mount rotating around the hatch, and the size of hatch opening is increased. Elevation range of the M2 machine gun is +65 degrees to -35 degrees.

CITV

 

Sources:

Spoiler

 

TM 43-0001-28

FM 3-20.12

Abrams A history of the American main battle tanks by R. P. Hunnicutt

Northrop Grumman M830A1 HEAT-MP-T

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems M829A2 APFSDS-T

bulletpicker.com

Steel Beasts forum

Science of Armor Material, Ian Crouch

Combat vehicles: Today and tomorrow/A talk about Swedish Armor based on history by Rickard O. Lindström(Stridsfordon idag och imorgon/Ett föredrag om Svenskt Pansar med utgångspunkt i historien)

Military Today

Defense and Freedom blogspot(CITV image)

Federation of American Scientists Military Analysis Network

A264952 A comparative analysis of options for preserving the tank industrial base

A476392 Recent Activities in Electro-Thermal Chemical Launcher Technologies at BAE Systems(M829A2 image)

A459449 The Army’s Future Combat Systems Program and Alternatives

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by MuhAbroomz
poll added

[leroyonly 4,311]

Open for discussion. 

[Abrams_X 1,234]

42 minutes ago, leroyonly said:

Open for discussion. 

Thanks! @leroyonly 

[GenOmarBradley03 83]

I believe we should have the M1A2 seeing as the Leopard 2A5 is in game, both are maneuverable, well armored, and well armed machine that can easily balance each other.  Although going with progression, we would have to see the M1A1 HA or the M1A1 HC first before we get the M1A2 although all three are very similar to each other.  Awesome thread 

Edited May 4, 2019 by MasterBlaster456

[Kenny110 788]

Well since the 2a5 is in the game the m1a2 would be the correct counter part so I support this addition +1.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Kenny110

[Conraire 5,723]

+1 From me, about time someone made this suggestion.  This would be the proper contemporary counterpart to the Leopard 2A5, and if they eventually decide to add the T-90A that as well.  

[Guest Makinbears]

+1 for me. Would be a good counter to the 2A5, Get some other equivalents added to the other tree too. :D

[Fireraid233 4,274]

Nice +1 

[Guest]

M1A2 would be great.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

+1
> starts writing a new suggestion

[WulfPack 1,693]

+1

1 hour ago, Conraire said:

and if they eventually decide to add the T-90A that as well.  

I'm guessing that's coming back in the next patch

1 minute ago, dotEXCEL said:

> starts writing a new suggestion

What for?

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

7 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

What for?

soon(tm)

[WarDthunder 1]

+1

[kamikazi21358 998]

On 04/05/2019 at 11:30, Kenny110 said:

Well since the 2a5 is in the game the m1a2 would be the correct counter part so I support this addition +1.

Unless the DM53 or so was added, to be honest I think the M1A1(HA) would be a more accurate counter.  M829A1 (which both M1A1s should get tbh) would give it the best round in the game currently, [even with the stupid calculator that probably will give it 200mm less penetration than historically], and the Abrams with DU turret armour will probably have complete immunity with it’s turret regardless of it is the HA or the A2, plus ultimately 4-crew + blowout panels,

 

the M1A1(HA) will

 

have probably similar turret armour to the Leopard 2A5 (or at least just be immune to everything frontally on the turret like it),

 

I don’t think the hull changes with the M1A1(HA) I am pretty sure, so probably a weaker hull,

 

but have the most powerful round in the game in the form of the M829A1.

 

 

So I personally say +1 M1A2, since it is obvious they are just going to go modern eventually and it is in date, but I think they should add the M1A1(HA) first before the M1A2 as I think it will be more balanced and we should have the ultimate Cold War Abrams in game anyways.

 

M1A2 would be for when the Leopard 2A5 gets better ammunition, and please just decompress the BRs already.

[Abrams_X 1,234]

40 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Unless the DM53 or so was added, to be honest I think the M1A1(HA) would be a more accurate counter.  M829A1 (which both M1A1s should get tbh) would give it the best round in the game currently, [even with the stupid calculator that probably will give it 200mm less penetration than historically], and the Abrams with DU turret armour will probably have complete immunity with it’s turret regardless of it is the HA or the A2, plus ultimately 4-crew + blowout panels,

 

the M1A1(HA) will

 

have probably similar turret armour to the Leopard 2A5 (or at least just be immune to everything frontally on the turret like it),

 

I don’t think the hull changes with the M1A1(HA) I am pretty sure, so probably a weaker hull,

 

but have the most powerful round in the game in the form of the M829A1.

 

 

So I personally say +1 M1A2, since it is obvious they are just going to go modern eventually and it is in date, but I think they should add the M1A1(HA) first before the M1A2 as I think it will be more balanced and we should have the ultimate Cold War Abrams in game anyways.

 

M1A2 would be for when the Leopard 2A5 gets better ammunition, and please just decompress the BRs already.

You're overestimating the DU armor. it wouldn't have "similar" armor to the 2A5. estimated protection of DU armor is 600mm KE. it's far from 2A5's 800mm.

Also, only turret cheek has DU armor plates, so gun shield, hull front and turret sides will have same protection as M1A1.

Leopard 2A5 doesn't need any better ammunition, even if M1A2 comes to the game. DM43 never entered service in German army. DM53 is too powerful. DM53 would have roughly 700mm RHA penetration. Also it can counter heavy ERA such as K-5.

Spoiler

 @scavenjer it'd be nice if you provide some more information for DM53.

M1A2 is correct counter for Leopard 2A5.

[Conraire 5,723]

1 hour ago, MuhAbroomz said:

You're overestimating the DU armor. it wouldn't have "similar" armor to the 2A5. estimated protection of DU armor is 600mm KE. it's far from 2A5's 800mm.

Also, only turret cheek has DU armor plates, so gun shield, hull front and turret sides will have same protection as M1A1.

Leopard 2A5 doesn't need any better ammunition, even if M1A2 comes to the game. DM43 never entered service in German army. DM53 is too powerful. DM53 would have roughly 700mm RHA penetration. Also it can counter heavy ERA such as K-5.

  Hide contents

 @scavenjer it'd be nice if you provide some more information for DM53.

M1A2 is correct counter for Leopard 2A5.

 

That appears to be a screenshot from before the penetration system changed.  So I wouldn't expect that kind of performance now.  As the 60 degree slope modifier produced by L-O is 1.71, and not the 1.90 from that stat card.  DM53 should have similar performance to M829A2.  Which I've calculated from firing table velocities and what dimension data I can find on the internet.  From what I can find there may be about a 10mm difference at PB ranges.  Longer range depends on velocity retention.  

 

Spoiler

 

M829A2 Rough Estimate

D: 22mm x L: 690mm

U-Ti0.75%

18,600kg/m3

Vertical 260bhn

     P.B. = 638mm

  100m = 636mm

  500m = 630mm

1000m = 622mm

1500m = 613mm

2000m = 604mm

 

At 30deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 570mm

  100m = 569mm

  500m = 563mm

1000m = 556mm

1500m = 548mm

2000m = 540mm

 

At 45deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 487mm

  100m = 486mm

  500m = 481mm

1000m = 475mm

1500m = 469mm

2000m = 462mm

 

At 60deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 372mm

  100m = 371mm

  500m = 368mm

1000m = 363mm

1500m = 358mm

2000m = 353mm

 

At 68deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 298mm

  100m = 297mm

  500m = 294mm

1000m = 290mm

1500m = 286mm

2000m = 282mm

 

At 70deg 250bhn

     P.B. = 277mm

  100m = 277mm

  500m = 274mm

1000m = 270mm

1500m = 267mm

2000m = 263mm

 

 

[OldMachineNazara 407]

Don't use the Swedish test trials for anything except the Swedish Tanks and their Leopard 2, and the T-80U.

Everything else is pretty much just Export Versions. 
The Swedish tested the M1A2s armor with their own composite, not DU. 
Besides, the US would very likely NOT let the Swedes know their own M1A2s protection with its DU, particularly as Sweden is not part of NATO. 
All the armor values shared from the trials are just those for Export vehicles, minus the T-80U. 
The Challenger 2 did not even take part in the trials, as Vickers had not even finished the actual tank, let alone did they have the Challenger 2E.

[kamikazi21358 998]

6 hours ago, MuhAbroomz said:

You're overestimating the DU armor. it wouldn't have "similar" armor to the 2A5. estimated protection of DU armor is 600mm KE. it's far from 2A5's 800mm.

Also, only turret cheek has DU armor plates, so gun shield, hull front and turret sides will have same protection as M1A1.

Leopard 2A5 doesn't need any better ammunition, even if M1A2 comes to the game. DM43 never entered service in German army. DM53 is too powerful. DM53 would have roughly 700mm RHA penetration. Also it can counter heavy ERA such as K-5.

  Reveal hidden contents

 @scavenjer it'd be nice if you provide some more information for DM53.

M1A2 is correct counter for Leopard 2A5.

 

4 hours ago, Conraire said:

 

That appears to be a screenshot from before the penetration system changed.  So I wouldn't expect that kind of performance now.  As the 60 degree slope modifier produced by L-O is 1.71, and not the 1.90 from that stat card.  DM53 should have similar performance to M829A2.  Which I've calculated from firing table velocities and what dimension data I can find on the internet.  From what I can find there may be about a 10mm difference at PB ranges.  Longer range depends on velocity retention.  

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

M829A2 Rough Estimate

D: 22mm x L: 690mm

U-Ti0.75%

18,600kg/m3

Vertical 260bhn

     P.B. = 638mm

  100m = 636mm

  500m = 630mm

1000m = 622mm

1500m = 613mm

2000m = 604mm

 

At 30deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 570mm

  100m = 569mm

  500m = 563mm

1000m = 556mm

1500m = 548mm

2000m = 540mm

 

At 45deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 487mm

  100m = 486mm

  500m = 481mm

1000m = 475mm

1500m = 469mm

2000m = 462mm

 

At 60deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 372mm

  100m = 371mm

  500m = 368mm

1000m = 363mm

1500m = 358mm

2000m = 353mm

 

At 68deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 298mm

  100m = 297mm

  500m = 294mm

1000m = 290mm

1500m = 286mm

2000m = 282mm

 

At 70deg 250bhn

     P.B. = 277mm

  100m = 277mm

  500m = 274mm

1000m = 270mm

1500m = 267mm

2000m = 263mm

 

 

Yes, this is something I was going to say, the totally realistic penetration calculator would not have nerfed the DM53 from more historical values not at all, no sir.

 

 

But I should mention, since you are bringing DM53 into this, I should clarify:

 

 

My first words were “Unless DM53 was brought into this”,

 

Current game: with no other changes, I believe the M1A1(HA) would be more accurate.

 

I thought 700mm vs KEP was the 2A5’s turret, but even using 800mm, it’s like a M4A3E2 (75)’s turret vs a Churchill Mk.VII’s turret.  It doesn’t matter that the E2’s turret is technically thicker in a 1v1 between each other, because neither party can penetrate each other.  The, if the HA is 600mm as you said, it doesn’t matter if it is 600mm KEP vs 800mm KEP, because there is literally no gun in the game that can do that currently.  CE can, but of course these numbers increase with CE too, and even the M1IP that doesn’t use DU can stop the highest penetrating CE round in the entire game as of 1.87.

 

But anyways, the M1A1(HA) would have an immune turret, like the 2A5, but a weaker hull than even the 2A5.  But in return, the M829A1, which the A0 is already the best, would be undoubtedly the best round in the game as of current.  An acceptable exchange to me at least.

 

So, my logic as of currently: if nothing changes, if in 1.89 they had to release an Abrams, and they did not change any top tier tank or add any tank stronger to the 2A5, I would say the M1A1(HA) is the better choice.

>It’s turret is immune to everything.  It does not matter how it compares to the 2A5 as of now(future, yes; now, doesn’t matter), because it doesn’t matter if you have a tank with 600mm KEP vs 800mm KEP and they’re both shooting shells that are sub 500, or perhaps 500 something with the new A1 [never mind that it could do that easily at 2km IRL, but Gaijin says IRL is wrong and calculator is correct].

>M829A1 Silver Bullet will give it the best round in the entire game, to compensate for the weaker hull, and any minor mobility decrease (like 1.5 tonnes?  Might drop it by how many .something HP/t below the 2A5?)

 

This should make it an equal to the current 2A5, in the current configuration.

And if I am wrong?

Hey, just add the M1A2 the next update after the M1A1(HA). I imagine nobody is going to say no to the HA, might as well get it anyways.  I would much rather undershoot the strength-mark than overshoot it, add what will be, like what, the 5th Abrams?, and call it good.

 

 

Future Game:  I think this is where the confusion is,

if they do give the DM53 to the Leopard 2A5, then yes, I am totally for the M1A2 with M829A2.  I should clarify this, as then the M1A2 should be in strength I believe.

[Conraire 5,723]

47 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

 

Yes, this is something I was going to say, the totally realistic penetration calculator would not have nerfed the DM53 from more historical values not at all, no sir.

 

 

But I should mention, since you are bringing DM53 into this, I should clarify:

 

 

My first words were “Unless DM53 was brought into this”,

 

Current game: with no other changes, I believe the M1A1(HA) would be more accurate.

 

I thought 700mm vs KEP was the 2A5’s turret, but even using 800mm, it’s like a M4A3E2 (75)’s turret vs a Churchill Mk.VII’s turret.  It doesn’t matter that the E2’s turret is technically thicker in a 1v1 between each other, because neither party can penetrate each other.  The, if the HA is 600mm as you said, it doesn’t matter if it is 600mm KEP vs 800mm KEP, because there is literally no gun in the game that can do that currently.  CE can, but of course these numbers increase with CE too, and even the M1IP that doesn’t use DU can stop the highest penetrating CE round in the entire game as of 1.87.

 

But anyways, the M1A1(HA) would have an immune turret, like the 2A5, but a weaker hull than even the 2A5.  But in return, the M829A1, which the A0 is already the best, would be undoubtedly the best round in the game as of current.  An acceptable exchange to me at least.

 

So, my logic as of currently: if nothing changes, if in 1.89 they had to release an Abrams, and they did not change any top tier tank or add any tank stronger to the 2A5, I would say the M1A1(HA) is the better choice.

>It’s turret is immune to everything.  It does not matter how it compares to the 2A5 as of now(future, yes; now, doesn’t matter), because it doesn’t matter if you have a tank with 600mm KEP vs 800mm KEP and they’re both shooting shells that are sub 500, or perhaps 500 something with the new A1 [never mind that it could do that easily at 2km IRL, but Gaijin says IRL is wrong and calculator is correct].

>M829A1 Silver Bullet will give it the best round in the entire game, to compensate for the weaker hull, and any minor mobility decrease (like 1.5 tonnes?  Might drop it by how many .something HP/t below the 2A5?)

 

This should make it an equal to the current 2A5, in the current configuration.

And if I am wrong?

Hey, just add the M1A2 the next update after the M1A1(HA). I imagine nobody is going to say no to the HA, might as well get it anyways.  I would much rather undershoot the strength-mark than overshoot it, add what will be, like what, the 5th Abrams?, and call it good.

 

 

Future Game:  I think this is where the confusion is,

if they do give the DM53 to the Leopard 2A5, then yes, I am totally for the M1A2 with M829A2.  I should clarify this, as then the M1A2 should be in strength I believe.

 

So in your mind, the US should only get a tank upgrade from 1988 to be the counter to a tank that entered service in 1995?  It's bad enough the US and USSR only get tanks from 1985-1986 to counter the 2A5 at the moment as it is.  When even you admit that the Armor of the HA isn't equal to the 2A5 or possible T-90A.  

[duckmartin 1,889]

Am just curious but did the Abrams LFP 

 armour ever increased from the M1A1 to M1A2 ?

[kamikazi21358 998]

4 minutes ago, Conraire said:

 

So in your mind, the US should only get a tank upgrade from 1988 to be the counter to a tank that entered service in 1995?  It's bad enough the US and USSR only get tanks from 1985-1986 to counter the 2A5 at the moment as it is.  When even you admit that the Armor of the HA isn't equal to the 2A5 or possible T-90A.  

Yes.

 

M1A1(HA): 1988

T-80U (still trying to gather sources to make a suggestion to confirm this, but): 1990, with the current engine it has.

Leopard 2A5: first made in 1990 I believe.

 

But it isn’t about year.  It is about strength.

 

Compared to the current Leopard 2A5, the one in game right now,

 

Armour:

 

2A5 would have a 100-200mm KEP increase on it’s turret.  — completely dismissible, until we get better tanks — why does it matter?  Nobody in the entire game is going to penetrate either turret frontally.

 

2A5 has better hull armour I believe, since the HA does not increase the hull.

 

Mobility:

 

I believe the 2A5 is like 1 tonne lighter.

 

Firepower:

 

The M829 is already the best shell in the game, the 2A4 only has mid 400s I believe penetration wise.  The M829A1 will easily compensate for the decrease in hull armour and the literally like 1.5 tonne heavier weight:  worse hull armour (and it doesn’t have ammo in the hull like the 2A5) for an M829A1 high penetration APFSDS shell that will easily penetrate the 2A5’s hull at any range (excluding any possible ranges that are not in game, since Gaijin thinks it’s funny to give 1500 HP MBTs with stabilised 120mm smootbore guns and hypersonic APFSDS + laser rangefinders 1.5x1.5km, 2x2km, 3x3km, and if we’re lucky, 3.6x3.6km maps).

 

 

So yes, I genuinely think the Leopard 2A5’s equal, as of 1.87, will be the M1A1(HA), unless something changes.

 

And if this is not the case, and I am wrong, I would much, much rather undershoot the mark than overshoot it and create a new Leopard 2A5 that is even stronger at 10.0, with 3 10.0 backups.  So unless they do something drastic, like give the 2A5 DM53, that is when I say go full M1A2.

[Conraire 5,723]

37 minutes ago, duckmartin said:

Am just curious but did the Abrams LFP 

 armour ever increased from the M1A1 to M1A2 ?

 

Depends on the source.  According to Zaloga and others, it was.  But, anything solid on the M1A2 is hard to find.  

[Abrams_X 1,234]

6 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Leopard 2A5: first made in 1990 I believe.

2A5 entered service in 1995.

6 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

But it isn’t about year.  It is about strength.

And, 2A5 with DM53 is roughly better than M1A2.

6 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Armour:

 

2A5 would have a 100-200mm KEP increase on it’s turret.  — completely dismissible, until we get better tanks — why does it matter?  Nobody in the entire game is going to penetrate either turret frontally.

 

2A5 has better hull armour I believe, since the HA does not increase the hull.

Okay. 2A5's armor is better, but yeah, nothing will penetrate M1A1 HA's turret cheek anyway. so they are same level of protection.

6 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Mobility:

 

I believe the 2A5 is like 1 tonne lighter.

Max speed of 2A5 is 72 km/h, and max speed of M1A1 is 68 km/h. 2A5 is obviously faster.

6 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Firepower:

 

The M829 is already the best shell in the game, the 2A4 only has mid 400s I believe penetration wise.  The M829A1 will easily compensate for the decrease in hull armour and the literally like 1.5 tonne heavier weight:  worse hull armour (and it doesn’t have ammo in the hull like the 2A5) for an M829A1 high penetration APFSDS shell that will easily penetrate the 2A5’s hull at any range (excluding any possible ranges that are not in game, since Gaijin thinks it’s funny to give 1500 HP MBTs with stabilised 120mm smootbore guns and hypersonic APFSDS + laser rangefinders 1.5x1.5km, 2x2km, 3x3km, and if we’re lucky, 3.6x3.6km maps).

yeah. better shell will compensate for it's worse armor.

 

but think about it, a bit more. it's same for M1A2.

as i said, M1A2 would have same armor as M1A1 except turret front.

M829A2 won't penetrate the turret cheek of 2A5. DM33 won't penetrate the turret cheek of M1A2.

Mobility of M1A2 is same as M1A1.

M829A2 will compensate for M1A2's worse hull armor.

7 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

So yes, I genuinely think the Leopard 2A5’s equal, as of 1.87, will be the M1A1(HA), unless something changes.

 

And if this is not the case, and I am wrong, I would much, much rather undershoot the mark than overshoot it and create a new Leopard 2A5 that is even stronger at 10.0, with 3 10.0 backups.  So unless they do something drastic, like give the 2A5 DM53, that is when I say go full M1A2.

2A5 is already destroying the game. and DM53 can punch through the M1A2's turret cheek. M1A1 HA is not even a problem for 2A5 with DM53. but M829A2 can't penetrate 2A5's turret cheek, since its protection is more than 800mm KE. 

I think you're just overestimating the M1A2. If German gets DM53 or 2A6, then US would get M1A2 SEP.

[kamikazi21358 998]

11 hours ago, MuhAbroomz said:

2A5 entered service in 1995.

The Leclerc entered service in 1993, but mass production began in 1990.  I meant the tank was built first in 1990, if I remember right.

 

11 hours ago, MuhAbroomz said:

And, 2A5 with DM53 is roughly better than M1A2.

And that is why the M1A2, and the M1A2 SEP v1 should be added to the game... if the 2A5 had DM53.

11 hours ago, MuhAbroomz said:

Okay. 2A5's armor is better, but yeah, nothing will penetrate M1A1 HA's turret cheek anyway. so they are same level of protection.

Max speed of 2A5 is 72 km/h, and max speed of M1A1 is 68 km/h. 2A5 is obviously faster.

~~~

yeah. better shell will compensate for it's worse armor.

 

but think about it, a bit more. it's same for M1A2.

as i said, M1A2 would have same armor as M1A1 except turret front.

M829A2 won't penetrate the turret cheek of 2A5. DM33 won't penetrate the turret cheek of M1A2.

Mobility of M1A2 is same as M1A1.

M829A2 will compensate for M1A2's worse hull armor.

From what I see it:

 

18 hours ago, Conraire said:

Depends on the source.  According to Zaloga and others, it was.  But, anything solid on the M1A2 is hard to find.  

This could be a factor.  However, let’s assume it wasn’t, and the armour is the same hull wise as the M1A1 (although it doesn’t make sense to me to increase the turret armour repeatedly as done, yet still leave the hull the same as it was in 1980).

 

The HA’s turret vs the A2’s turret, again like the HA vs the 2A5, it doesn’t matter.  Who cares if the case mate of the Jagdtiger is 250mm thick, compared to the 185mm of the Tiger II (H)... if this was a historical battle and you’re fighting Sherman 75s.  Nothing is going though either.  Same with all 3 of these turrets, no matter what shell is in the (current) game is fired, all 3 turrets here are pretty much invincible.

 

Making the M1A1(HA) equal armour wise to the M1A2, in the practical sense of the  current game.

 

Then you said mobility wise, it’s the same.

 

So we’re looking at, do we want the

M1A1(HA) with M829A1

or

M1A2 with M829A2.

 

 

The A1 will go though everything, except for parts like the Kontakt-5 of the U, turret of the 2A5, and more.

 

The A2, maybe with some minor exceptions, will do the exact same.  2A5’s turret is still thicker than it’s penetration, or at least as long as the calculator exists.  So both shells do the same overall.

 

 

So why do I say the HA over the 2A5?

 

Because the Leopard 2A5 isn’t the only tank at high tier.  If both perform the same exact same against the Leopard 2A5: hull penetrable easily by both at any in-game range, armour effectively the same because the difference is the thicker parts are the parts that get even thicker, and they have the same mobility,

 

then I will choose the M1A1(HA).  Because things chan change with the M829A2 and the M1A2 vs say, Challengers, T-80s, and some nations still fight with 9.7 tanks.  So I will choose the weaker option.

 

So I think the M1A1(HA) should be added first, as I would much rather have that added, than to have the M1A2 added, and find that it is the new best tank.

 

12 hours ago, MuhAbroomz said:

2A5 is already destroying the game. and DM53 can punch through the M1A2's turret cheek. M1A1 HA is not even a problem for 2A5 with DM53. but M829A2 can't penetrate 2A5's turret cheek, since its protection is more than 800mm KE. 

I think you're just overestimating the M1A2. If German gets DM53 or 2A6, then US would get M1A2 SEP.

DM53 vs the A2’s turret, probably not because of the calculator, since it makes it weaker than IRL.

 

But that does not matter to me — because the 2A5, last time I checked, lacks the DM53.

 

If they add the DM53, then the M1A2 series is a must.

 

But we don’t have the DM53.  It has the DM33, right?  And it won’t go though the HA’s turret, as it isn’t even the best shell in the current game.

 

 

I should clarify this, and reclassify this.

 

 

Current game:  Right here and now, 1.87.  If in 1.89, no new tanks of the 2A5’s strength or better are added.  If DM53 is not added.  If no other better shell is added.

 

The game, right now.  I think the M1A1(HA) will be more balanced.  It should compete with the current Leopard 2A5.  It hopefully wouldn’t club as much as a M1A2 with M829A2 against non 2A5 tanks — this thing will be the same Br as the M1IP, M1, T-80 (1985), and will face literally Chieftain Mk.10s, if Br decompression doesn’t happen next update.

 

My entire argument is right now, currently, I don’t think there would be any difference between a M1A1(HA) and M1A2, if in a 1v1 against a 2A5.  Both will bounce off of the turret, both will penetrate the hull at any in-game range, both have the same mobility to each other, both will bounce DM33 on the hull but not the turret.

 

So, why not the M1A1(HA), so T-62M-1s are not being obliterated by M829A2s fired from a M1A2.

 

And if I am wrong:

 

You can add the M1A1(HA), find it isn’t enough, and add the M1A2.

 

But you can’t add the M1A2, find it is overpowered, and then remove it.  Otherwise the 2A5 won’t be in game right now.  The HA is safer, and I believe it will be more balanced.

 

 

Future game/changed game:

 

If the Leopard 2A5 gets the DM53 (RIP 9.0-early 10.0), then add the M1A2, M1A2 SEP v1, add the T-90A, add the T-80UM/UA/UE, add all the tanks that would compete against it.

 

 

 

I am not against this tank.

I just think right now,

 

the M1A1(HA) will be equally as effective against the Leopard 2A5 (DM33),

and won’t beat down non-2A5 tanks down as much as he M1A2.

 

Because I genuinely believe the M1A1(HA) with M829A1 will be the equal to the T-80U with 3BM46(if added).

 

and a M1A1(HA) might not hurt as much as a M1A2 in a AMX-40, Type 90 (which might be equal if it was more realistic), and 9.3/9.0 tanks like the T-62M-1, Chieftain Mk.10, AMX-13 HOT, and more.

 

If the current game changes, my opinion can easily change.

[Abrams_X 1,234]

36 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Spoiler

 

The Leclerc entered service in 1993, but mass production began in 1990.  I meant the tank was built first in 1990, if I remember right.

 

And that is why the M1A2, and the M1A2 SEP v1 should be added to the game... if the 2A5 had DM53.

From what I see it:

 

This could be a factor.  However, let’s assume it wasn’t, and the armour is the same hull wise as the M1A1 (although it doesn’t make sense to me to increase the turret armour repeatedly as done, yet still leave the hull the same as it was in 1980).

 

The HA’s turret vs the A2’s turret, again like the HA vs the 2A5, it doesn’t matter.  Who cares if the case mate of the Jagdtiger is 250mm thick, compared to the 185mm of the Tiger II (H)... if this was a historical battle and you’re fighting Sherman 75s.  Nothing is going though either.  Same with all 3 of these turrets, no matter what shell is in the (current) game is fired, all 3 turrets here are pretty much invincible.

 

Making the M1A1(HA) equal armour wise to the M1A2, in the practical sense of the  current game.

 

Then you said mobility wise, it’s the same.

 

So we’re looking at, do we want the

M1A1(HA) with M829A1

or

M1A2 with M829A2.

 

 

The A1 will go though everything, except for parts like the Kontakt-5 of the U, turret of the 2A5, and more.

 

The A2, maybe with some minor exceptions, will do the exact same.  2A5’s turret is still thicker than it’s penetration, or at least as long as the calculator exists.  So both shells do the same overall.

 

 

So why do I say the HA over the 2A5?

 

Because the Leopard 2A5 isn’t the only tank at high tier.  If both perform the same exact same against the Leopard 2A5: hull penetrable easily by both at any in-game range, armour effectively the same because the difference is the thicker parts are the parts that get even thicker, and they have the same mobility,

 

then I will choose the M1A1(HA).  Because things chan change with the M829A2 and the M1A2 vs say, Challengers, T-80s, and some nations still fight with 9.7 tanks.  So I will choose the weaker option.

 

So I think the M1A1(HA) should be added first, as I would much rather have that added, than to have the M1A2 added, and find that it is the new best tank.

 

DM53 vs the A2’s turret, probably not because of the calculator, since it makes it weaker than IRL.

 

But that does not matter to me — because the 2A5, last time I checked, lacks the DM53.

 

If they add the DM53, then the M1A2 series is a must.

 

But we don’t have the DM53.  It has the DM33, right?  And it won’t go though the HA’s turret, as it isn’t even the best shell in the current game.

 

 

I should clarify this, and reclassify this.

 

 

Current game:  Right here and now, 1.87.  If in 1.89, no new tanks of the 2A5’s strength or better are added.  If DM53 is not added.  If no other better shell is added.

 

The game, right now.  I think the M1A1(HA) will be more balanced.  It should compete with the current Leopard 2A5.  It hopefully wouldn’t club as much as a M1A2 with M829A2 against non 2A5 tanks — this thing will be the same Br as the M1IP, M1, T-80 (1985), and will face literally Chieftain Mk.10s, if Br decompression doesn’t happen next update.

 

My entire argument is right now, currently, I don’t think there would be any difference between a M1A1(HA) and M1A2, if in a 1v1 against a 2A5.  Both will bounce off of the turret, both will penetrate the hull at any in-game range, both have the same mobility to each other, both will bounce DM33 on the hull but not the turret.

 

So, why not the M1A1(HA), so T-62M-1s are not being obliterated by M829A2s fired from a M1A2.

 

And if I am wrong:

 

You can add the M1A1(HA), find it isn’t enough, and add the M1A2.

 

But you can’t add the M1A2, find it is overpowered, and then remove it.  Otherwise the 2A5 won’t be in game right now.  The HA is safer, and I believe it will be more balanced.

 

 

Future game/changed game:

 

If the Leopard 2A5 gets the DM53 (RIP 9.0-early 10.0), then add the M1A2, M1A2 SEP v1, add the T-90A, add the T-80UM/UA/UE, add all the tanks that would compete against it.

 

 

 

I am not against this tank.

I just think right now,

 

the M1A1(HA) will be equally as effective against the Leopard 2A5 (DM33),

and won’t beat down non-2A5 tanks down as much as he M1A2.

 

Because I genuinely believe the M1A1(HA) with M829A1 will be the equal to the T-80U with 3BM46(if added).

 

and a M1A1(HA) might not hurt as much as a M1A2 in a AMX-40, Type 90 (which might be equal if it was more realistic), and 9.3/9.0 tanks like the T-62M-1, Chieftain Mk.10, AMX-13 HOT, and more.

 

If the current game changes, my opinion can easily change.

 

 

Okay. okay.

if you want M1A1 HA, then go make your own suggestion. saying "give M1A1 HA instead of M1A2" in the suggestion for M1A2 is pretty much pointless. actually, that could interrupt this suggestion being implemented. and IMO, M1A1 HA is not needed, and if it comes, it should come later(in time) than M1A2. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by MuhAbroomz