M1A1 HA/HC packages

[Jamaroo 246]

Glossary:

 

-SL, Silver Lions, in game currency

-RP, research points (used to unlock vehicles and modules)

-HA (Heavy Armour), Upgraded variant of M1A1 designated M1A1HA  with 1st generation depleted Uranium armour.

-HC (Heavy Common) Upgraded version of M1A1 designated M1A1HC with 2nd generation depleted Uranium armour. 

 

Introduction:

 

Whilst I may not know much about tanks (aircraft is more my specialty) I am aware of the notable upgrades the M1A1 possessed up until the M1A2 (which we know will come ) rather than creating two independent tanks however that would slow the progress and clog the research line, I suggest something different. have these upgrades as installable modifications instead.

 

Suggestion:

 

The current M1A1 receives 2 chained additional late tier 'modules' under the survivability branch, first being the HA (Heavy Armour) mod that upgrades the M1A1 to the M1A1HA variant, while giving the tank amazing armour protection (600mm against kinetic rounds according to wiki) it presumably hinders mobility, hence for the addition of the 2nd generation HC (Heavy Common) version. while offering less protection (still a lot at 470mm!) It would be a more mobile suite and also a nice lead up to the M1A2 with the same armour.

 

Ideally, these upgrades should be very expensive in terms of RP cost given their enhanced superior nature, at least much more than that of the current modules. 

 

Pros:

 

•  Having these upgrades in the modification line makes branch research much faster an easier
•  Allows players to expand on the M1A1 should they like the vehcle 
•  Vastly improves the protection of the M1A1 (as at current, most high tier APFDS shells can penetrate ANYWHERE)

 

Cons:

 

•  will definitely create some balancing issues if armour is too extreme, and thus upsetting a lot of players of other nations and incurring obscenely large repair costs to the M1A1. this can be corrected if other nations receive more modern vehcles. 

 

 

Conclusion:

 

This upgrade system in the long run will be enormously valuable to American tankers who may not wish to research an additional two vehicles for what is essentially the same vehicle but upgraded, saving both a lot of time (in research) and SL! overall a very big win for American players.  

 

Sources Used: 

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams (only real source used for M1A1 info)

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium (for additional background on the concept) 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Jaylem

[Princess_Pinch 5,625]

Open for Discussion.

 

However @Jaylem  your current suggestion is failing to comply with our vehicle suggestion rules. Please add at least two sources you used to create this suggestion. If you require help on this matter, then feel free to take a look at our guidelines for vehicle suggestions at the top of each respective vehicle sub forum. If the required changes are not made within 48 hours, the suggestion will be locked and closed.

 

Thank you very much.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Princess_Pinch

[eleks12 1,079]

+1 But i think M1a1HA/HC and the Leopard 2A5 should be 10.3 and the M1A1 and the Leopard 2A4 should be 10.0

 

Since currently the Leo 2A5 is stomping everything and the M1A1HA will be a decent competiter to the Leo2A5!

Edited May 7, 2019 by eleks12

[Jamaroo 246]

1 hour ago, Princess_Pinch said:

Open for Discussion.

 

However @Jaylem  your current suggestion is failing to comply with our vehicle suggestion rules. Please add at least two sources you used to create this suggestion. If you require help on this matter, then feel free to take a look at our guidelines for vehicle suggestions at the top of each respective vehicle sub forum. If the required changes are not made within 48 hours, the suggestion will be locked and closed.

Thank you! I will get to that tomorrow  

1 minute ago, eleks12 said:

+1 But i think M1a1HA/HC and the Leopard 2A5 should be 10.3 and the M1A1 and the Leopard 2A4 should be 10.0

 

Since currently the Leo 2A5 is stomping everything and the M1A1HA will be a decent competiter to the Leo2A5!

Agreed, there needs to be a bit more separation in the BR, this could provide an excellent opportunity for it!

[eleks12 1,079]

Just now, Jaylem said:

Thank you! I will get to that tomorrow  

Agreed, there needs to be a bit more separation in the BR, this could provide an excellent opportunity for it!

and maybe for the USSR/Russia i think the T-80UK and will be a good answer against the Leo2A5 and the M1a1HA

 

 

[kamikazi21358 998]

3 hours ago, eleks12 said:

+1 But i think M1a1HA/HC and the Leopard 2A5 should be 10.3 and the M1A1 and the Leopard 2A4 should be 10.0

 

Since currently the Leo 2A5 is stomping everything and the M1A1HA will be a decent competiter to the Leo2A5!

This won’t be possible if the HA is just a modification.  OP is suggesting this as a modification, not a new tank.

 

~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Which I can say,

-1, strongly,

the M1A1(HA) is a separate tank from the M1A1 completely.  It would be like combining the M1 and M1IP, the turrets are simply different armour wise.

 

As well, the difference between them undoubtedly justifies BR differences, which no, I don’t expect top tier to be clumped at 10.0 forever.

 

 

But why I am against vehicle combining when it simply shouldn’t be done:

Yes, it might be easier to research.  Short term incentive.

 

But long term?

 

1.  I doubt they’ll never, at some point, streamline the RP system.  Like where you have progressing multipliers and costs like at literally every other tier.

 

And I could even argue that more tanks could make this even easier to do.

 

 

2.  You’re down a tank.  Let’s talk Cold War and modern, since pretty much that is where we’re going.  Let’s assume they add every tank that could be in the game into the game, which I doubt will be done any time soon, but I am at least assuming they’ll keep adding vehicles as that is what they do.

So, what does the US have Abrams wise?

 

M1A2 SEP v3

M1A2 SEP v2

M1A2 SEP v1

M1A2

M1A1D

M1A1(HC)

M1A1(HA)

M1A1

M1IP

M1

 

By this logic the M1IP should be combined with the M1, but excluding this, by this logic, we would see 2 M1A1s gone, and probably many of the M1A2s combined, since the change between the M1A1 and HA is bigger from my understanding.

 

 

Meanwhile, T-80s alone, excluding the many T-72s, the many T-64s, T-90s, T-80 alone:

 

T-80BVM

T-80UA

T-80UE

T-80UM

T-80U series (2-3 potential tanks)

T-80UD

T-80BV/Late

T-80BV

T-80B obr. 1985

T-80B obr. 1983

T-80B obr. 1978

T-80 (1979)

T-80

 

Which the US has the M1 Thumper prototype I realise, but I also skipped like 5+ T-80 prototypes here as well.

Also, the T-72/90 line is bigger.

 

So, no, I don’t want them combined.  It lowers the number of vehicles we could have, for the very short term convince of “easier research”.

 

 

3.  As mentioned, it simply isn’t a small change.  The M1A1(HA) changes it’s entire turret armour to depleted uranium. Correct me if I am wrong, but it isn’t add on armour, it is a new turret.  The M1A1(HA) is to the M1A1 as the M1IP is to the M1.

 

 

 

 

+1 to the M1A1(HA) and variants, -1 as a modification as it should only be represented as a separate tank, as it is one.

[Jamaroo 246]

16 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

This won’t be possible if the HA is just a modification.  OP is suggesting this as a modification, not a new tank.

 

~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Which I can say,

-1, strongly,

the M1A1(HA) is a separate tank from the M1A1 completely.  It would be like combining the M1 and M1IP, the turrets are simply different armour wise.

 

As well, the difference between them undoubtedly justifies BR differences, which no, I don’t expect top tier to be clumped at 10.0 forever.

 

 

But why I am against vehicle combining when it simply shouldn’t be done:

Yes, it might be easier to research.  Short term incentive.

 

But long term?

 

1.  I doubt they’ll never, at some point, streamline the RP system.  Like where you have progressing multipliers and costs like at literally every other tier.

 

And I could even argue that more tanks could make this even easier to do.

 

 

2.  You’re down a tank.  Let’s talk Cold War and modern, since pretty much that is where we’re going.  Let’s assume they add every tank that could be in the game into the game, which I doubt will be done any time soon, but I am at least assuming they’ll keep adding vehicles as that is what they do.

So, what does the US have Abrams wise?

 

M1A2 SEP v3

M1A2 SEP v2

M1A2 SEP v1

M1A2

M1A1D

M1A1(HC)

M1A1(HA)

M1A1

M1IP

M1

 

By this logic the M1IP should be combined with the M1, but excluding this, by this logic, we would see 2 M1A1s gone, and probably many of the M1A2s combined, since the change between the M1A1 and HA is bigger from my understanding.

 

 

Meanwhile, T-80s alone, excluding the many T-72s, the many T-64s, T-90s, T-80 alone:

 

T-80BVM

T-80UA

T-80UE

T-80UM

T-80U series (2-3 potential tanks)

T-80UD

T-80BV/Late

T-80BV

T-80B obr. 1985

T-80B obr. 1983

T-80B obr. 1978

T-80 (1979)

T-80

 

Which the US has the M1 Thumper prototype I realise, but I also skipped like 5+ T-80 prototypes here as well.

Also, the T-72/90 line is bigger.

 

So, no, I don’t want them combined.  It lowers the number of vehicles we could have, for the very short term convince of “easier research”.

 

 

3.  As mentioned, it simply isn’t a small change.  The M1A1(HA) changes it’s entire turret armour to depleted uranium. Correct me if I am wrong, but it isn’t add on armour, it is a new turret.  The M1A1(HA) is to the M1A1 as the M1IP is to the M1.

 

 

 

 

+1 to the M1A1(HA) and variants, -1 as a modification as it should only be represented as a separate tank, as it is one.

I do respect this logical approach, if things were a little less tedious in terms of the economy related to tank battles I would happily accept this, unfortunately there is very little change for RP gain once you get beyond T4 (very, very, very little change) making obtaining the M1A1 alone a nose bleed even with premium vehicles and account. I would heavily dread the fact that i'd have to grind both the HA and HC just to get to the next top tank, or otherwise an additional 2.6M ( including crew training cost) that would otherwise be used for the M1A2.

 

So unless the economy changes to suit the new tiers (something Gaijin should of done way back when T6 was introduced) then i'd rather just have the M1A2 added and ignore the HA/HC variants of the M1A1. and while what you stated above about No. of usable vehicles would be decreased using the suggested method, at the current cost of high tier tank repairs it will be unlikely I will be spawning any more than twice, the earning vs repair of pretty much all late tier tanks is abysmal, there are faster ways to waste your lions  

[Baconator100012@psn 929]

i rather have it as a mod to prevent extreme SL and research grinding.. but i do like the idea of having an extra abram. What i really want as a mod is ERA. I would love to have M1a2 tusk 2 or 3 style with the ram forks.. looks sexy af.

[Tony437 0]

Hey guys. I think Gaijin plans to add HA as a modification to M1A1. Sources on the web states that classic M1A1 weights around 57 to 58 tons. In game it weights 59 tons. How much do the DU inserts weight? I think they weight around these 2 tons. That's why I think the M1A1 in the game weights 2 tons more than it should without HA modification.

[kamikazi21358 998]

On 08/05/2019 at 01:35, Jaylem said:

I do respect this logical approach, if things were a little less tedious in terms of the economy related to tank battles I would happily accept this, unfortunately there is very little change for RP gain once you get beyond T4 (very, very, very little change) making obtaining the M1A1 alone a nose bleed even with premium vehicles and account. I would heavily dread the fact that i'd have to grind both the HA and HC just to get to the next top tank, or otherwise an additional 2.6M ( including crew training cost) that would otherwise be used for the M1A2.

There are alternate solutions to this however.

 

1.  Put it in an expandable folder, have the M1A2 the next tank.  It would make sense in the long run to have the M1A1(HA) in between, as it would be an even progression

M1A1 introduces 120mm

M1A1(HA) introduces DU turret armour

M1A2 introduces stronger armour, some better FCS stuff when relevent, and modern ammunition

But it could be an expandable folder vehicle.

 

2.  Add the M1A2 first, although I would like the M1A1(HA) tbh, the M1A2 can come first.  The M1A1(HA) could be just another of the literally hundreds of vehicles they skipped, to be added later.

 

3.

My argument is more vehicles is good for the economy, reason:

 

when they add more vehicles, they are pressured to lower costs more.  Say, almost every rank 6 used to be 380-390k rp.  Now they’re 250k.

 

I also believe if we get enough vehicles in game, the researches system can be streamlined.  Because as of current, the current system at rank 6+ is not like rank 1-5.  The multipliers do not change, and the research doesn’t progress smoothly.

For example, I believe right now it is (research costs)

 

M1 - 250k, 2.0 rp multiplier

M1IP - 250k, 2.0

M1A1 - 390k, 2.0

 

now lets say they add all the Abrams, let’s say farther in the future, the top tank could be the M1A2 SEP v2, if we go that far.  Imagine a research system like

 

M1 - 160k, 2.48

M1IP - 178k, 2.54

M1A1 - 200k, 2.66

M1A1(HA) - 210k, 2.78

M1A2 - 240k, 2.84

M1A2 SEP v1 - 250k, 2.96

M1A2 SEP v2 - 300k, 3.0

 

(I imagine vehicles like the M1A1(HC), M1A1D, etc. could be in expandable folders.)

 

These are random numbers I made up, but something like this.  Currently at ~7.7s, like the T-54 1949/51, the RP multiplier ends at 2.0.  As they added tanks since 2015, they never increased this number, the Leopard 2A5 still has a 2.0 RP multiplier.  While at the same time, repair costs do increase, but it isn’t even, you get vehicles sometimes clumped at the same research and more.

 

Doing something like this would be beneficial for Gaijin even, because they could have a similar grind to now, but, people won’t complain quite as much about it.  Because they would be researching more vehicles more often, even though the amount of time to getting to top tier could be the same or so.  However, vehicles are required to do this, more vehicles.  Every nation, even nations like Japan, have the capability of doing this, as every nation has, and I wish I was joking, like 10-20% of their Cold War vehicle actually represented.  This could be better for the future, but, combining tanks constantly like the M1A1 and M1A1(HA) deceases this possibility, to where grind for top tier tanks may forever remain massive for few tanks.

 

 

 

On 08/05/2019 at 01:35, Jaylem said:

So unless the economy changes to suit the new tiers (something Gaijin should of done way back when T6 was introduced) then i'd rather just have the M1A2 added and ignore the HA/HC variants of the M1A1. and while what you stated above about No. of usable vehicles would be decreased using the suggested method, at the current cost of high tier tank repairs it will be unlikely I will be spawning any more than twice, the earning vs repair of pretty much all late tier tanks is abysmal, there are faster ways to waste your lions

Unfortunately yes, but this is the current state.  I am thinking of the long term too.

 

 

38 minutes ago, Tony437 said:

Hey guys. I think Gaijin plans to add HA as a modification to M1A1.

Is there a source for this?  Because there are no other vehicles in the game like this, for example take the T-64A and T-64B — different composite armour layout, despite the same gun and engine, so it is a different tank.  The M1A1(HA) is exactly that, changing the composite armour to a different type.  So unless they introduce interchangeable turrets like World of Tanks, I personally doubt they would do this.

 

40 minutes ago, Tony437 said:

How much do the DU inserts weight?

 A lot.

 

I think the M1A1(HA) is low 60 tonne range, like 62t or so.

[SunsetShimmers 7,929]

Heavy Common is 2nd Generation DU composites, which is the same as in the baseline M1A2 IIRC. M1A2/SEP added 3rd Generation DU composites.

 

WT probably doesn't need every Abrams variant implemented for the foreseeable future (just as every T-64/72/80/90 isn't necessary), so a progression of M1A1 > M1A1(HA) > M1A2 > M1A2/SEP is all that is required for now.

 

 

[Evaris 2,065]

My question is where you're getting the 470mm figure for the HC and M1A2, given that everything I've read suggested that the M1A2 has the same or greater KE protection (in fact, it's in US army procurement requirements that any Abrams upgrades have equal or greater KE protection over prior models of armor) and that the main difference of first and second generation DU armor is in durability and multi-hit capability.

[kamikazi21358 998]

On 01/08/2019 at 11:56, Evaris said:

My question is where you're getting the 470mm figure for the HC and M1A2, given that everything I've read suggested that the M1A2 has the same or greater KE protection (in fact, it's in US army procurement requirements that any Abrams upgrades have equal or greater KE protection over prior models of armor) and that the main difference of first and second generation DU armor is in durability and multi-hit capability.

It should be closer to 600mm

 

[Evaris 2,065]

1 hour ago, kamikazi21358 said:

It should be closer to 600mm

 

By everything I've seen as well, yes, which is why I questioned the OP on such.  Though I'm not sure on your chart, given most that I've seen provided for much higher CE estimates, and DU protection on the hull comparable to the turret on the A2.  

Edited August 5, 2019 by Evaris

[Shaun_Dorrington 325]

On 04/08/2019 at 19:24, kamikazi21358 said:

It should be closer to 600mm

 

it is widely known that the swedish tests

1. were simulations not live fire results 

and

2. had no DU inserts and were not made for or by the US army. 

3. The below chart shows the armor values according to an official US army training document for the M60A1-M1A1HA series of tanks. (multiple other sources confirm the accuracy of the document such as the recently declassified british test comparisons of the XM-1/MBT 80 and other tests of the M1A1) the base M1 has 350mms of protection from a 60° frontal arc the M1A1 has 400 and the M1A1HA has 600mms of 60°flank protection. from the direct front it has 720mms vs KE.

If you are wondering how I came to the conclusion that the M1A1HA has 720mms of armor vs kinetic projectiles here's is my math it should be mentioned that the armor on the M1A1-M1A1HA and M1IP would be much higher from the front that the 400 and 600mm 60° flank protection numbers.  the base model abrams was rated at 350mms at a 60° flank protection and its protection was (and is in game) 420-436 frontally that's 70-80mms vs kinetic over the base 60° flank protection or roughly 20 percent over the base flank protection numbers so you would have 80mms of extra armor (M1A1/IP) vs kinetic frontally (at least 480 to be exact) as (base model math is Y÷100=b 70÷b=x or solved 350÷100=3.5 70÷3.5=20) y is base protection, X is additional frontal protection percentage , b is one percent of base armor protection. so you can use this same equation to get the added 20 percent of armor on the M1A1 (400÷100=4  4x20=80 or 80÷4=20 to verify the added effectiveness. the M1A1 with DU will be almost as effective as the leo 2A4 as it has 600mms vs kinetic projectiles from a 60° frontal arc using the same formula as previously posted 600÷100=6 6x20=120 120÷20=6 so it would have at least 720MMs of protection frontally also the heat protection would be insane at (1300÷100=13 13x20=260)1300+260=1560 vs Heat.

PS. The frontal protection numbers could be higher, I went with the absolute minimum protection provided from the front needed to provide equivalent flank protection with the angling of the front special armor arrays taken out of the picture.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Shaun_Dorrington
Its simple meth :)

[AegisWolf023 1]

On 01/08/2019 at 07:26, SunsetShimmers said:

Heavy Common is 2nd Generation DU composites, which is the same as in the baseline M1A2 IIRC. M1A2/SEP added 3rd Generation DU composites.

 

WT probably doesn't need every Abrams variant implemented for the foreseeable future (just as every T-64/72/80/90 isn't necessary), so a progression of M1A1 > M1A1(HA) > M1A2 > M1A2/SEP is all that is required for now.

The HC upgrade is a bit big to skip, IMHO, but it would fit in as an optional research in the same vehicle spot as the M1A1HA, or even the M1A1, ditto for the base model and the IP.

Edited August 30, 2019 by AegisWolf023

[BlES 314]

In the game no Abrams has depleted uranium armor, not even M1A2.

M1A2 in WT has classic armor from 1984 M1 IP.

Armor of M1A1HA, M1A1HC, M1A2 - is not included in the game.

IRL Abrams started to receive depleted uranium armor in 1988, in 1991 Gulf War nearly all front line Abrams used had this armor.

[MonkeyBussiness 1,228]

1 hour ago, BlES said:

M1A2 in WT has classic armor from 1984 M1 IP.

you are wrong there the M1A2 can stop more than 600mm of KE (even the lopen round of italy) where the M1IP can  stop a bit more 400mm of KE , and in the devblog it's mention that the M1A2 use DU armor

Edited May 6, 2020 by MonkeyBussiness

[BlES 314]

1 hour ago, MonkeyBussiness said:

you are wrong there the M1A2 can stop more than 600mm of KE (even the lopen round of italy) where the M1IP can  stop a bit more 400mm of KE , and in the devblog it's mention that the M1A2 use DU armor

Yes, you are right, it's not included in X-ray but it is in protection analysis. In this case HA could be a mod for M1A1.

[jowkamwt335@psn 120]

Not so many people talks about USMC M1A1 variant. I heard Marines one called "M1A1 FEP". Is that FEP different from M1A1 HA or HC? I want those USMC version, which has different smoke discharger and HE-FRAG ammunition.(M829A1? A2?  I don't know) I guess it's not has better protection than M1A2 SEP something, but it is nice tank.

[croatiankiller 558]

15 hours ago, jowkamwt335@psn said:

Not so many people talks about USMC M1A1 variant. I heard Marines one called "M1A1 FEP". Is that FEP different from M1A1 HA or HC? I want those USMC version, which has different smoke discharger and HE-FRAG ammunition.(M829A1? A2?  I don't know) I guess it's not has better protection than M1A2 SEP something, but it is nice tank.

M1A1 FEP is way too modern.It has 3 gen DU armor as well some upgrades that are not relevant in warthunder because we don't have that mechanic yet.M1A1HA and M1A1HC are enough for now but they need to get a same shell as M1A2.

[MCmaddawg 341]

7 hours ago, croatiankiller said:

M1A1 FEP is way too modern.It has 3 gen DU armor as well some upgrades that are not relevant in warthunder because we don't have that mechanic yet.M1A1HA and M1A1HC are enough for now but they need to get a same shell as M1A2.

Nothing is "WaY ToO MoDeRn". Look around, we have 2012+ tech ingame. If gaijin decided to add the freaking T-14 Armata tomorrow it wouldn't matter, there isn't a cap for anything. So how about we give the americans the armor they need, then atleast it'll be able to survive turret shots.

[croatiankiller 558]

16 minutes ago, MCmaddawg said:

Nothing is "WaY ToO MoDeRn". Look around, we have 2012+ tech ingame. If gaijin decided to add the freaking T-14 Armata tomorrow it wouldn't matter, there isn't a cap for anything. So how about we give the americans the armor they need, then atleast it'll be able to survive turret shots.

It is modern.I play american top tier and turret armor on M1A2 is enough for now.If we move to way modern shells we need new tanks with better armor but for now it's fine.Gaijin needs to fix armor values on abrams before M1A2 and then you will get competent tanks.Also M1 and IPM1 need new shells like M 900 as M1A1 needs M289A1.

[MCmaddawg 341]

19 hours ago, croatiankiller said:

It is modern.I play american top tier and turret armor on M1A2 is enough for now.If we move to way modern shells we need new tanks with better armor but for now it's fine.Gaijin needs to fix armor values on abrams before M1A2 and then you will get competent tanks.Also M1 and IPM1 need new shells like M 900 as M1A1 needs M289A1.

Like I said before, nothing is too modern. The T72B3 is from 2016.

[jowkamwt335@psn 120]

I think M1A1 stay current status, add M900 for IPM1 and go up 10.3, then M1A1 HA or HC or FEP is better. And yes, nothing is too modern. Type16 is also from 2016. And those modern tanks be OP? I don't think so. Even those tanks easily destroyed by Ka-50, or Apaches. Those 10km range missiles are still problem for ground battle, but they still exist.