M829a1 Shell "Silver Bullet" for M1A2 Abrams- Modifications

[Jamaroo 246]

Introduction:

 

As we advance more and more into a modern age in War Thunder, sooner or later weapons used may need an upgrade to reflect a more modern standard. However as this is a game we need to consider a balanced aspect when adding such weapons as current munitions are more deadly than you may think, in fact some of them are still classified making it hard to get exact values on penetration. in terms of matchmaking the most powerful rounds are typically both put against America (being the French and Italian top tier munitions) so adding rival rounds to America could serve to level the field that bit more.

 

Suggestion:

 

The M829a1 Armour Piecing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) shell is added to the M1A2 Abrams tank and a final tier modification. This round carries a significant performance increase over the basic M829 round in the game. The penetration value of this round varies depending on source used, some people say it's about 480mm, others 700mm against steel plates. for the in-game version to be more justified Gaijin may cut this figure down the middle (590mm) or bring it closer to the Italian Round with 625mm of penetration. 700mm of pen may sound pretty cool, but could break the balance of the game. and Balance is very important to help prevent things from getting too crazy and completely defying all the armour in the game  

 

Pros:

 

-America gets a new competitive top tier round! (a new toy to play with is always nice ) 

- Players now have an extra goal to achieve when upgrading the Abrams.

 

-Brings the Abrams up to a more modern realistic standard..

 

-Enhances the M1A2's combat performance even more, giving it a lot more teeth in battle! 

 

Cons:

 

- Can be assumed that players on the receiving end will not be too happy, as armour that protected them from the M829 may not be able to protect against the M129a1. 

 

- due to the classified nature of the projectile, exact values are hard to find, so real life values are highly likely not to be reflected in-game. this will have to be 100% dependant on Gaijin's interpretation of the projectile's performance in-game.

 

- Could Spark a chain reaction of several nations getting better and better munitions, leading to the eventuality of current munitions being used which will ruin the balance of High tier battles (as some like the M829a3 have an estimate of between 800-900mm of penetration! which would essentially mean that armour is ignored almost entirely which would not be very fun ) 

 

 

Conclusion:

 

Provided it is added in a balanced manner, the M829a1 could be justified as being the next (and likely last) high tier munition for America, bringing it's firepower much more in line with the Leclerc and the Ariete tanks which currently often oppose America in matchmaking. overall for American players this round will be a nice extra to have on the battlefield!

 

Sources:

 

https://tonyrogers.com/weapons/m829_120mm.htm  (general Information)

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829 (general information) 

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m829a1.htm (extra information)

 

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/02/m829a3-apfsds-penetration-power-common.html (while this is the M1829a3, it serves as a nice scale to draw the a1 version from) 

 

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1086-tanks-guns-and-ammunition/ (for penetration values of various rounds) 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Jamaroo

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

[Conraire 5,723]

I voted yes, but with the Caveat that if we do see it, the 2A5 would likely also get DM43 or 53.   

 

As far as information on the projectile, it's rod is standard DU Staballoy with a density of 18,600kg/m3.  Rod Length is 680mm, diameter is about 22-25mm.  L-O Produces result as seen below, while using Firing table velocities.  Notice the 325mm plate/650mm LOS value at 2000m matches quite nicely with documents that have been posted showing the penetration of M829e1 at 2000m.  Initial Muzzle velocity is 1575m/s.  If I can remember where I put the document showing the rod length I'll post it here so you can add it to your post. 

 

Spoiler

M829A1

D:22mm x L: 680mm

U-Ti0.75%

18,600kg/m3

Vertical 260bhn

     P.B. = 601mm

  100m = 599mm

  500m = 590mm

1000m = 579mm

1500m = 569mm

2000m = 557mm

 

At 30deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 537mm

  100m = 535mm

  500m = 528mm

1000m = 518mm

1500m = 509mm

2000m = 498mm

 

At 45deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 459mm

  100m = 457mm

  500m = 451mm

1000m = 443mm

1500m = 434mm

2000m = 426mm

 

At 60deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 351mm

  100m = 350mm

  500m = 345mm

1000m = 338mm

1500m = 332mm

2000m = 325mm

 

At 68deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 280mm

  100m = 279mm

  500m = 276mm

1000m = 270mm

1500m = 265mm

2000m = 260mm

 

At 70deg 260bhn

     P.B. = 261mm

  100m = 260mm

  500m = 257mm

1000m = 252mm

1500m = 247mm

2000m = 242mm

Spoiler

 

[ColdMatches 943]

My only real concern about adding these high power rounds is making nations who rely heavily on armor (USSR mostly and Britain maybe), useless in turn.

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

Why people just propose stuff not thinking about how it would affect balance?

Edited November 7, 2019 by Alan_Tovarishch

[Conraire 5,723]

35 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Why people just propose stuff not thinking about how it would affect balance?

 

It wouldn't actually effect balance all that much from what I can see, just going by protection analysis.  Russians are boned pretty much unless they get 3BM46 Svinets.  Everyone else wouldn't really be any different than it is now. 

[Josephs_Piano 7,044]

Quote

The penetration value of this round varies depending on source used, some people say it's about 480mm, others 700mm against steel plates. 

 

And right there is why it should not be added.

[ColdMatches 943]

2 minutes ago, Conraire said:

 

It wouldn't actually effect balance all that much from what I can see, just going by protection analysis.  Russians are boned pretty much unless they get 3BM46 Svinets.  Everyone wouldn't really be any different than it is now. 

Using protection analysis it would most likely hard counter T-80U which I would not enjoy. T-90 could even be at risk.

Edited November 7, 2019 by ColdMatches

[Conraire 5,723]

1 minute ago, ColdMatches said:

Using protection analysis it would most likely hard counter T-80U which I would not enjoy. T-90 could even be at risk.

 

T-80U should be immune frontally as long as the K5 is intact.  Without the K5 though, it's dead meat.  Which matches with real world testing.  Speaking of that, if anyone can find documents mentioning testing of M829A1 vs the T-80U's K5 it could be useful to get the K5 fixed.

[ColdMatches 943]

3 minutes ago, Conraire said:

 

T-80U should be immune frontally as long as the K5 is intact.  Without the K5 though, it's dead meat.  Which matches with real world testing.  Speaking of that, if anyone can find documents mentioning testing of M829A1 vs the T-80U's K5 it could be useful to get the K5 fixed.

Well that's good. I too would really like a proper doc of K5 as it's really underperforming.

 

Also anyone know if M829A2 or A3 that has the anti-K5 tip?

Edited November 7, 2019 by ColdMatches

[Conraire 5,723]

1 minute ago, ColdMatches said:

Well that's good. I too would really like a proper doc of K5 as it's really underperforming.

 

Basically K5's current modifier is 1.7.  So 120 x 1.7 = 204mm effective.  Mathematically, the T-80U/BV Hull array should equal about 377mm vertical vs a long rod penetrator.  204+377 = 581mm.  Which is 20mm shy of what it needs to be to defeat M829A1...  If the multiplier were changed to say 1.9. or 2.0 it would be completely immune, most likely even close to it around the drivers weak spot.

[PantherAl 4,883]

21 minutes ago, ColdMatches said:

Well that's good. I too would really like a proper doc of K5 as it's really underperforming.

 

Also anyone know if M829A2 or A3 that has the anti-K5 tip?

 

A3 if I recall right, but not really an anti-K5 tip, more a case of a tip designed with ERA in general in mind, as K5 was still more or less a mystery at the time.  It was however, by and large, 'good enough', (And later testing vs. K5 once we finally got access to it lent support to that feeling) but it did cause the creation of A4.

[WulfPack 1,693]

Only if the other 10.3s get equal rounds....

That or it gets bumped to 10.7.

Edited November 8, 2019 by WulfPack

[Jackvony 599]

3 hours ago, PantherAl said:

 

A3 if I recall right, but not really an anti-K5 tip, more a case of a tip designed with ERA in general in mind, as K5 was still more or less a mystery at the time.  It was however, by and large, 'good enough', (And later testing vs. K5 once we finally got access to it lent support to that feeling) but it did cause the creation of A4.

M829A2 uses a stepped tip to attempt to delay detonation of K5 till it has already entered the armor. It's more of a short-term, brute force solution. M892A2 is the second penetrator from the top.

M829A3 on the other hand, has a steel tip that breaks off when ERA detonates, transferring the force of the explosion that would usually yaw the rod away, leaving the main DU penetrator (about the same size as M829A1) to impact the main armor. A more elegant solution. M829A4, I have no idea. I have personally examined its cutaway (I'm the guy who took the first picture of the cutaway that went around the online tank world) and though it seems around 40mm longer the M829A4, the tip design is still hidden as it is not a full cutaway.

[A_Random_Rin 104]

Only if the rest nations get their own competitive rounds and enough vehicles as lineup. Also, a proper mm for the top tier.
Just not now. 
 

[mursuttaja 745]

15 hours ago, Conraire said:

but with the Caveat that if we do see it, the 2A5 would likely also get DM43 or 53.   

 

Could someone remind me, why the DM43 was denied for the germans, when the ariete got access to CL3143?.

From my recollection, it went something like this: "the germans never adopted the DM43" among other such explanations.

So why would DM43 be on the "table" then?. and not just straight to DM53.

[sartt 1,460]

On 07/11/2019 at 14:22, ColdMatches said:

My only real concern about adding these high power rounds is making nations who rely heavily on armor (USSR mostly and Britain maybe), useless in turn.

like the ariete ignores armor or that one french round?

[sartt 1,460]

I'd say we don't need new higher penetration ROUNDS THAT MAKE ARMOR POINTLESS, this is the problem that the 3BM42 created along with the CL3143 and , OFL120 F1.later on., what needs to be done is the stupid change to NATO HeatFS.need to be reverted. 

Edited November 9, 2019 by sartt

[JohnF0X 134]

I see 1 issue with the implementation of this round, that is the fact that during tests it was unable to pierce the armor of the T80U, yet if we look ingame at the Italian tree with a dart that is statisticly similar to that of M829A1, said dart has no issue with the Kontakt 5 plate and rips right throught it at what in WT is considered "long range" (1km+)

Gaijin needs to rework the way Amunition interacts with these extremly powerfull darts else we will get a masive imbalance with the next wave of vehicles fielding DM53, M829A1 and so on, which will mostly feelt by the Sim playerbase playing Opfor Nations such as Russia and China

[Conraire 5,723]

45 minutes ago, JohnF0X said:

I see 1 issue with the implementation of this round, that is the fact that during tests it was unable to pierce the armor of the T80U, yet if we look ingame at the Italian tree with a dart that is statisticly similar to that of M829A1, said dart has no issue with the Kontakt 5 plate and rips right through it at what in WT is considered "long range" (1km+)

Gaijin needs to rework the way Ammunition interacts with these extremely powerful darts else we will get a massive imbalance with the next wave of vehicles fielding DM53, M829A1 and so on, which will mostly felt by the Sim player base playing Opfor Nations such as Russia and China

 

Thats the key issue I see as well.  But remember that was due to the K5 breaking the rod though, not the actual hull array.  But, like I said, that could be tweaked by changing the material modifier for it.  Then it should perform properly.  That needs to be bug reported with proper documents stating such though from the testing, in order for it to be fixed. 

 

Fofanov's site gives a figure of 38% penetration loss.. Which actually fits almost exactly with my slope modifier math, when giving the K5 a modifier of about 1.9 to 2.0.  

[Jocky_Strappers 1,230]

On 07/11/2019 at 15:58, PantherAl said:

 

A3 if I recall right, but not really an anti-K5 tip, more a case of a tip designed with ERA in general in mind, as K5 was still more or less a mystery at the time.  It was however, by and large, 'good enough', (And later testing vs. K5 once we finally got access to it lent support to that feeling) but it did cause the creation of A4.

speaking of the a4, a cadet in an academy shared this on another forum, where the a4 cutaway was put on display. and he was kind enough to provide a high res photo too!

Spoiler

 

I believe I also did make a thread regarding both the m829 and m829a1 performance a while back:

 

I think adding the silver bullet to the M1A2 would be pretty awesome to have so of course its a +1 from me!

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Jocky_Strappers

[Jackvony 599]

9 hours ago, Jocky_Strappers said:

speaking of the a4, a cadet in an academy shared this on another forum, where the a4 cutaway was put on display. and he was kind enough to provide a high res photo too!

 

Lol I'm that academy cadet. Fun day.

[MonkeyBussiness 1,228]

IMO the "700mm" of pen come from the light of sight interpretation wich mean it could pen 350mm at 60° irl but if you calculate at 0° it means 700mm , but it does NOT mean it could penetrate 700mm of flat armor since it's a long rod penetrator and if you compare that pen(350mm at 60°) to what we have in game it's close to the CL3143 at 1km (347mm at 60° and 601 mm at flat angle) .

From a gameplay POV i would like a more powerfull shell (but longer range engagemnt too !)

[duckmartin 1,889]

I would definitely love to see this in game but if it does come I hope challenger 2 gets its correct L26A1 preformence.

[Pope_Shizzle 4,180]

Every nation should be treated the same.  If we're giving one nation ammunition from 2003, everyone should get it from 2003.  If the date is 1998 or 2016, so be it.  Same should be said for armor.  Just be fair and treat everyone consistently.  Balance is based on lineups, not individual tank performance.  Adjust BR's as appropriate.