M1 Abrams vs M1A2

Sebastiaan · Post by **Sebastiaan** » Sep 21 2005

Question, why is the M1 Abrams so weak compared to it succesor the M1A2?

The M1 defense of 20 is lower or equal than most heavy infantry/scout units. Is the armor of the M1 so bad compared to the M1A2?

Slash78 · Post by **Slash78** » Sep 21 2005

Because it only has the 105mm M68 gun (same as British L7, on M60 MBT, Leopard 1, Chieftain MBT, etc). Also the armor is not nearly as thick. Their is a difference of about 8 tons between the M1 and M1A1, some of it is the 120mm M256 gun, but most is armor. The M1A2 weights about 2 tons greater then that. Also the M1A2 has a much better fire control system.

Sebastiaan · Post by **Sebastiaan** » Sep 24 2005

I agree that the first version of the Ambrams was less armoured, however, it defence rating of 20 is the worst for it age for a main battle tank. Even worse, it has the lowest defence rating of any tank in the game. Even 50 year old light tanks (AMX-13 Light Tank
) has a 50% better defence rating than this unit.

if you compare the rating to it succesor, I get the impression these has be made a mistake somewhere:

M1 Ambrams: 20
M1A1 Abrams : 32
M2A2: Abrams: 32
M2A3: Abrams: 40

Seems to me the jump from M1 to M1A1 is huge, it is 60% better

I recoomend therefore to improve it defence to a value that doesn't put america to chame

Baloogan · Post by **Baloogan** » Sep 24 2005

Yes I agree.

Slash78 · Post by **Slash78** » Sep 24 2005

I agree, something isn't right their. The progression should be the M60A3, Israeli M60 upgrades, M1, M60-2000/IPM1, M1A1, M1A2/M1A3.

Also I was looking at the AMX-30B2, Leopard 1A4 and for comparison. Both those to should come in slightly below the M60A3. They were faster, but they sacrafices armor to do it.

All other defensive values look good, except the indirect fire defense. The M1=88, M1A2=96, but the M1A1=81.

Also is their a reason an R is in the Leopard 1A4 squad fuel use?

Post by **Balthagor** » Sep 24 2005

Slash78 wrote:Also is their a reason an R is in the Leopard 1A4 squad fuel use?

Oh, that would be bad

... going to fix it now...

... fixed, thanks

As for the Abrams values, what is the concensus on the new rating? 27?

Slash78 · Post by **Slash78** » Sep 25 2005

Depends on what the M60A3 will be.

haenkie · Post by **haenkie** » Sep 25 2005

for this topic, speed is a relative defense isnt it....

In that sense it shouldnt have much better defspecs then the leopard 1A4

Slash78 · Post by **Slash78** » Sep 25 2005

I don't know how you come to that concussion. The M1 is both faster and much better armored, partularly against ATGWs then the M60A3. The M60A3 was better armored, but slower then the Leopard 1A4. If speed were a defense, HMMWVs would be getting blown up in Iraq (or Marine LAV-25s, or Strykers).

Why the M1 doesn't way much more then the M60A3 is because of its composite armor, but the vehicle is physically smaller (which saves weight as well).

haenkie · Post by **haenkie** » Sep 25 2005

I know america is great etc etc and has a great army etc etc

Speed in itself is a defense, why did the USA build such a fast reconplane to fly over Russia? We both agree it wasnt because the pilots wanted to be home faster... But to be out of reach of the enemy flak and to outrun any missiles send.

Hitting a moving target is still difficult. As the Star Wars program still tells us (any hits recently?).

So speed in itself is a defense.

I do not know technical specs from military vehicles. i dont have such information in my brain and probably will never have it. So i cant and wll not argue with you there. if the speeds are comparable ok, if not also ok.

I just wanted to add another line of thinking to this discussion. Not start a heated and emotional discussion about stuff i have no knwoledge off.

Slash78 · Post by **Slash78** » Sep 25 2005

I know america is great etc etc and has a great army etc etc

It isn't about America being great, it is the fact that the Leopard 1A4 is a much older design then the M1. When it was designed the Germans decided on mobity on the battlefield over US M60 MBT that picked protection. Mobity isn't protection, it just means you can outmaneuver the enemy. Hit them from the side instead of charing strait that them.

The Leclerc weights between that of the M1 and M1A1. With a 120mm gun it would make the Leclerc heavier then the 105mm gun on the M1. Does this mean the Leclerc is equally armored to the M1? No, the LeClerc is actually better armored then the M1A1 (a tank that weights 5t more), though it falls slightly short of the M1A2 (a tank that weights 6t more). Why? The French build their tank with Western materials, but more along the lines of Russian design theory. The smaller the surface area, the better. It also gets much better fuel economy. The LeClerc's armor is also modular, meaning they can modify it when needed without having to totally rebuilt the tank.

Jets and tanks operate on to deferent mediums, fight differently so the rules are different. Moving targets on the ground are harder to hit, but you just through more bullits at them.

Post by **Balthagor** » Sep 26 2005

M60A3 is @ 30, so is the T-72. Should we make it the same? 31? That doesn't seem to make a large difference from the M1 to the M1A2

This is the only downside to balancing, it can be one big ball of string

Thanks for everyone's help btw!