XM1 (GM)

XM1 (GM)

XM1 (GM)

USA

VI Rank

Battle rating:

AB	RB	SB
9.3	9.3	9.3

Class:

PREMIUM

Medium tank

Purchase:Bundle or Gift

Show in game

STORE

Description

The Tank, Combat, Full-Tracked, 105-mm Gun XM1 (GM) is a gift rank VI American medium tank with a battle rating of 9.3 (AB/RB/SB). It was introduced in Update 1.79 "Project X".

The XM-1 (GM) feels like a M1 Abrams, being a prototype of that very vehicle. However, its specifications encourage anything but an M1 Abrams playstyle. You want to play the XM-1 (GM) like you would play a Leopard or a Ru 251. Use your speed, mobility, and gun to hit the weak-spots on enemy tanks armour.

One thing to note with the XM-1 (GM) is its extremely loud tracks, in some cases louder than the engine. This can be annoying, to say the least.

Unless it has all skins unlocked, it is either going to be OD Green or on desert maps a sandy yellow/brown colour. Other distinctive features on the vehicle are the combined Gunner/Commander sight is also a distinctive feature as well as the angled hull very reminiscent of the Leopards in-game. The vehicle also employs a hydropneumatic suspension. This vehicle comes with night vision for the commander and driver, and thermal sights for the gunner.

General info

Survivability and armour

Armour type:

• Spaced armour (Hull front)
• Composite armour (Turret front)
• Rolled homogeneous armour

Armour	Front (Slope angle)	Sides	Rear	Roof
Hull	76.2* mm (58°), 38.1 mm (83°) Upper Front glacis 76.2* mm (47°) Lower glacis	19.05 mm Sponson 31.75 mm Front 31.75 + 31.75 mm Middle 31.75 mm Rear	31.75 mm (9-62°)	31.75 mm Front 25.4 mm Engine deck 5 mm Engine grille
Turret	76** mm (48°) 38.1 mm (49-52°) Gun mantlet 31.75 mm (64-71°) Turret underside	38.1 mm (19°) Left 38.1 mm (21°) Right	25.4 mm (0-67°)	38.1 mm Front 25.4 mm Rear 12.7 mm Blowout panels
Armour	Sides	Roof
Cupola	25.4 mm	25.4 mm
Spaced armour*	Front	Sides	Rear	Roof
Hull	Upper glacis: 210 mm Kinetic 310 mm Chemical Lower glacis: 210 mm Kinetic 260 mm Chemical	N/A	N/A	N/A
Composite armour**	Front	Sides	Rear	Roof
Turret	Turret front: 250 mm Kinetic 580 mm Chemical	N/A	N/A	N/A

Notes:

• Suspension wheels are 20 mm thick while tracks are 30 mm thick.
• 6 mm RHA plate seperates the fighting compartment from the engine.
• Front composite sideskirts are 50.8 mm thick.
• Rear RHA side skirts are 6.35 mm thick.

Mobility

Mobility characteristic
Weight (tons)	Add-on Armor weight (tons)	Max speed (km/h)
52.6	N/A	92 (AB)
		83 (RB/SB)
Engine power (horsepower)
Mode	Stock	Upgraded
Arcade	2,357	2,902
Realistic/Simulator	1,345	1,521
Power-to-weight ratio (hp/ton)
Mode	Stock	Upgraded
Arcade	44.80	55.17
Realistic/Simulator	25.57	28.91

Armaments

Main armament

105 mm M68
Capacity			Vertical guidance	Horizontal guidance	Stabilizer
55			-10°/+15°	±180°	Two-plane
Turret rotation speed (°/s)
Mode	Stock	Upgraded	Prior + Full crew	Prior + Expert qualif.	Prior + Ace qualif.
Arcade	38.08	52.71	64.00	70.78	75.29
Realistic	23.80	28.00	34.00	37.60	40.00
Reloading rate (seconds)
Stock	Prior + Full crew	Prior + Expert qualif.	Prior + Ace qualif.
8.71	7.70	7.10	6.70

Ammunition

Penetration statistics
Ammunition	Type of warhead	Penetration in mm @ 0° Angle of Attack
		10m	100m	500m	1000m	1500m	2000m
M728	APDS	260	258	250	240	231	222
M393	HESH	127	127	127	127	127	127
M456	HEATFS	400	400	400	400	400	400
M735	APFSDS	353	350	342	333	322	312

Shell details
Ammunition	Type of warhead	Velocity in m/s	Projectile Mass in kg	Fuse delay in m:	Fuse sensitivity in mm:	Explosive Mass in g (TNT equivalent):	Normalization At 30° from horizontal:	Ricochet:
								0%	50%	100%
M728	APDS	1,426	4.7	N/A	N/A	N/A	+1.5°	75°	78°	80°
M393	HESH	730	15	0.4	0.1	2,990	+0°	73°	77°	80°
M456	HEATFS	1,173	11	0.0	0.1	1,270	+0°	65°	72°	75°
M735	APFSDS	1,501	3.7	N/A	N/A	N/A	+1.5°	76°	77°	78°

Smoke characteristic
Ammunition	Velocity in m/s	Projectile Mass in kg	Screen radius in m	Screen time in s	Screen hold time in s:	Explosive Mass in g (TNT equivalent):
M416	730	11	20	5	25	50

Ammo racks

File:XM1 GM ammo racks.png

Ammo racks of the XM1 (GM)

Full ammo	1st rack empty	2nd rack empty	3rd rack empty	4th rack empty	Visual discrepancy
55	44 (+11)	25 (+30)	13 (+42)	1 (+54)	No

Machine guns

12.7 mm M85
Pintle mount
Capacity (Belt capacity)				Fire rate (shots/minute)	Vertical guidance	Horizontal guidance
1,000 (200)				577	-10°/+50°	±120°

7.62 mm M60D
Pintle mount
Capacity (Belt capacity)				Fire rate (shots/minute)	Vertical guidance	Horizontal guidance
1,100 (100)				651	-10°/+50°	±120°

7.62 mm M240
Coaxial mount
Capacity (Belt capacity)				Fire rate (shots/minute)	Vertical guidance	Horizontal guidance
8,900 (200)				750	N/A	N/A

Usage in battles

This vehicle is best used as a support tank and not as a "brawler". Flanking is where this tank succeeds, using its speed and manoeuvrability to get to the rear or sides of the enemy. Another good tactic is to shoot-and-scoot to maximize the manoeuvrability and gun over an opponent.

Some enemies to be concerned about:

• T-64B(V): Aim for the drivers hatch if you facing it frontally. If possible, get around its side and hit it dead under the turret, you will blow up its ammo racks this way.
• Leopard 2K: The Leo 2K is extremely potent against XM-1's seeing as their speed and mobility is similar but the Leo has a better gun. The 2K, however, lacks sufficient armour to defeat your ammunition so hit the lower front plate or turret with M735.
• Leopard 2A4/Type 90: The hull and gun mantlets are weak spots and can be penetrated with M735. The Type 90 also has a glaring turret ring that can easily be targeted and penetrated.

Pros and cons

Pros:

• Very good speed, manoeuvrability and acceleration
• Very fast turret traverse
• Excellent manoeuvrability/speed
• Has hydropneumatic suspension control
• Not one, not two, but three secondary machine guns
• Blow out ammo rack prevents an ammo shot from destroying the tank immediately
• Driver and commander get IR vision systems, while gunner has a thermal NVD

Cons:

• Average gun against enemies
• While it has composite armour, it is useless against most weapons it will face
• Gun is sub-par; same APFSDS round (360 mm of penetration point-blank) as on the Type 74 and M60A1 (AOS)
• Front plate is made up of spaced armour, which doesn't provide the protection comparable to composite
• Similar ammo storage to the M1 Abrams, has the same side weak spot (although it is rarely exploited, due to the sub-par armour everywhere else)
• Tracks are very noisy (louder than the engine!)

History

It started in the early 1970s, at the height of the Cold War and the arms race. After the joint German-American project to create the MBT-70 main battle tank was closed, and the new all-American XM803 project was deemed an insufficient and too expensive response to the newest Soviet developments, the US Department of Defense developed a new list of requirements for the future American main battle tank. Two engineering giants joined the contest: the Chrysler and General Motors companies. Both contestants decided to use the developments for the MBT-70 and XM803 to design a new tank. Many corrections and additions were made to the tactical and technical requirements of the American government, first and foremost, on the defensive characteristics of the future main battle tank. The requirements for the tank’s armour and survivability increased, along with its maintainability in the field. In addition, the Arab-Israeli conflict showed that a modern tank must have the ability to effectively destroy armoured targets at long distances, including with kinetic shells, and also have a sufficiently large complement of shells. In spite of the changes and additions to the technical specification, the contestants managed to achieve their goals, and by 1976, they presented their developments, the experimental prototypes of the XM-1 tank, for testing. Both vehicles were outwardly very similar, with practically identical dimensions. They were alike in their layouts and used the same 105 mm M68 rifled cannon. Both tanks turned out very well. Which prototype did the military choose, and why?

The XM-1 (GM), the contest model from General Motors, became a further development of ideas and technological solutions for the MBT-70 and XM803 projects, including the diesel powertrain and mixed undercarriage with six roller wheels per side, three with hydraulic suspension and three with torsion bar suspension. The competitor to General Motors, the Chrysler company, used their XM-1 (C) model to present not only a progressive gas-turbine engine but also a new undercarriage with seven independent roller wheels on each side with individual torsion bar suspension. In addition, the Chrysler engineers were able to save funds on constructing the tank by optimizing the components of the aiming equipment and the gun stabilization system. These details played a decisive role in the selection of the contractor to make the XM-1 project a reality. In spite of the fact that numerous flaws and “teething problems” arose during the project, the prototype for the USA’s next-generation main battle tank was confirmed. After several cycles of correcting issues and modernizing the prototype XM-1 (C), the first vehicles began to be deployed under the designation M1 Abrams.

-From Devblog

Media

Comparison between a XM-1 (GM) and a XM-1 (Chrysler), side by side.

See also

• XM-1 (Chrysler) - Xbox One exclusive vehicle featuring the competing XM-1 model

External links

• [Devblog] XM-1 (C) and XM-1 (GM): Ancestors of the Abrams