But the documents show were the spall liner is as well as the DU armor. I also have a more recent (still not new but newer) one regarding the Sepv2 ERA
All false or complete misunderstandings that don’t actually mean what you think they mean.
Could I DM you what I have i’m not sure if it is fact or not and I wanting to make a big report.
Sure. I would be absolutely surprised if it’s something I haven’t already seen before.
Ok i’m not sure if it’ll be anything new but i’ll get them off my computer and send them to you within the hour.(There is a lot)
Make sure they are Unclassified, then ensure they have no “CUI”, resticted, or no export markings. Should be at the cover pages and around the documents.
I would say, just wait for the SEP V3, and if there’s no hull armor increase (there will be) - then you can boycott Gaijin HQ.
The bug report about Abrams spall liner has already been made.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BcMSgWYhwd5k
Maybe you could try to contact mod or bug reporter . to add more source to bug report. Also make sure that it is declassified docs before you send them anywhere.
1 Like
This is the same bug report that has no actual primary sources/technical documents, and is also primarily supplemented by an article (not an actual source) that states “interior is lined with kevlar” with an image right above that has… no kevlar lining whatsoever, on the very same page…
And they also added an image of an Abrams crewman where it’s entirely obvious that there is no spall liner.
That is why they then changed the report to claim it has an “integrated” spall liner that’s “included in the structural armor”, so that it wouldn’t “snag” - despite that not making any sense, and an actual spall liner that apparently “snags” already having been used in the American M3A3 Bradley. Not to mention that tanks like the Leopard 2A7V/Strv122 have this supposed “snagging” spall liner - tanks just as advanced, if not moreso.
Safe to say - this report could have only been acknowledged out of pity, and to prevent further dissent.
1 Like
Abysmal thread.
All for the 60 degree stat card number.
They’re still source none the less. At the same time there are no source that indicate Abrams has no spall liner or state why there are no such tech in Abrams. other than that one source which clearly state that they are docs about computer program.
As far as i’m concern it just Bug reporter giving opinion on why this could benefit using such tech over regular spall liner. It does make sense because it not somethings out of the ordinary.
Also in my opinion this way it could also save a bit of space and weight as well.
More like they’re still waiting for more source to clarify this matter. As they would just reject this bug report if they already had source that state otherwise. Clearly they don’t have them or what they had are classified.
We do not know for sure.
Again -There are no disclosure about Abrams internal spall liners “yet” .
It’s all classified anyway.Whole Modern MBT game is guess work.Forget reality and go for a good game.
It’s not even a disclosure. During the spall liner debacle - they expressly stated that they will even accept images of the interior with visible spall liners as a source. Which isn’t something they usually accept.
The Abrams has countless images of its interior with no spall liner visible. Every vehicle with a spall liner has it very, very visible.
Example: Chinese VT-4
Absolutely every single vehicle made to date has spall liners in the interior because an “integrated spall liner” makes absolutely no sense - as it cannot protect against a complete penetration. An integrated spall liner would especially be useless as the game doesn’t model non-penetrating spall.
Therefore, if the Abrams had an “integrated spall liner” (it doesn’t, and it makes no sense), it wouldn’t even do anything in-game because the last layer (the interior layer) is VERY OBVIOUSLY RHA, and would spall. Making the previous layer of “supposed” kevlar absolutely useless.
1 Like
An MBT will only include a spall liner if the tank has armour considered subject to spalling. The M1 was considered not to be although some crew were issued with Kevlar spall vests.The fuel tanks on an M1 were considered to be equally as effective as protection.
I know of crew on the M1 who never saw any visible spal liner.Yours is a very sweeping statement about every vehcile ever made having them…
IFVs are more likely to need a liner than an MBT and again it depends on the make up of the tank.This is 2024 not 1944.M1s were hit in nearly every engagement but the crew inside were mostly ok if a little shaken.
DU will come in and say hello regardless of a liner but even then M1 crews survived hits by other M1s.No hard fast rules.Most modern crew like to think they are not going to get hammerd by HESH any more. Again a very sweeping statement. Dont confuse MBTs with IFVs
I see the whole " reality" argument as irrelevant in a game as unrealistic as WT
3rd highest.
“Despite being impossible in real life conditions”
… lol.
nevermind the videos and countless tankers telling what the reload is like. Just stop dude. You’re demonstrably wrong. Don’t worry, I know you’ll move the goalposts on this in your reply.
1 Like
What goalposts are there to move? A 5 second reload in combat conditions outside of the first few shells is an impossibly high figure, and there is a very clear reason why the Leopards don’t have a 5 second reload despite having the same arrangement.
All things I’ve said previously. There can be hundreds of you and I will call you out all the same.
And you’d be wrong every time lol. That’s the end of the discussion. you can have an opinion, it’s just wrong. Youre entitled to be wrong, enjoy it my friend.
3 Likes
Sneed try not to derail every topic that’s far related to Chinese stuff with Chinese stuff challenge (impossible)
3 Likes
Duh ? what are you on about again ?
Because if it is "integrated spall liner it would not be visible to see. As it would be inside armor package or some sort.
How hard it is to figure that out ?
Again that would depend on how they design such vehicles , armor .
We have explain it before that it is possible to make integrated spall liner via study and source.
And there are source to confirm that US gov know about “integrated spall liner”.
Also even normal spall liner wouldn’t completely protect against complete penetration either. It there to reduce spall cone.
hence
If the Abrams had an “integrated spall liner” (it could be and it does makes sense)
But we do not already know . As we still lack source to clarify this matter.
Therefore
You’re free to think or believe as you like obviously; but until more official source can prove/clarify this. Your opinion alone doesn’t add much to what i’ve already been discuss with others.
Again -There are no disclosure about Abrams internal spall liners “yet” .
3 Likes