a D.U Penetrator would melt / incinerate everything behind it igniting any fuel and ammo, due to its pyrophoric effect post penetration… That’s why i have always said, there are no D.U weapons in this game.
5 Likes
What ever a D.U Penetrator hits, also catches fire. Less spall = less things catching fire. I guess kevlar would melt if it did catch any spall from the D.U rod itself. I also think they did test on the m11a3’s spall liners, but that wasn’t with D.U i think Live Fire Test and Evaluation of M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier Spall Liners (dtic.mil)
I read somewhere that the spall liner was built into the hull armor behind the internal metal plates, I cant remember where I saw that but I suppose that some metal or kevlar spall liner would catch the spall when the round pens the external armor and then have to deal with the inside layer of metal (most likely panels to cover electronics and wiring) after having all the spall caught by the liner in between the external armor plate and the wiring/interior panels. I saw a picture of the inside of the tank somewhere on the bug reports that showed the internal plating to be secured by screws so there must be some sort of spall liner since the US army likes redundant safety mechanisms. Surely they wouldn’t be so overconfident that they cant be penetrated that they say the PPE worn by crew is enough.
Issue with that is then the inner metal plate would spall. Might be less but proving such would be hard.
1 Like
Or even not at all. In War Thunder, plates with a thickness of 4mm and below don’t generate any spall at all;
So- if the Abrams DID have an internal spall liner behind a 2mm thick metal sheet covering them, they would be as effective (if not even more, since the 2mm thick plate would be an additional spall liner) as regular spall liners.
4 Likes
In war thunder that makes sense. But if you put a thin metal sheet behind a spall liner i would think it would produce spall wouldn’t it?
Well, not really. If it’s a 2mm metal sheet, there really isn’t any metal to spall; rather, the shell would punch through it just like butter.
For example, a Shilka that was hit by an APFSDS shell; notice how the hole is just the perfect shape of the rod and the fins? There was no spalling at all, the shell just sliced in through.
And that’s 9mm… now imagine 1-2mm.
10 Likes
Fair point
What happened to this
1 Like
I’m waiting for a response on the Distribution Code status or FOIA release of a couple key documents, with some other weirdness involved with that particular situation that I won’t go into…
As far as my other project of the L-O Tutorial. I’ve had to hunt down other public documents and information as a way to skirt around the classified or restricted nature of documents regarding certain rounds. And that’s involved sifting through many patents on the USPTO site, and the International and European Patent and trademark office sites. And I just haven’t had the extra free time to make 3D models of all the rounds yet, as it takes time to prep the base 2D Sketch images.
Example, my best current render of 90/40mm T320E10 or E16 based on the descriptions I’ve been able to find. Though I feel like I might need to modify the fins a bit, as the descriptions say swept back at 7-7.5°. However, with this one L-O does confirm the 5"/127mm RHA penetration ability at ~4800ft/s at 60° obliquity for the steel penetrator version.
On a side note, T320E37/E60, can’t really use L-O for this one though, as the front portion of the penetrator is Tungsten Carbide. Only real difference physically E37 and E60 have to do with the fin assembly and sabot being slightly higher diameter than the bore on E60. From the documents I now have, the tungsten carbide versions of T320, could pen the same 5"/127mm @60° at ~4600ft/s. Oh yeah, another difference being E37 muzzle velocity was usually 5100ft/s, and E60 was 5200ft/s.
12 Likes
Glad to see it is still being worked on! Looking forward to seeing what you’ve scrounged up.
1 Like
where are the spall liners for the Abrams, the M113s the M60s the Strykers, the LAVs?
Welp, Gaijin denied the spall liner bug report, but of course they didn’t bother to check the sources that weren’t just new articles. Here’s a new one that makes it clear what the sources are coming from (and that a source titled “Canadian Army Trophy” is not, in fact, written by a Canadian, but a US Army Armor School historian): Community Bug Reporting System
8 Likes
Do you think the metal just disappeared from this place?
2 Likes
So from your report. How does integral ‘spall liner’ stop spalls from inner armour plate?
It certainly didn’t create a 120° arc cone worth of hellfire.
5 Likes
The inner structure isn’t basic RHA / CHA / HHA as would be found in Armor arrays / external structure but a bonded layer of dual hardness steel which should spall significantly less (it uses a similar process(Krupp method) to Class B Special Treatment Steel which does not spall and is present in Naval, also similar properties are already conferred to ESR (Electro-Slag Remelting) steels present on tanks and so is not without precedent within War thunder) due to being designed to do so.
3 Likes
I just responded to this statement.
There was no such information in your report. And it is unclear whether this applies to the Abrams.
This armor can be found in german tigers, but no one has yet thought of creating a report in which it was equated with spall liner. Maybe you will be the first))
1 Like
I wonder what else happened in 1976(note the Supersession date on -46099B)? Maybe just maybe, the Abrams began the EMD phase of development.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA135524.pdf#page=25
Also
So what other Armored vehicles does Australia operate, sufficiently to attempt to create common standards between the US, UK / NATO and itself?
I’ll put it on the list of things to get around to, I’m still waiting on a number of reports to be actioned though.
Here’s a few;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eiJ7Wg5ff5uq
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LbD7XSmoaAJc
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fsqcDieAhCl3
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yUohrEMuQLna
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/DQVcEbp6pedZ
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/cz09XoPRMtPc
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Hx7gGP3cy428
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WH23XAMoBjeO
8 Likes