I’ve just made another bug report about the Abrams’ integrated spall liner: Community Bug Reporting System
It’s basically just explaining the material science and why an integrated spall liner makes sense, with a link to the other bug report since I was running out of characters.
Edit: Of course, if there are any actual Material Science Engineers (or a similar profession) who find what I’ve written to be incorrect, I’m prepared to be wrong (lol) so just correct me if so.
They’ve already closed it, tf?
Edit:
Response from whichever technical moderator:
It’s almost like I:
No, you don’t. There is no composite armor or kevlar anywhere between the penetration point of the right side hull and the left hull sidewall where the shrapnel ended. (Unless you include the crews kevlar vest)… What you are seeing is the Inconel jet of liquid generated by a small tandem RPG warhead. Nothing else. A small shaped charge such as that would not yield much in the way of spalling.
TL;DR what you posted isn’t spalling, nor did any kevlar lining or spall reduction methods exist in any of the layers shown.
yes there is, and the fact you keep saying this is proof enough you dont know what you’re talking about, let alone should keep replying.
It is just steel. The round penetrated the exterior skirt with the initial charge, and the second (tandem) charge penetrated the hull armor from the right side. There is literally no “special armor” or composites on the side of the Abrams hull. It penetrated the thin sidewall of the hull, passed through the gunners right side of his chair, narrowly missing him, and damaging numerous items before stopping at the opposite side’s hull sidewall.
There is no kevlar, composites, or spall protection in any of the affected areas.
Lol. For the sake of the Abrams, let’s remove the spall generation from all tanks with thin armor in the game. What is this magical armor with an internal spall liner that only the Abrams has. All other countries apparently know nothing about this and continue to use an interior spall liner. I honestly read your new report.
The only document provided that is significant is the one. All the others describe the process of spallation itself. And this document says the following, which you missed.
Behind armor effects can be suppressed from shaped
charge attack by making use of only the fundamental equations
established in chapter 4. In particular, it is
possible to decrease the stress of a shock pulse by the use
of an extended series of materials or laminations, each
material of decreasing specific acoustic impedance. The
major disadvantage of this method is the limited number of
materials with sufficiently specific acoustic impedances
not to mention the practicality and feasibility of manufacturing
such an armor system for armored fighting vehicles.
In this case, it is a purely theoretical possibility, not a practical one.
And given what is written below, I doubt that there is any need at all for such a complex system that can suppress spalls only in those places where there is composite armor only.
Tests of spaced armor liners have proven effective in
reducing the size of the debris cone angle and in capturing
up to 90% of all the spall that occurs after a shaped charge
attack. However, a more effective means of spall suppression
is to attach the spall liner system directly to the
back side of the armor plating.
Isn’t it already in the game ? Armor on ammo carousel in Soviet T-80s T-72s T-64s doesn’t spall ingame i think. Unless Gaijin already change that
I don’t know where you get this from. We’re probably playing different games.
Maybe Gaijin already fix it. I’ll test it later. or wait for others to confirm.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/xsccxr/glad_to_see_bvms_damage_model_and_magically_not/
His source is “I think” and footage of the game when literally all tanks had same low ammo explode chance.
Different things altogether. Thin armor not spall =/= ammo not explode. (Ammo not explode also should get fix or torn down)
Also not just armor on Ammo carousel. There also a case where thin armor vehicles not generated spall. So such things already in game.
Seems to me, next on the list is that Abrams and Russian and whoever else uses DU should be asking for modified ammo types. If only certain tanks get a spall liner, and all rounds are acting like Tungsten penetrators. Then those same tanks with spall liners get the biggest boost. Since it normalized ammo to further increase their already strong tanks.
Nations that use DU wouldn’t be so affected by spall liners and nothing would need to change. US mains for example are already used to the status quo. Sweden, Germany and Italy however with their leopards now would be affected by nations using DU. Further dampening the crews during a successful pen.
So nations that already get penned and eff’ed wont be affected too much further by a more damaged crew. But really would help and balance those that don’t use tungsten.
If some nations can get spall liners, because that’s what they had and other don’t have it. I don’t see why we can’t use different ammo types with different effects.
I know it’s off topic.
It’s not magic, it’s material science. Put simply, if the shock wave is weaker than the dynamic material strength, no spall is made. If the shock wave is weakened, the amount of spall generated is lessened. The integrated spall liner within the Abrams (assuming the innermost layer is thin steel or aluminum whose purpose is to have things welded to it) stops the non-innermost layer of armor from spalling, and the thin steel/aluminum plate does not generate enough spall to be an issue for tankers wearing spall vests. Visually, it would look something like this:
As for the innermost plate’s spall, as the armor plate gets thinner, the amount of spall taken gets decreased dramatically. You can see this in one of the figures of Source 9, where the difference between a 2" and 3" plate is plain to see:
SPANISH_AVENGER showed another great example with this photo:
Of course there will be spall generated, but due to how thin the plate is, the angle of spall generation is near-zero.
That source is to prove the idea, we already know there has been massive amounts of experimentation with composite materials.
I’m not even sure what you’re saying here, an integrated spall liner functions because of composite structures, so yes for it to exist within an armor package that armor must be composite.
This is a common mechanic for all tanks. The generation of spalls occurs on the last inner armor plate on spaced and NERA armour. If you have a scheme of the Abrams armor, then provide it to us, otherwise this picture is just your imagination.
This common spall generation mechanic for all tanks. But you are fighting only for the exceptional Abrams.
Oh! Maybe then you will create a bug report on the shilka?
The idea is not equal to the practical implementation. Show that such armor is implemented on the Abrams. Provide us with armor protection schemes.
In addition, the generation of spalls now depends on the thickness of the plate. On thin plates, the spalls are smaller and have less destructive power. So I don’t know what you are unhappy with. Probably because the Abrams does not kill all living things with its appearance.
P.S. I can agree with one thing. The angle of spall generation is too big for thin plates. More precisely, the angle is correct, but in such a wide angle there will only be metal dust, which does not pose any danger. But if we fix this, we will get practically zero damage from APFSDS to light vehicles like the BTR-80.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf#page=15
This is the only officially documented cross-section we have for the M1 it’s of the basic NERA Arrays (there is also various images of the assorted Ukrainian M1 hulks but it is often hard to identify components due to significant battle damage and / or lacking camera skills on the part of the photographer), and as can be seen there is significant space in most arrays that is apparently unspecified.
Also there may be some grounds to have the mantlet changed, but as we know its a game balance issue.
No source states or suggests that any of the plates are spall liner.
So then why the need to define Non-Conventional Armor separately from Conventional Armor and Special Armor in the report’s definitions section if it was not relevant? Also the cut-aways do not make a specific distinction about its presence, only that of Conventional and Special elements of the array.
Also as a modular system revisions were possible if need be, so it at most is probably only confirmed at best in regards specifically to the XM815(s) and initial configuration of the baseline M1.
It may also be worth mentioning that polymers & rubbers tend to pyrolyze completely when exposed to heat, the same way the textolite (reinforced resin) layers in Russian armor arrays does so may not be present once the hull burns down.
