I mean, depending on how its done its entirely plausible internal pictures aren’t going to be obvious.
Like in one source above points to a backing material to catch spall in the frontal armor block. Could be thats the only place there is a spall liner
Firsthand experience - it is. It’s not meant to catch spalling so much as it’s just a backing for the composite armor. It doesn’t do the crew good - that’s why they’re mandated to wear spall vests.
There is no internal spall armor of any kind.
Then why does the source above specifically mention it as an upgrade over regular old Chobham to prevent spalling in the interior of the tank?
Like at a minimum its gonna reduce spalling by only letting the highest energy spall through. Meaning a more narrow spall cone.
Likely just erroneous claim.
All modern armor should do this - Gaijin hasn’t considered this because the materials and composition of most modern armor are classified. They also haven’t given any tank crews spall vests either.
Fact of the matter is - what they are modeling on the T-90, Bradley, etc… it is an internal spall liner on the interior of the tank armor within the crew area. The Abrams has NEVER had anything of the sort. IRL it is because it simply doesn’t need it, but it will suffer in-game because of this. You’re better off wasting your time suggesting they add spall vests to modern tank crews instead.
Or maybe, since the US spends more money than makes sense on defense, they can afford to mandate that their tank crews wear vests as an extra layer of protection above and beyond even the built in spall liner?
Can you show me the “built-in” spall liner?
2 out of 4 of the pictures show normal spall liners, 1 is completely unrelated (ballistic plate for soldiers), and one of them is showing off how car windshield is made… (i.e completely irrepresentative of the “in-built spall liner”, which once again, would not work).
Best of all, the second image shows Permali’s spall liner protection… and here’s what they say about it:
Notice anything? It doesn’t support the idea of “built-in spall liners”.
You are aware that almost all ballistic glass for vehicles today is, by design, made to have it’s own spall liner built into it right? Including Russian BP glass.
Its almost like having proper laminate materials, installed in a certain way, prevents backface deformation and spall + fragmentation from exiting the armor material.
You can outright find hundreds of images of ballistic glass testing that shows this to be fact online, because thats how ballistic glass outright works.
Interesting i see why people stopped posting it
Quite the opposite, its still very popular because its accurate for people who actually know the topic and the context of the selected images.
Its a mockery of the fact that Russia only recently realized that crew protection is possible but only through draping kevlar blankets in the vehicles, meanwhile the West has for years found out that laminate materials and designs exist along with, in the case of the ballistic plate, composite armor exists.
In the case of the plate, it is a generic SAPI plate, the gold standard for armor plates in NATO and, incidentally, due to it’s design and layered nature, has functionally no backface deformation or spall generated when struck even with the likes of .30-06 black tips. It is a glowing example of how effective laminate materials are in preventing pass through damage and negating energy transfer without the need of a additional kevlar liner behind the plate itself.
No. But I’ll take the word of a man who served in an Abrams over any random person.
And? That’s irrelevant to the “hurr durr muh built-in spall liner”.
Basically comparing apples to oranges. The raw irony here is that, in the image you’ve provided the “spallshield” is the last layer…
Its almost like having proper laminate materials, installed in a certain way, prevents backface deformation and spall + fragmentation from exiting the armor material.
Against significantly weaker projectiles? Sure. Against APFSDS or high calibre SC warheads? Dream on.
There’s a reason why the idea of “built-in spall liners” was born on this damn forum… it’s because nobody actually uses them, and it’s pretty much a cope-out based on idealised assumptions of “i take info from 1 source, and extrapolate it to Proxima Centaurii” levels of copium.
Countries that used spall liners for decades now have never embraced this “concept”, and that’s for a very good reason… IT CAN’T WORK. You’re not stopping the backplate from deforming or outright shattering under the stress inflicted by a KE & SC threats by plastering a kevlar or plastic liner on the inside of it, because the spall COMES from the penetration channel EXIT hole (and not entry)… how would a liner mounted on the whole other side stop that?
Funnily, M1 does use spall liners… in certain places, like the hull-rack for example:
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/553364319731974493/1187862504718733412/58ca5083a29a4ad969823ff2c2eb5fba3a600530.png?ex=65a1a8aa&is=658f33aa&hm=58fcc6e046bd3d6441303d634c5319dbf148fedb04da2147176a88d123831ae4&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=1034&height=781
(And what do you know, they’re mounted there like every other liner, how strange!)
But there’s none in the crew compartment. I’ve been to a SEPv2, hadn’t seen a single plate resembling a liner, I’ve talked to a friend who’s currently serving on a SEPv2, he hasn’t seen that either… so where are they?
Why are we still arguing over this ?
The bug report has been made the source are in there.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BcMSgWYhwd5k
Liner is found behind the bolted interior casings. So you normally won’t see it hanging out. As it not the backplate.
Also “Integrated Spall Liner” does exist as my source show
page 33
Good find . I wonder if this was the same LFT (live fire test) report that this one mention
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA300522.pdf
page 242-243
"In FY88, "An LFT program (funded by PM-Tanks) was conducted to determine the vulnerability of various Abrams tank components to “behind-armor spall fragments”
“behind-armor spall fragments” key word.
Result
“All the program objectives were achieved with the following generalized conclusions: The Abrams meets current vulnerability/lethality GROUND SYSTEMS survivability requirements regarding ballistic protection—the armor and ammunition compartmentation perform to design. The Abrams capability to survive and protect its crew makes the use of Battle Damage Assessment and Repair (BDAR) an essential element, and the vulnerability models currently appear to predict the correct Abrams internal damage and crew casualties from the primary penetrator and spall as compared to the test results. Lessons learned from this highly successful test will expedite the design and reduce costs of future tests.”
So the only actual spall liner is ammo rack in turret one?
Do you have better images for how its situated inside and probably photo of it? I know the report for missing spall liners was accepted yet I dont remember ammo rack being listed anyhow in it.
The polyurethane liner is just an anti-static liner if I recall correctly, it is extremely thin and is disproportionately shown in this image. See the latter portion of my post.
A random tiktok is your source? lol, you’re speaking with someone who’s served on the tank already. Guess we’re at a stalemate.
Also, just because you served on the thing DOES NOT mean you know anything about it at all. I could tell y’all that it has vibranium. Crewman have operator level knowledge of how to utilize the vehicle and the extent to which they’re aware of the armor is;
A. Knowing the internal armor is metal because you spend countless hours resting your head on it.
B. What parts to cover up with a tarp in case of battle damage because it contains “secret armor”.
Their “word” from a tiktok is just… AWFUL sourcing. It’s also just incorrect, I watched a few minutes in and he claims it has hard kevlar backing to the composites. We know this isn’t true based on available sources… it’s actually a softer kevlar backing meant to absorb shock and prevent displacement of the ceramics as stated in the OP.
No, it’s not a spall liner. It’s a very thin layer of polyurethane that doesn’t even cover 50% of the sidewall.
It’s just there to prevent the ammo rack from grounding itself on the metal. The rounds are set off by electrical ignition (9v)… not by a firing pin. Kind of important to have that anti-static mount / layer.
Also yeah… the spall liner needs to be between the ammo compartments. Makes a lot of sense. /s
So you just proved to yourself that my statements are correct, and you don’t know how laminate materials function against spall, fragmentation or penetrative effects, I take it that was not your goal.
Imagine my shock that a nation that has been using laminated armor arrays to stop spall and fragmentation since world war 1 to this day, happens to understand how the physics behind such interactions function, and use said knowledge in two of the listed implements the meme is directly showcasing.
You are aware that the spallshield in most ballistic glass panes is, wait for it, tempered glass, I know, that should be impossible right, after all, so many people here seem to think that spall liners can only be created out of kevlar and non hardened materials.
But wait, what about the SAPI plate, its a ceramic strike plate backed by a boron carbide plate wrapped in nylon, if they are sandwiched like that the user should be having all that energy and fragments getting transferred directly into their body going by the statements being made through this thread. Oh wait thats right, SAPI was made by actual engineers who understood how ballistics work, thats why it can stop .30-06 M2 without any deformation or spall, its why .50 M2 API going straight through it carries nothing but the bullet along with the round, because laminate armors actually work and have worked since the early 1910s at stopping fragmentation, backface deformation and spall.
Modern armies had no need to “embrace” this concept because it dates back to the first dreadnoughts in service and the spall plates that lined the interior of their their belts for this exact reason, it was already well known and nearly universally adopted, expect for a few nations, incidentally one very notable one that never seemed to realize that laminate armor arrays were usable in this respect. But then again, their navy was not known to be largely relevant to the conflict, so I guess that can slide.
Your hubris is showing my guy.
which would presumably also catch spall
I’d like to see how these laminates perform against HEAT, EFP, or KE penetrators of 120-125mm caliber when there is a steel plate directly behind them that is also penetrated.
No one is arguing that they can reduce spall. We are stating that there is no internal spall liner… Because there isn’t. There will always be spalling issues with the Abrams in-game for this reason.
