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.
5 Likes
No. But I’ll take the word of a man who served in an Abrams over any random person.
8 Likes
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?
5 Likes
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
5 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
7 Likes
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.
1 Like
It doesn’t make any sense to begin with… Even then, any liner inside the armor profile isn’t a “spall liner” by its very nature as an insert.
The entire point of a spall liner is to be the very last layer and prevent any material behind it from spalling and entering the fighting compartment.
That is entirely useless if there is still more material behind the liner.
What next, are car windshields bulletproof because they use plexiglass to hold structure? No? It’s only that bulletproof glass uses a very specific combination of materials in a very specific way, and that the existence of plexiglass in a modern windshield does not inherently equate it to an entirely different use?
it dose have a spall liner you just cant see it in the tank IRL i heard from a lot of tanker that it dose and why wouldnt it have one
Funny bug report, even when given direct images and dozens of backed claims as to the M1A2 SEP not having spall liners, they go “b-but I don’t believe it, so it isn’t true!!1!”
So… You refuse to acknowledge any side but yours in a debate?
Is that what I’m getting from this?
Refer to:
1 Like
He isn’t, he responded as to why he didn’t need a source to disprove what doesn’t exist, and you respond with…
Pretty clear you can’t read.
Even after he responds with:
…Your only response is
He has no reason to substantiate something without the burden of proof. If you want spall liners, prove there are spall liners.
Would you like to provide documentation saying that the Abrams didn’t mount a 25mm chain gun? If not, “don’t throw a hissy fit”.
There are more service members coming out directly and saying that there is no internal spall liner than people saying “but my friend who knows a tanker says there is!”
Why would the crew wear IBA/CVCs if there was a spall liner? Every other nation’s tanker kits include inflammable clothing with nomex… Everything they wear, from Britain, to Sweden, to Germany, and to Russia, include padded protection against bumps and bruises, not body armor for spall.
1 Like
Because the US military equips it’s tank crews for combat both inside and outside the vehicle, why do you think the average US Army tank crew has enough hand held ordinance to equip a 6 man infantry squad including weapons to, breach doors, destroy light armor, engage aircraft, provide indirect fire, and suppress targets with squad automatic weapons.
To that same end the standard equipment of a US tanker is not at all designed to counter spall or penetrations in the vehicle, the standard vest you are going to find on every single US Army tanker is a cut down IOTV, the standard ballistic vest of every single US Army serviceman, the only difference is the lack of the crotch flap and shoulder protectors. The IOTV was not designed for tank crews, instead, it was designed to equip the entire US Army, which it currently does. To that same end the CVC is rated to the same level as every other NIJ IIIA helmet, like the ACH and ECH, that being to defeat, .357 and 9mm rounds. Yes the CVC was designed to interface with tank systems, however, it’s protection level, in US service, is identical to that of the standard service helmets of every other serviceman of the time of it’s introduction, it’s design was not made to deal with vehicle spall, much akin to the IOTV, it was made to allow the same level of protection the foot infantry had to the crews of US armor, both inside their vehicles and when dismounted.
It turns out that the US find standardizing personal body armor capabilities to be a mainstay within their branches and fields of operation. The US tanker, by equipment, is a infantryman first and a tanker second, if you outright removed the CVC of a US tanker and swapped it with a ACH, you would have your average Gulf War US Army rifleman.
3 Likes
That’s why we have a spall vest for inside the vehicle and IOTV with plates for outside the vehicle. The entire uniform we wear for both settings is entirely different, and we carry both on the tank at all times.
Spall vest for inside the vehicle - full kit for outside the vehicle.
1 Like
just because the tech is being developed for a scrapped vehicle its doesnt mean the tech itself gets scrapped, most modern vehicles are built off dead programs
1 Like
the integrated spall liner wouldnt be visible
1 Like