Mildly skeptical on that one due to the fact CATTB’s spall liner was only around 1,250 pounds for the turret alone. That leaves around 3,600 pounds according to that report supposedly for the hull.
Would you mind linking the source for the CATTB spall liner. Also, does it consider anti-spall for the ammo and other areas of the turret or is it limited to a smaller space? Further, could it be talking about an internal spall liner or is it discussing the same kevlar lining that we’ve established does no good for the crew?
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA228389.pdf
First mention of spall liner, with it stating it’s in the turret crew area.
Spall liner weight shown here.
5 Likes
Thank you.
The CATTB is a very experimental tank that introduced a lot of new features. What they had done was produce a one-off turret design to test a lot of these features and I suppose that is why when they mated it to a otherwise relatively standard M1 hull… they had integrated the spall liner into the turret but not the hull.
As you can see, the CATTB lacks a loader. It is a three man crew and the turret has less internal volume than a standard M1. Presumably, the weight of 4800 pounds was referring to a standard M1 tank with spall liner for hull, turret, and ammo compartment(s). I think the total volume and space all seems to check out with these values.
Do you realize that that isn’t a thing?
According to the furry himself, Abrooms’ we have in game didn’t have spall liners nor DU armor, yikes.
1 Like
Citing stuff already countered with current sources, dated information sadly on spook’s part.
His statements on the SEPV3 make me laugh though because we all know its just going to be another M1A2 with no actual improvements bar maybe gen 3 thermals.
5 Likes
Going by what happened to 2A7V (which currently has worse protection levels than the 1991 SVT vehicle), and SEPv2 which has M1A1s hull armour & M1A2s turret armour… that assertion is sadly 110% spot on.
2 Likes
His information regarding the lack of a spall liner is up-to-date.
2 Likes
Uh, no.
Then prove him wrong
1 Like
Not my report… but it was likely true if it was passed.
That’s what it’s for, the rounds are set off by a simple 9v discharge of electricity to the base. There is no real “firing pin” as you’d expect from a simple gun. The mm thick polyurethane does less to stop spall than a rubber skirt would.
You’re free to reference my post regarding that and look at the pictures of the polyurethane in the actual vehicle. Doesn’t even hardly cover any surface area inside the ammo rack… just enough to prevent accidental grounding.
But go off, keep insulting the people who are truly being objective and not putting blinders on anytime some evidence to the contrary regarding spall liners is shown. /s
1 Like
So if I fire a Sabot through a wall of kevlar… and it penetrates a 100mm steel plate behind the kevlar… there will be no spall from the 100mm steel plate going into the crew compartment beyond it?
The epoxy / kevlar used in the armor array is meant to prevent displacement of the composites when taking multiple hits.
Words to live by.
1 Like
I would expect it to spall only slightly more than the 80/85mm sides of a T-80 or T-72 series tank.
And that’s assuming plate hardness is roughly the same since that tends to factor into your spalling.
Well yes, no one is saying spalling shouldn’t get a rework. HEAT projectiles cause far too much spalling in-game currently IMO. Should be about as useful as APCR unless you hit ammo or explode a fuel tank.
However, pretending that the kevlar is going to stop all spalling when it’s not the last layer before reaching tank interior is absurd.
Im gonna make an assumption, that same displacement of the composite is what cauising the spall, If the kevlar is meant to keep the armor in place and relatively effective AFTER it has been penetrated i would wager it does at leas some work into reducing the spall itself.
Where does your assumption that the reduction of spalling would be minimal comes from? Outside your own misplaced arrogance?
3 Likes
Yes, prevents additional spalling from entering the cabin but doesn’t stop anything from the 100mm backplate. That is what I said.
Ignoring all the insults - they’re pointless and harm your credibility in the argument - Yes. Sure. Let’s go with that.
It’s totally just my opinion and not discussed already very well in the OP that the kevlar / epoxy will not stop spalling caused by the penetration of the backplate.
Agaon proving my point, these arent insults, im pointing out how you keep spealing as if your words are as valuable as gold you provide no sources, yet keep making claims, this is the forst time ive seen you use the world opinion whem referring to one of your opinions, and this response further evidentiates that. Provide me with either a source for your claim, or a proof of your credibility, especially qhen your claims contradict what actual sources state.
Otherwise please try to put some effort into being more humble.
3 Likes
No different than stating something obvious such as “the sky is blue”, or “grass is green”. Kevlar in front of, rather than behind a metal object will not prevent spalling that occurs from the metal that is BEHIND it.
The OP explains it perfectly well on its’ own… you have yet to provide a SINGLE source or picture that shows the Abrams has a legitimate internal spall liner (it doesn’t).
This isn’t about pride. If it was about pride, I’d be hiding in shame over the fact that my countries main battle tank has no true internal spall liner when stuff like the VT-4 does.