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.
People are saying the Kevlar/composite sandwich is after, not before the 100mm steel plate…
1 Like
Except it’s not because last I checked the standoffs and weld marks are not possible if they were made of kevlar or composite materials. This is all visible on any picture / video of the tank to ever exist.
As you can see, there is no spall liner on the interior of the crew compartment. Nothing.
(There are spall vests, though)… :)
All of these images from the OP btw, where it is explained VERY WELL. Please if y’all wanna continue arguing just give it a read first…
check out mr coldwar post under this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/18lri4t/why_didnt_the_abrams_get_a_spall_liner/
2 Likes
again you are using your own ARBITRARY definition of something you havent provided enough proof you understand nor you have given anybody reason to believe your opinion is in any way valuable, to define what a spall liner is and should look like, does your work include knowing how to reduce the spall from advanced composite armor being penetrated, do you have any relevant competence regarding this? do you have any proof besides “i believe so” that just because the “spall liner” is between the plates it isnt a “spall liner”?
8 Likes
You are attacking my person and credentials on the subject but the burden of proof is on you to prove there is a spall liner. I’ve provided photo evidence that there is indeed no internal layer. Feel free to show me I’m wrong.
What is this supposed to show? The post was deleted.
and as i already said, you cant expect to find that degree of proof regarding the armor of the mbt currently in service by the strongest country on earth. count trackula has already done a fairly extensive job arguing all of OP’s claims. you havent, your cant fathom the idea that a spall line place before the armor can interact with the armor behind it. and again this kind of tech would’ve to do with the fabrication of the armor itself which would be ALOT to ask to know about a currently fielded Mbt.
2 Likes
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. There is even a Wikipedia article discussing the different methods of welding advanced composites.
As for the standoffs: Permali, the company which produces spall liners for the UK, says this on their website:
Permali has closed moulding, CNC machining, assembly, coating and painting facilities to manufacture flat, curved and elliptically shaped spall liners. If specified by a customer, spall liners can be supplied complete with bonded in thermal and acoustic insulation, fixing point holes and metal inserts.
2 Likes
im not attacking your person(unless calling you arrogant is attacking you which then yes i did), im not attacking your credentials, im attacking your argument which literally doesnt exist, all you do is say "this doesnt work, this doesnt exist see? nothing there(multiple reason why that is a stupid statement all of them have been debated already ) also burden of proof? the op has provided his research and he has properly explained his points, other people have already plenty discussed the op’s points already if you just scroll up a bit). also regarding the reddit you just need to scroll into the replies there is a dude named codename_coldwar which talks about most of the points in here already).
2 Likes
Any idea what this serves? It looks like it’s purpose is to shield the gunner but why would it be thicker below and not all the way up?
I can put a magnet on the spots you think are composites and take a picture if you’d like me to, but it’s not necessary. The images above show you that the metal interior of the turret does not have a spall liner. From factory floor to production vehicles in service there is no change to the interior armor layout.
Permali looks like this.
Please reference my post wherein you can clearly see the metal top layer of roof armor, the welds attached to it, and the standoffs for everything including the hole in the turret where the thermals and gunners electronics hang.
