Pointing out that they are the same welds as the base armor of the turret from the production photos =/= composites cannot be welded.
I’m a bit sceptical the US government publishes photographs/gives basic crewmen tours of the factory for all production/assembly stages of their classified tanks.
You said:
I’m not sure if gaslighting and/or backtracking when corrected is against the rules, but it isn’t very professional, and it diminishes credibility.
11 Likes
Look at the photos, then look at the photos some more.
I too would hang my entire thermal array through the roof of the turret from some kevlar / composite standoffs. I too would make my kevlar spall liner look like it has the same weld marks as the factory turret interior armor. /s
my brother in christ we’ve been seeing those same photos since the thread started.
Ok
So the abrams has no kevlar spall liner*.
If you want to get reduced spall on the abrams you will have to get gaijin to introduce metallurgical differences in Armor.
*if you want to we can call the rear layer of ductile metal a spall liner
7 Likes
pretty much what Count_Trackula already sum up
Why go that far when they already had “secondary_shatter” or “ShatterArmorQuality” code to work with ?
just like they did to “certain vehicles”
6 Likes
“Minor wounds” From a mystery round that went through one end and out of the other of an Abrams tank and the entry point was right next to the gunner/TC stations.
You are using this as evidence of a lack of spall reducing material? Lol, lmao even.
1 Like
Also there are a lot of component inside Abrams crew compartment that didn’t get model into WT.
If Gaijin model them up. They could help block spall on certain angle.
1 Like
that is like the best proof that the abrams has a way to minimize spall upon penetration
The report they are discussing and the pictures within prove there is no hull spall liner for the crew compartment to speak of. Any side shot through the hull will come through with ALL of the spalling.
What it does highlight is that smaller RPG sized warheads (like those fired from the BMP-3 / BMD-4) should have significantly less spalling than they do in-game, though.
Amazing to me that this steel is pretty much forged in the same exact way as WW2 Special Treated Steel for warships and pretty much serves the same purpose, just with the addition that they face harden one side of the armor unlike STS.
Turns out the folks in the past using such armor for this purpose had something usable.
Does not need to necessarily adhered to a purpose built ballistic layer either, just to or slightly behind a primary armor plate. As highlighted above, similar ductile steels produced favorable results against full caliber AP pens and partial penetrations from rifles far in excess of what we have on tanks. Maybe we should be coming at this from the angle of gaijin needing to improve how armor quality in general is modeled, EG STS is woefully underperforming in game in naval right now because its generalized across all nation’s spall / fragment protection “full armor grade steel”, which many nations had an inferior quality of, thus the quality of “antifragmentation armor” in game is only 0.98, when STS was equivalent in protection to Class B armor, a RHA non face hardened armor, IRL, and which exists in game with a modifier of 1.0.
4 Likes
Again, just because the Abrams doesn’t have a carpet draped on the walls of the crew compartment doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an integrated spall liner.
1 Like
It certainly has nothing to protect the hull from spalling. There is no liner there, integrated or not and that is visible from photos quite easily.
The kevlar used in the turret array to hold the composites together is not useful as we’ve already shown and discussed.
How would you view an integrated spall liner through a photo? I haven’t seen any x-ray images of an Abrams’ armor anywhere on the forums
The walls of the hull are thin, photos online show this and photos of the interior confirm no additional protection.
This stuff is all very easily seen on google images.
All of the images shown are either fully constructed Abrams hulls/turrets (in terms of they have their final coats of paint on) or show partially constructed Abrams that have all of their panels already put together, which just means the spall liner is housed within a standard-looking matal (like how the DU armor is encased in steel).
2 Likes
You can see the plate thickness, we know there is no additional room for spall protection. On the side of the hull armor is additional plating but it is also obvious that there is no room for some kevlar protection there either. As much as I would like to improve the tank in the game it is just dishonest to pretend it has spall protection.
I was all for the hull armor improvement suggestion, but that was turned down. We lack necessary data to model this properly - and we certainly lack data on spall protection because it simply doesn’t have any.
Not necessarily true about there being no room per-se. as we know that the M1 Grizzly was supposed to have spall liners, which was essentially just a M1A2 chassis. I believe 2 prototypes were even delivered before the Breacher program for the Army got canned, whilst the USMC program kept going.
source here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA303814.pdf
1 Like
Yes, but it doesn’t say where. There is plenty of internal room for the Abrams to receive spall liners. It just hasn’t been done in practice.
The M1150 has plenty of room internally as well, especially since the turret is replaced with a larger more hollowed unit. They needed such additional protection.
