You seem to have a problem understanding your own definitions then. The fact that you can’t see how anti-spall layers integrated into ballistic glass shows the mechanics can work in a way you refuse to accept says everything it needs to about your delusions.
Notice how a spall layer between two spalling surfaces stops spalling in ballistic glass application? Notice the integral armor study and developments that have spall liners incorporated in the composite armor composition? Yet you insist spall liners must be the final layer (which has been disproven multiple instances and applications here.)
"Anti-spall window film is a protective interlayer component for glass manufacturers ideal for diverse security window and ballistic glass applications. As an anti-intrusion product, anti-spall film properties help prevent fragmentation if a projectile hits a glass barrier. Some typical applications for this film include aerospace glass products, school security windows, and high-security automotive windows.
The interlayer laminate film can provide enhanced protection from injuries or harm from flying glass fragments. It’s a PET-based film that we can provide in several different construction types to match your applications. It can increase response time, fortify weak entry points against intruders, and retain shattered glass fragments longer. Convenient and cost-effective, anti-spall window film is a straightforward, quick solution for window manufacturers to enhance security for facilities, vehicles, and other applications."
You’ve falsely implied that any layers in integral composite armor can only serve for adhesion/delamination purposes. The Army Research Lab study blows that claim out of the water. As does spall lining in ballistic glass applications. Ballistic glass, literally meant to stop incoming projectiles and treated to reduce spalling. In a method you claim is impossible. You can’t be reasoned with.
“The previous M1 and M1A1 Abrams tanks used composite armor similar to the British Chobham with multiple layers of steel and ceramics at the front of the hull and turret. However armor on the M1A2 featured added layers of depleted uranium mesh. This offered significant protection against all known anti-tank weapons, however overall weight of the tank increased. At the time of its introduction protection of the M1A2 Abrams tank was considered as one of the best in the world. All active service M1A1 tanks have been retrofitted with depleted uranium armor. M1A2 tanks supplied to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan have downgraded armor without depleted uranium layers. Ammunition for the main gun is stored in the turret bustle, fitted with blow-out panels. Interior is lined with Kevlar liner for protection against spalling. The M1A2 Abrams can be fitted with explosive reactive armor blocks. Some M1A2 tanks were equipped with missile countermeasure devices, intended to detect and jam guidance of the laser-guided missiles.”
Glass, not metal. Show me a source that replaces the glass with metal. There’s a reason you’re using glass liners and I think I know why.
If you don’t join the GHPC discord and continue there, then I’ll conclude you’re not interested and stop commenting with you because you’re clogging up the whole thread.
Are you illiterate? It literally says its integrated. I get it now, russians just cant understand that spall liners can be integral in armor, and must be hung with canvas clips inside like skirts
Ok I know this is a separate convo but I remember something weird with ships and iirc it can be the opposite since wood splinters and certain iron compositions doesn’t. But that’s for another day. I mean I dont disagree with you? Spall liners back up the backing plate
You’ve already ignored the composite armor study. The fact that you can’t accept that an even more brittle and shatter-prone material can be prevented from spalling by a spall layer between the surfaces proves you don’t understand the mechanics or physics behind this.
There have been many examples and references provided. Your denial doesn’t refute them.
…you mean the composite armor that is between the metal you posted images of? The composite armor modules are where the spall liner is located. The references to the Abrams program in the integrated composite armor would indicate that they got their information from said program.
You know, the same tank being described as incorporating a spall lining in multiple documents now?
There is only one source that says there are spall liners inside M1s and its an editorial error.
Let’s humor you and assume its talking about the “monkey model” M1s.
Opps. No spall liners there either.
