That’s all one can see on it. You’re welcome to provide further information.
Are you implying that it would’ve been required to resist a significantly inferior round? M829E1 would’ve been the most powerful APFSDS in development at that time period, anywhere.
If XM829 were the threat simulant, then all DU-equipped M1’s would drop down to somewhere around 500mm RHAe @ 60° frontal arc.
That would also imply that the Swedish data shows the export model to be substantially superior.
The spall liners you are trying to talk about aren’t the loose blankets like Russian vehicles. They are solid panels. Like the M113 storage compartment door panels.:
They were already working on improving protection for tandem warheads and other perceived future threats at the time. M829A1 was already a thing by the time the Swedish trials rolled around.
My point is you want to harp on about assumptions, lack of concrete evidence, etc., etc., but all you have are baseless assumptions that still can’t refute the fact that Swedish Abrams armor=/=US Abrams armor.
Ah, yes - the “hanging drapes” slash “loose blankets” cope.
Would you care to enlighten me as to how this is relevant to this conversation? Did I even mention the Russian boogeyman?
Also, that “spall liner” in your picture is pathetic.
How is this a cope? That’s a spall liner. But please, tell me how loose granny panties that will snag, abrade, stretch, and absorb fluids readily is cutting edge and smart tech. XD
You went on about the loose blankets earlier, so, y’know. You still haven’t discovered fire, relatively speaking.
1 Like
I am referring to the design requirements for HAP-1.
I have not claimed that they are identical.
What I’ve said is that there is no evidence to suggest they are substantially different in protection offered.
From what I understand, your position is that the Swedish documents describe armour that is notably inferior to U.S. domestic M1A2’s. For that claim I’d like to see evidence.
As as a reminder, the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
…and it is known that the Abrams have different armor packages than the export versions in the Swedish trials. The Swedes even tried to get the DU, but the red tape was too much.
Then consider the armor upgrade the Abrams received in 96, after the Swedish trial. So either way, the Swedish Abrams armor isn’t an accurate representation of US Abrams protection.
8 Likes
You keep saying this over and over again, without presenting any evidence that supports this conclusion.
As we’re just going round in circles, I’ll leave things here.
1 Like
Because factually speaking at the most basic level…the US Abrams armor package was and is different than the export package trialed at that time? Then received an update the year after that trial?
The evidence has been talked about plenty here. If you doubt that the Swedish Abrams used a different armor package than the US, then you aren’t even ready to discuss this topic.
If you can’t see how an upgraded armor package after the trial would make any results of the already different version of armor irrelevant…I’m not sure anything would make a difference for you.
Cut down to the simplest, irrefutable fact…Swedish Abrams armor=/=US Abrams armor.
2 Likes
Count_Trackula has already provided some evidence that the Swedish armor package is downgraded compared to the US version - hell, the US STILL DOESN’T SELL their M1s with a DU package, not even to their greatest and most strategic allies like Australia and Poland. Why would Sweden, a country that isn’t really an ally to the US, that isn’t in any major organization, receive an armor package that is equivalent to their newly built DU M1 from the early 1990s?
Besides that, you people, that claim the Swedish package is equivalent, have NEVER provided ANY proof that it is anywhere close to being the same as the US M1, protection-wise. Sweden never tested the armor packages on the Abrams they were provided with, so they are literally GUESSING the armor protection - which they guessed wrong, because they wrote the hull as 350 mm KE, when it is currently correct in-game (for early Abrams at least) at 400 mm KE, which is based on some CIA report and other documents that were provided when the M1IP or M1A1 was being added.
15 Likes
This is exactly what the spall liner is. Sorry man but anyone with some basic engineering thinking would understand that.
No it does not have to.
Actually it makes sense to put some thin metal plate behind it.
Like here, where the layer 12 can be some kevlar like fabric:
Most AFVs does not have layered armor, so if you want to add anti spalling layer you have to bolt on extra one.
I did not read read whole 400 posts, so sorry if someone already pointed out, that above mentioned claims are false.
4 Likes
Oxygen concentrations that are too high are toxic, we can go on for a long while about what in pure or high concentrations can kill a human or harm them, it does not change the fact that tungsten ingestion, especially tungsten carbide, is inherently detrimental to humans even in small amounts, it may not be lethal but it will always cause some form of complication, even if its something simple like inducing a cough.
In the case of DU, in small amounts and not directly ingested, its well known that it is quite safe, even moreso if you are wearing any sort of clothes. But like tungsten, the complications crop up when you ingest it, but even then, from a sabot in normal use, as others have already highlighted, neither would normally produce enough inhalants to produce tangible issues, especially in the case of radiation exposure.
Anywho though this is rather off topic to the spall liner talk though.
Is that actually a spall liner? I mean what’s the point of not covering the whole area near the seats?
You’ll notice there are two rails. It’s 1/2 of the sliding wall. Behind it is storage. If the other wall was there you’d have complete spall coverage.
1 Like
Instead of arguing for a spall liner, why not model the armor as anti-fragmentation? This would be beneficial because it won’t be “destroyed” after “x” amount of penetrations.
2 Likes
Likely because others would say it’s a buff that other nations wouldn’t receive and that would result in more disparity.
1 Like
Not disagreeing, however the other NATO tanks that haven’t received spall liners are likely using a similar armor system that removes the need for true spall liners, but the information to prove that’s the case will be next to impossible to find.
This is true, but also from friendly fire, where the radioactive materials were highly agitated or heated by DU ammo if im not mistaken
Yes. That was just an image of a single spall liner I selected so the tankie didn’t hurt itself in its confusion. You can see the spall liner behind the bench in this image.:
That lower wall behind the bench just doesn’t happen to be the single large sliding panel that was supposed to be obvious for demonstration purposes. Notice the other panel in place. when positioned and locked in place, they cover the entire side of the troop compartment.
4 Likes