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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Likely because others would say it’s a buff that other nations wouldn’t receive and that would result in more disparity.
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.
You can’t disprove spall liners
Worded that wrong?
You cannot prove the Abrams has an internal spall liner, this is because it doesn’t have one. Burden of “proof” lies on the people claiming otherwise but this discussion has been hashed out multiple times in great detail already in this thread…
I’m not sure how you intended to use this insult but if it was in reference to me… you’re agreeing with me. As funny as that is - it’s also not really relevant to the thread except to showcase what a real internal spall liner looks like.
We’re at a point where they’re disagreeing over the spall liner and what internal is.
Spall liners and spall mitigation is to the front armor entirely, and to the sides of the turret.
The rest is a softer hardened steel alloy with possible composite lattice infrastructure in several key regions.
Meanwhile, I’ll be needing to work up spall hits from HEAT rounds.
The win rate of the U.S. is sub-40 percent at this rate and only 23,000 battles being fought daily, to 60,000 battles of USSR at 54% WR, and the Germans at 48,000 battles with over 60% WR.
US isn’t being played nearly as often in top tier, even with the Clickbait new folks. And they’re still losing terribly. There is enough aggregate evidence to say that US top tier isn’t being given enough of a boost, even with a 5-second real-life reload rate.
No, was directed at Sneed.
But your profile picture, name, and worship of Soviet mediocrity is cringe.
Thunderskill does not currently have the new vehicles listed.
That means there could very well be more people playing the M1A1 Click-Bait than the M1A2, M1A2 SEP and M1A2 SEP v2 combined, yet we wouldn’t know about it.
You can thanks click bait for that and Gaijin that refuse to give DU hull insert for sep
