That study wasn’t even done by the Army. That was outsourced to a private entity. The Abrams armor is still classified, so I don’t know how they came to that conclusion in a 3rd party unclassified document.
This states the XM1s design had them.
So are the multiple Army documents talking about the earliest Abrams tanks having spall liners to be thrown out when an outsourced 3rd-party company speaks at unclassified levels on armor compositions that are still classified?
Even if we can’t agree on the Army reports or this study being conclusive, what has been shown repeatedly is that spall liners can be incorporated via internal layers of composite armor modules. Spall liners still work when put between two surfaces that would spall otherwise.
Edit:…and as shown in different tests and documents, metal itself can be a spall liner. Especially if it is a more ductile metal. See Krupp Cemented Armor that has a hard face, but softer core and inner side.
This was my original point as to why OP was wrong. You’ve doubled down and insisted spall liners have to be the final layer. Despite overwhelming proof to the contrary.
Edit: Spall liners can even be metal, as shown in studies and reports posted above! :D
Get yourself some pills, since you can’t handle reality .
One more time… A spall liner is a layer of material to catch ricocheting fragments within a compartment. It is not to prevent penetration of the armor.
Putting it between layers of armor defeats the purpose, and in fact probably would produce more fragments.
What you keep clinging to, is that composite armor modules contain the same “kevlar” epoxy matrix to hold the actual armor components in place, be they DU, ceramic, or moon cheese.
These are not the same in function or location as “spall liners”.
You are clinging to BS in order to not have to admit that you are wrong.
Again, projection. You can’t accept that spall liners can be between surfaces and still have effect. You are the one trying to move the goalpost and get mad when evidence shows the mechanics and physics behind spalling.
‘You aren’t even talking the original point, you are talking about nano-materials.’
The topic is spall liners, keep up, slo-mo. Multiple documents, studies, and reports show the inclusion of spall liners between spalling surfaces and their ability to mitigate spall. Disprove them. But you can’t.
You can’t seem to accept that spall liners adhered to surfaces can prevent spalling, regardless of which side they are on.
You’re the one insisting a spall liner has to be one thing in only one location. The evidence refutes your BS that you desperately cling to. Have fun coping some more. Maybe you can rage and call me a Trump supporter again. Since you don’t have any actual point.
‘As a result, the design of the XM1 included lower vehicle profile, armored
bulkheads between the crew and fuel cells, ammunition storage behind armored doors, blow-off
panels in the turret roof to vent explosions up and away from the crew and a spall liner and
Halon fire extinguisher system.’
This talks about the XM1 design evolving into the accepted M1 Abrams. It was there since the XM1.
Couple the previous entry of the XM1 having a spall liner with this.:
‘In May 1979, the XM1 was approved for low-rate production, and Chrysler received a
contract to build 110 more vehicles for extensive field testing in various weather, topographical,
and radioactive environments. These tests went well, with the exception of continued reliability
problems with the gas turbine engine. This vehicle was standardized as the M1 in 1981, with
production approved for 7,058 tanks. The first M1s were provided to combat units in Europe in
late 1982 and fielding continued throughout the 1980s.’
This doesn’t directly prove or disprove it, Leclerc does have spall liners but they are not visible from the inside of the tank. But if a source specify the M1A2 have spall liners, i would believe it if there are multiple sources stating that, but for now all the guy was sending was XM1 documents.
A prototype having a feature does not mean the final vehicle had that feature as well. Lots of stuff gets dropped because of costs, weight, feasibility, etc. It is an indicator but additional proof that the spall liner got adopted would still be necessary.
Even something on the interior can be not spall liner: for example some soviet tanks have anti-radiation liner (it should act like bad spall liner but bla bla bla) or sound proof like on CL 1 (i read this from bug report platform)
So anyone trying to report missing spall liners, be assure it’s neither of those.
