I figured, he’s just another arm chair general
4 Likes
If that’s how you feel, don’t feel surprised when they close the report. There is no internal spall liner and not a single source in here shows the opposite.
3 Likes
I think the very obvious evidence from photos show there is no internal spall liner on any Abrams MBT ever produced. There is also not a single source here that states otherwise.
1 Like
I mean, there is. Idk what the summary is, tho there certainly material stating it does:
Edit: offcourse id love to know what that piece sitws for that claim since there seemingly is one but idn if they dug that up
Edit2: more
Funny, I guess there just happens to be no picture of a spall liner installed on any Abrams ever by mistake.
1 Like
I mean, depending on how its done its entirely plausible internal pictures aren’t going to be obvious.
Like in one source above points to a backing material to catch spall in the frontal armor block. Could be thats the only place there is a spall liner
1 Like
Firsthand experience - it is. It’s not meant to catch spalling so much as it’s just a backing for the composite armor. It doesn’t do the crew good - that’s why they’re mandated to wear spall vests.
There is no internal spall armor of any kind.
1 Like
Then why does the source above specifically mention it as an upgrade over regular old Chobham to prevent spalling in the interior of the tank?
Like at a minimum its gonna reduce spalling by only letting the highest energy spall through. Meaning a more narrow spall cone.
1 Like
Likely just erroneous claim.
All modern armor should do this - Gaijin hasn’t considered this because the materials and composition of most modern armor are classified. They also haven’t given any tank crews spall vests either.
Fact of the matter is - what they are modeling on the T-90, Bradley, etc… it is an internal spall liner on the interior of the tank armor within the crew area. The Abrams has NEVER had anything of the sort. IRL it is because it simply doesn’t need it, but it will suffer in-game because of this. You’re better off wasting your time suggesting they add spall vests to modern tank crews instead.
2 Likes
Or maybe, since the US spends more money than makes sense on defense, they can afford to mandate that their tank crews wear vests as an extra layer of protection above and beyond even the built in spall liner?
2 Likes
Can you show me the “built-in” spall liner?
1 Like
2 out of 4 of the pictures show normal spall liners, 1 is completely unrelated (ballistic plate for soldiers), and one of them is showing off how car windshield is made… (i.e completely irrepresentative of the “in-built spall liner”, which once again, would not work).
Best of all, the second image shows Permali’s spall liner protection… and here’s what they say about it:
Notice anything? It doesn’t support the idea of “built-in spall liners”.
You are aware that almost all ballistic glass for vehicles today is, by design, made to have it’s own spall liner built into it right? Including Russian BP glass.
Its almost like having proper laminate materials, installed in a certain way, prevents backface deformation and spall + fragmentation from exiting the armor material.
You can outright find hundreds of images of ballistic glass testing that shows this to be fact online, because thats how ballistic glass outright works.
6 Likes
Interesting i see why people stopped posting it
Quite the opposite, its still very popular because its accurate for people who actually know the topic and the context of the selected images.
Its a mockery of the fact that Russia only recently realized that crew protection is possible but only through draping kevlar blankets in the vehicles, meanwhile the West has for years found out that laminate materials and designs exist along with, in the case of the ballistic plate, composite armor exists.
In the case of the plate, it is a generic SAPI plate, the gold standard for armor plates in NATO and, incidentally, due to it’s design and layered nature, has functionally no backface deformation or spall generated when struck even with the likes of .30-06 black tips. It is a glowing example of how effective laminate materials are in preventing pass through damage and negating energy transfer without the need of a additional kevlar liner behind the plate itself.
5 Likes
No. But I’ll take the word of a man who served in an Abrams over any random person.
8 Likes
And? That’s irrelevant to the “hurr durr muh built-in spall liner”.
Basically comparing apples to oranges. The raw irony here is that, in the image you’ve provided the “spallshield” is the last layer…
Its almost like having proper laminate materials, installed in a certain way, prevents backface deformation and spall + fragmentation from exiting the armor material.
Against significantly weaker projectiles? Sure. Against APFSDS or high calibre SC warheads? Dream on.
There’s a reason why the idea of “built-in spall liners” was born on this damn forum… it’s because nobody actually uses them, and it’s pretty much a cope-out based on idealised assumptions of “i take info from 1 source, and extrapolate it to Proxima Centaurii” levels of copium.
Countries that used spall liners for decades now have never embraced this “concept”, and that’s for a very good reason… IT CAN’T WORK. You’re not stopping the backplate from deforming or outright shattering under the stress inflicted by a KE & SC threats by plastering a kevlar or plastic liner on the inside of it, because the spall COMES from the penetration channel EXIT hole (and not entry)… how would a liner mounted on the whole other side stop that?
Funnily, M1 does use spall liners… in certain places, like the hull-rack for example:
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/553364319731974493/1187862504718733412/58ca5083a29a4ad969823ff2c2eb5fba3a600530.png?ex=65a1a8aa&is=658f33aa&hm=58fcc6e046bd3d6441303d634c5319dbf148fedb04da2147176a88d123831ae4&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=1034&height=781
(And what do you know, they’re mounted there like every other liner, how strange!)
But there’s none in the crew compartment. I’ve been to a SEPv2, hadn’t seen a single plate resembling a liner, I’ve talked to a friend who’s currently serving on a SEPv2, he hasn’t seen that either… so where are they?
5 Likes
Why are we still arguing over this ?
The bug report has been made the source are in there.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BcMSgWYhwd5k
Liner is found behind the bolted interior casings. So you normally won’t see it hanging out. As it not the backplate.
Also “Integrated Spall Liner” does exist as my source show
page 33
5 Likes
Good find . I wonder if this was the same LFT (live fire test) report that this one mention
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA300522.pdf
page 242-243
"In FY88, "An LFT program (funded by PM-Tanks) was conducted to determine the vulnerability of various Abrams tank components to “behind-armor spall fragments”
“behind-armor spall fragments” key word.
Result
“All the program objectives were achieved with the following generalized conclusions: The Abrams meets current vulnerability/lethality GROUND SYSTEMS survivability requirements regarding ballistic protection—the armor and ammunition compartmentation perform to design. The Abrams capability to survive and protect its crew makes the use of Battle Damage Assessment and Repair (BDAR) an essential element, and the vulnerability models currently appear to predict the correct Abrams internal damage and crew casualties from the primary penetrator and spall as compared to the test results. Lessons learned from this highly successful test will expedite the design and reduce costs of future tests.”