I wouldn’t be so sure of that. M1,M1A1/HC/SA/AIM, M1A2/SEP/SEPv2 Missing Integrated Spall Liner // Gaijin.net // Issues
1 Like
To be honest the fact that you have to wear PPE inside of the Abrams does not prove it does not have a form of spall mitigation built into the armor. As you know full PPE must be worn in any tactical vehicle for both dismounts and crew no matter what, stateside or deployed.
I’ve been in plenty of vehicles that had visible spall liners including the MRAP/MATV, AAV, HMMWV (some models) and LAV25. Yet I still had to wear full PPE as did the crews. On top of this there are plenty of photos of both Challenger and Leopard crews wearing full PPE in their tanks even though they are confirmed to have spall liners.
I agree the Abrams has no visible spall liner I’ve been inside plenty of M1A1 FEPs to see myself. But you as a crewman you do not know the composition of the interior layer. Could it be hardened steel ? Could it be a softer metal to mitigate spalling ? Is it a mix ? We don’t know.
Lastly I will say the Abrams in US service has been penetrated on multiple occasions in both Iraq and Kuwait. But in after action reports there are no complaints or mentions of spalling. This leads me to believe something in the armor package is minimizing it.
11 Likes
The Abrams does have kevlar in the armor array - that was proven via sources. What Gaijin wants to see is a spall liner on the interior of the tank. All the kevlar in the array does is help to prevent spalling from a non-penetrative round. The 100mm plate at the inside of the armor before entering the crew compartment is still going to come with spalling should a round make it into the compartment.
The fact that we have to wear PPE inside the Abrams does not prove that it has no internal spall liner - the endless number of pictures and videos showing that there is no internal spall liner is the proof.
I’m not claiming to know the internal array composition. That much is known from the myriad of sources available.
We do, there is literally pictures in the OP.
The only example where you can observe the aftermath shows spalling that went all the way across to the other side of the turret. There is also pictures from the friendly fire incident in 2020 where the loader bled all over the place in the turret and sustained shrapnel wounds from the damages caused by a round hitting the side of the CITV. (Internal spalling).
Devs on vacation, please wait. Best thing you’re going to see is some reduction in spalling applied to all tanks whether it is from the array or from spall vest protection. There will be no internal spall liner applied to the Abrams because it never had one.
The material in the photo’s- all the white composite- is the spall liner
Where’s the source to back up this statement?lmao he has none cause it was fucking made up 😂
You throwing a lil hissy fit too buddy?
Source?
1 Like
OP covered it quite well. Did you even read?
2 Likes
There’s nothing in there that says the Abrams are not equipped with spall liners. His DITC document/study talks about a computer program.
“GVSI is stored under the file name “GVSI.XLS”. Copy this file to your computer’s hard drive. Start Excel 5.0, and then load the spreadsheet. The top level worksheet is labeled GVSI-Top Level. If the model doesn’t display this worksheet after the workbook loads, switch to the worksheet by clicking on the appropriate tab at the bottom of the screen.”
“The user can document changes to system design by either saving the model to a different file or printing the spreadsheet out.”
"Although GVSI provides an integrated approach to systems design and analysis, there are many opportunities to improve this model. Recommendations for future enhancements include: "
“GVSI limits spall liner application to the crew compartment.”
“Since the Abrams tank does not use a spall liner, the decision to use a spall liner is a “Yes” or “No” question for the GVSI user.”
The program model does not have a spall liner to give an opportunity to the user to choose which is more important. More weight or increase survivability by 50%.
4 Likes
The OP clearly shows that the Abrams has some kevlar in the armor array. Its’ usefulness ends in holding the composite layers in place better, and reducing some amount of spalling (minimal). Every composite array in the game should have something similar to this when information is available. On Russian tanks this anti-radiation lining does the same purpose and has literally zero usefulness as part of the armor array in the game.
Since the Abrams internally has no spall liner, any spalling that occurs upon perforation of the cabin will not be caught and will be sent all over the place. As some of the sources indicate “akin to a grenade going off”. Of course, this depends on the type of warhead used. HEAT seems to do too much spalling in the game as it sits.
Fact of the matter is, there is no true spall liner in the Abrams series of tanks and it will not receive one in the game. I already explained that you guys are better off asking for spall vests or a rework to how much spalling makes it through composite arrays in general. This is not rocket science, it is not even controversial. I’m done talking to y’all until you move past the denial stage of grief.
3 Likes
What?
Highlighting the fact once more, the “PPE” of a M1 crew is not for spall or fragmentation beyond what every other serviceman in the US Army is equipped with as well. The IOTV and CVC are standard both in and outside of any piece of armor in the US inventory. (with the MBAV and SPCS already making their debut on crews as well)
You will pretty much never find a US tanker without a IOTV on in actual combat, maybe bar the loader, given it is standardized well enough, although you might find a interceptor here and there in nat guard units, but the interceptor is still designed and used for the same exact purpose as the IOTV.
To that same end, steel backing plates have been used as spall prevention devices since prior to WW2, with the USN employing STS across functionally it’s entire fleet as a means to mitigate spall and fragmentation onboard ships, with the STS plates outright being defined by the USN as “Anti-Fragmentation Armor” the same armor that is present in game on so many USN ships and forms a entire category of armor steel in game. USS South Dakota outright had a full penetration through it’s 1.5 inch STS weather deck into her A barbette during the battle of Iron Bottom sound and her STS spall plating not only proved to be effective against both a 14 inch Type 91 shell penetration, but also the round detonating against her A barbette. Her class A barbette scaled and produced spall inside the barbette leading the USN to determine that they needed a way to attach STS to the the interior of her barbettes to prevent similar damage on penetrations and non-penetrations. (not currently possible due to most class A being cast as is without any form of mounting) Meanwhile the location of penetration through her 1.5 inch STS weatherdeck proved that STS deforms on penetration rather than shattering like similar armor grade steels, with the only noted fragmentation being produced through the vessel being that of the subsequent round detonating inside the vessel, the STS at the penetration site ended up even preventing the now splintering teak deck from reaching the interior of the vessel.
If thats not a showing of steel being able to prevent spall or fragmentation upon a penetration I don’t know what is.
To say steel cant be used to prevent spall is disingenuous at best, and a flat out lie at worst.
9 Likes
What is disingenuous is pretending steel plates spaced out to prevent non-pen spalling is a form of spall liner similar to the kevlar interior layers now on the T-90M and other vehicles in the game.
@TheArcticFoxxo don’t even bother replying, at this point he’s baiting you and trying to harm your arguments credibility by being disingenuous.
Do you have any justification for your assertion that the spall liner would be useless if not the last layer?
2 Likes
Literally in the OP.
I’d love to see how your statements are correct (so far I’ve seen you pull off some of the best mental gymnastics up to date), or how an armour being made from laminate material will magically keep the backplate from spalling…
Imagine my shock that a nation that has been using laminated armor arrays to stop spall and fragmentation since world war 1 to this day
This is irrelevant to what a spall liner is, stop trying to change the goalpost.
Your hubris is showing my guy.
You’ve been nothing but be condenscending because I disagreed so well, who’s the one showing off their hubris here I wonder. This entire thread is about an interior spall-liner, you’ve done nothing to prove the M1 has one, and yet you’re still disigenous enough to pretend spaced-out steel plates to prevent non-penetration spalling (because who would’ve thought armour multi-hit capability is a thing!) is in any way similar to actual spall-protection panels countries mount on the inside of their AFVs…
1 Like
Can you tell me what a spall liner’s purpose is? Can you explain to me exactly what a spall liner does?
Now, while you do that, think about body armor. It typically is put in front of a target to protect them from shrapnel and possible ammunition.
What purpose would that body armor serve if put on the back of a soldier who is being shot from the front?
What was the conclusion on the accuracy of this report?
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/optimized/3X/b/a/ba85b60fd17041121ce675960910c9d5724df34d_2_773x1000.jpeg
2 Likes
The only tank to have it modeled as part of armour is T-90A and it probably doesnt even do much since i think its only modeled outside.
Devs clarified themselves anti-radiation lining removes smallest of spall yet im not sure of that.
1 Like
The Actual fact is that there are no source that clearly said Abrams has no spall liner [if there is feel free to bring it here] others than some people claim (Include those who said he is tanker or have been inside Abrams) and a picture of interior came explaining that there was no spall liner as a back plate visible to see. (+ that one source about computer program which is hilarious btw)
Then there another people (include that tanker in tiktok) explain that Abrams has Integrated Spall Liner behind the bolted interior casings . So it doesn’t visible to the see. with the source that said Abrams use kevlar as spall liner as a back up .
They give source/study to explain that by design spall liners doesn’t alway have to be the final layer.
They also give source that state Live fire test was being done to Bradley and Abrams to determine the vulnerability of Abrams tank components to behind-armor spall fragments. Conclusions is that Abrams meet its survivability requirements while Bradley has spall liner and other survvivability upgrade.
+fact that none of the Abrams upgrade (M1 up till M1A2sepV3) has not even a single mention of spall liner in their service/upgrade till this day make this even more strange.
So this come down to
A)Abrams alway has spall liner as Integrated Spall Liner (a few source+claim but there is source nonetheless)
or
B)Abrams has no spall liner in their entire service life (no clear source (yet) just claim)
You’re free to think or believe as you like obviously; but until more official source can prove/clarify this. Your opinion doesn’t mean much to me So i’ll stick to A)
Other than that sure
All vehicles crew should have their armor vest+helmet if they had irl.
7 Likes