Does the Abrams have a spall liner? No from what I could find

[CodeNameColdWar]

@Flame2512

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

Full source

ADA360935.pdf

@VROD_Legend

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%.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

They more than likely mean spall effectiveness of a shot

[Daniel8599]

Mildly skeptical on that one due to the fact CATTB’s spall liner was only around 1,250 pounds for the turret alone. That leaves around 3,600 pounds according to that report supposedly for the hull.

[MiG_23M]

Would you mind linking the source for the CATTB spall liner. Also, does it consider anti-spall for the ammo and other areas of the turret or is it limited to a smaller space? Further, could it be talking about an internal spall liner or is it discussing the same kevlar lining that we’ve established does no good for the crew?

[Daniel8599]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA228389.pdf
First mention of spall liner, with it stating it’s in the turret crew area.

Spall liner weight shown here.

[MiG_23M]

Thank you.

The CATTB is a very experimental tank that introduced a lot of new features. What they had done was produce a one-off turret design to test a lot of these features and I suppose that is why when they mated it to a otherwise relatively standard M1 hull… they had integrated the spall liner into the turret but not the hull.

As you can see, the CATTB lacks a loader. It is a three man crew and the turret has less internal volume than a standard M1. Presumably, the weight of 4800 pounds was referring to a standard M1 tank with spall liner for hull, turret, and ammo compartment(s). I think the total volume and space all seems to check out with these values.

[Exocetta]

Do you realize that that isn’t a thing?

[MotorolaCRO]

According to the furry himself, Abrooms’ we have in game didn’t have spall liners nor DU armor, yikes.

War Thunder's M1 Abrams Controversy

[Lolman345]

Citing stuff already countered with current sources, dated information sadly on spook’s part.

His statements on the SEPV3 make me laugh though because we all know its just going to be another M1A2 with no actual improvements bar maybe gen 3 thermals.

[Jεcka]

@Lolman345

His statements on the SEPV3 make me laugh though because we all know its just going to be another M1A2 with no actual improvements bar maybe gen 3 thermals.

Going by what happened to 2A7V (which currently has worse protection levels than the 1991 SVT vehicle), and SEPv2 which has M1A1s hull armour & M1A2s turret armour… that assertion is sadly 110% spot on.

[MiG_23M]

@Lolman345

Citing stuff already countered with current sources, dated information sadly on spook’s part.

His information regarding the lack of a spall liner is up-to-date.

[GNDM_Panzer]

Uh, no.

[Mytho-GR1]

Then prove him wrong

[MiG_23M]

@Count_Trackula

Everything really does look like he might have been the guy who pushed the erroneous M735 nerf.

Not my report… but it was likely true if it was passed.

@Count_Trackula

polyurethane

@Count_Trackula

anti-static barrier

That’s what it’s for, the rounds are set off by a simple 9v discharge of electricity to the base. There is no real “firing pin” as you’d expect from a simple gun. The mm thick polyurethane does less to stop spall than a rubber skirt would.

You’re free to reference my post regarding that and look at the pictures of the polyurethane in the actual vehicle. Doesn’t even hardly cover any surface area inside the ammo rack… just enough to prevent accidental grounding.

But go off, keep insulting the people who are truly being objective and not putting blinders on anytime some evidence to the contrary regarding spall liners is shown. /s

[MiG_23M]

@Count_Trackula

I think you’re the one stating that Kevlar and polyurethane backing layers in composite armor “isn’t about stopping spall.” Something that has been proven false over and over.

So if I fire a Sabot through a wall of kevlar… and it penetrates a 100mm steel plate behind the kevlar… there will be no spall from the 100mm steel plate going into the crew compartment beyond it?

@Count_Trackula

But insist that backing and bonding layers of these materials have no purpose of stopping spall. XD

The epoxy / kevlar used in the armor array is meant to prevent displacement of the composites when taking multiple hits.

@Count_Trackula

Denial won’t make you right.

Words to live by.

[Daniel8599]

@MiG_23M

So if I fire a Sabot through a wall of kevlar… and it penetrates a 100mm steel plate behind the kevlar… there will be no spall from the 100mm steel plate going into the crew compartment beyond it?

I would expect it to spall only slightly more than the 80/85mm sides of a T-80 or T-72 series tank.
And that’s assuming plate hardness is roughly the same since that tends to factor into your spalling.

[MiG_23M]

Well yes, no one is saying spalling shouldn’t get a rework. HEAT projectiles cause far too much spalling in-game currently IMO. Should be about as useful as APCR unless you hit ammo or explode a fuel tank.

However, pretending that the kevlar is going to stop all spalling when it’s not the last layer before reaching tank interior is absurd.

[Zannafrancy12]

Im gonna make an assumption, that same displacement of the composite is what cauising the spall, If the kevlar is meant to keep the armor in place and relatively effective AFTER it has been penetrated i would wager it does at leas some work into reducing the spall itself.

[Zannafrancy12]

Where does your assumption that the reduction of spalling would be minimal comes from? Outside your own misplaced arrogance?

[MiG_23M]

@Zannafrancy12

Im gonna make an assumption, that same displacement of the composite is what cauising the spall, If the kevlar is meant to keep the armor in place and relatively effective AFTER it has been penetrated i would wager it does at leas some work into reducing the spall itself.

Yes, prevents additional spalling from entering the cabin but doesn’t stop anything from the 100mm backplate. That is what I said.

@Zannafrancy12

Where does your assumption that the reduction of spalling would be minimal comes from?

Ignoring all the insults - they’re pointless and harm your credibility in the argument - Yes. Sure. Let’s go with that.

It’s totally just my opinion and not discussed already very well in the OP that the kevlar / epoxy will not stop spalling caused by the penetration of the backplate.