pretty much what Count_Trackula already sum up
Why go that far when they already had “secondary_shatter” or “ShatterArmorQuality” code to work with ?
just like they did to “certain vehicles”
6 Likes
“Minor wounds” From a mystery round that went through one end and out of the other of an Abrams tank and the entry point was right next to the gunner/TC stations.
You are using this as evidence of a lack of spall reducing material? Lol, lmao even.
2 Likes
Also there are a lot of component inside Abrams crew compartment that didn’t get model into WT.
If Gaijin model them up. They could help block spall on certain angle.
1 Like
that is like the best proof that the abrams has a way to minimize spall upon penetration
The report they are discussing and the pictures within prove there is no hull spall liner for the crew compartment to speak of. Any side shot through the hull will come through with ALL of the spalling.
What it does highlight is that smaller RPG sized warheads (like those fired from the BMP-3 / BMD-4) should have significantly less spalling than they do in-game, though.
Amazing to me that this steel is pretty much forged in the same exact way as WW2 Special Treated Steel for warships and pretty much serves the same purpose, just with the addition that they face harden one side of the armor unlike STS.
Turns out the folks in the past using such armor for this purpose had something usable.
Does not need to necessarily adhered to a purpose built ballistic layer either, just to or slightly behind a primary armor plate. As highlighted above, similar ductile steels produced favorable results against full caliber AP pens and partial penetrations from rifles far in excess of what we have on tanks. Maybe we should be coming at this from the angle of gaijin needing to improve how armor quality in general is modeled, EG STS is woefully underperforming in game in naval right now because its generalized across all nation’s spall / fragment protection “full armor grade steel”, which many nations had an inferior quality of, thus the quality of “antifragmentation armor” in game is only 0.98, when STS was equivalent in protection to Class B armor, a RHA non face hardened armor, IRL, and which exists in game with a modifier of 1.0.
4 Likes
Again, just because the Abrams doesn’t have a carpet draped on the walls of the crew compartment doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an integrated spall liner.
1 Like
It certainly has nothing to protect the hull from spalling. There is no liner there, integrated or not and that is visible from photos quite easily.
The kevlar used in the turret array to hold the composites together is not useful as we’ve already shown and discussed.
How would you view an integrated spall liner through a photo? I haven’t seen any x-ray images of an Abrams’ armor anywhere on the forums
The walls of the hull are thin, photos online show this and photos of the interior confirm no additional protection.
This stuff is all very easily seen on google images.
All of the images shown are either fully constructed Abrams hulls/turrets (in terms of they have their final coats of paint on) or show partially constructed Abrams that have all of their panels already put together, which just means the spall liner is housed within a standard-looking matal (like how the DU armor is encased in steel).
2 Likes
You can see the plate thickness, we know there is no additional room for spall protection. On the side of the hull armor is additional plating but it is also obvious that there is no room for some kevlar protection there either. As much as I would like to improve the tank in the game it is just dishonest to pretend it has spall protection.
I was all for the hull armor improvement suggestion, but that was turned down. We lack necessary data to model this properly - and we certainly lack data on spall protection because it simply doesn’t have any.
Not necessarily true about there being no room per-se. as we know that the M1 Grizzly was supposed to have spall liners, which was essentially just a M1A2 chassis. I believe 2 prototypes were even delivered before the Breacher program for the Army got canned, whilst the USMC program kept going.
source here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA303814.pdf
1 Like
Yes, but it doesn’t say where. There is plenty of internal room for the Abrams to receive spall liners. It just hasn’t been done in practice.
The M1150 has plenty of room internally as well, especially since the turret is replaced with a larger more hollowed unit. They needed such additional protection.
M1 Grizzly seen above
Grizzly really doesn’t have a turret. It’s got a rotating crane, but the M1150 is kind of a different beast all together in comparison
M1150 seen below:
I was mistaken as to which vehicle we were discussing. Kinda confusing with two bridge variants and the Grizzly (I’ve never seen the Grizzly while in the service). Although… same reasoning applies.
If you’d like to see what kind of spall liner they WOULD have used on the Abrams (but didn’t) I’d recommend trying to find out what it looks like on the inside of an M1150 or the aforementioned Grizzly.
›WT players can’t accept that the spall liner is most likely laminated into the structure and not draped around the tank like the T-90
Which is already sketchily modeled as covering the entire interior lmao
lol
There’s no reason on God’s green earth the US would add spall liners to MBTs starting with the M60A1 and then not have on in their next gen MBT
The yanks aren’t the ones always having to cut costs after all
8 Likes
Start over, read the OP.
By the way, I’ve mentioned it before… the devs are very aware of the facts regarding the matter. The Abrams will receive no internal spall liner. If we’re lucky they’ll model the reduced spall from the integral liner on areas such as the turret cheeks or hull front but you will still see spalling from the 100mm thick backplate. There will be no such protection on the sides and rear of the turret or the hull.
Not that anything will be penetrating the turret cheeks / hull front that easily anyway.
2 Likes
I don’t actually care and nothing will be done. I’m simply laughing at the people acting like an integrated liner is absolutely not a possibility
The Abrams will get nothing, just like always
The bone it got thrown is the L7 reload being brought closer to IRL 120mm qualification rof
Don’t worry, it’ll go through the hull roof and turret ring just like always
1 Like
Yes, very glad this change occured.
That unfortunately will not change until the game fixes some of the ghost-round issues and ballistics.
Likely not getting fixed unless they have a serious game engine improvement.
2 Likes