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

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
826

Yeah, I chose that example as I recall a picture of a M1 with the L/55 mounted that always looked neat to me and stuck in my memory.

As for the spall liners: I’ve only seen reference to it not being utilized for weight reasons. Concerns over the growing weight of the M1 is something you see over and over again in sources, so I’m not surprised if that’s the reason that spall liners weren’t fitted.

I know for a fact that the M1 CATTB uses spall liners extensively for the turret crew compartment, of course the CATTB is a test bed for a whole host of technologies that ultimately weren’t adopted for mass production.

IIRC, the M1150 also has spall liners?

827

First source isn’t a primary source.

Spoiler

Spall liner M1
Spall liner M11670×1080 173 KB

Second one is just some text.

Third one concerns the XM-1 IIRC, and is taken from the very early CIA publication going by memory. It’s also contradicted by numerous M1 crews who have stated no spall liners are used (in the manner described in that source).

Furthermore, no photographic evidence has ever been provided that shows the ‘‘Kevlar spool liners inside the vehicle’’. This is very strange indeed given the thousands of videos and photographs of the interior of the M1.

And finally, we have detailed budget allocation sheets which clearly state exactly which vehicles use spall liners, those include M113’s, Bradley’s, M1128’s, etc. Curiously the M1’s are never mentioned to possess spall liners of any kind in those same documents.

-Edit-

Forgot to mention that detailed studies performed to ascertain the survivability of the Abrams also do not show any spall liners present in the vehicle:

Spoiler

fyGSgMs

Spoiler

y80wHqX

828

Hmmm, the spall liner matter seems… complex.

Even more so than the improved hull armor on certain variants.

So, for now, I think the only ways in which the Abrams tanks could and should be improved would be via:

1- Fuel tank bulkhead thickness correction (19 → 25.4)
2- Fuel tank bulkhead geometry correction (missing front, top and external side plates)
3- Turret ring thickness correction (~220-300mm thick volumetrically)
4- Making SEPv2’s TUSK II package an optional module (instead of permanently installed)
5- Improved turret side armor on SEP and SEPv2

All of those issues have been 100% confirmed and verified with no room for doubt.

After that, we could go back to the improved hull debate for AIM and SEPv2, hahah.

8 Likes
829
  1. I think it might be optimistic to believe this would have any noticable impact on the vehicle.
  2. I saw the report on that, I wasn’t very convinced. I get that the geometry could be interpreted that way, but there wasn’t any concrete proof that his/her interpretation was correct. Not that it really matters because the UFP currently is already immune to any and all APFSDS:

  1. I’m not sure where people are getting their exact values from, but I do know for certain that the current 62mm isn’t correct. I don’t think that this would change much in terms of gameplay given that you’re facing main gun APFSDS which doesn’t care if it’s 62mm or 200mm.

  2. Pretty sure the turret ring is modelled about as accurately as you could expect from a video game.

    jyktyl
    jyktyl1920×583 135 KB
    (open in new tab for better resolution)

  3. It took them long enough to do it with the M1128, I’m not expecting this change any time soon though I welcome it.

  4. Yeah, I personally reported this but still haven’t seen any further information on it. I kinda wanna ask Smin1080p but I assume he already gets these questions hundreds of times each day.

Personally I’d have been fine with the M1A2 SEP v3 being implemented alongside the Leopard 2 A7V instead of the SEP v2.

1 Like
830

Oh, the corrected turret ring isn’t about making it immune to main gun shells; rather, it’s about allowing the Abrams to at least not die to Pantsir/Tunguska/BMP/other autocanons frontally.

When it comes to the geometry and thickness of the fuel tank bulkheads… I supposse each and every single possible millimiter counts when your hull is the worst armored in Top Tier, only topped by the Arietes.

After checking the turret ring ingame once again, I removed the size point, hahah. On the armor viewer it appears taller than it really is because it highlights part of the UFP, but it’s just a visual illusion, it’s actually fine.

And yeah, the TUSK thing would be pretty big. Right now, SEPv2, which is suppossed to be the top dog, is just worse than SEP or AIM.

SEPv2 is also pretty much confirmed to have improved hull armor, as well as AIM, but since we don’t have a document signed by General Dynamics and 18 U.S presidents specifically stating the value in mm, we seem not to be able to expect any changes in that field, so I guess our best shots to make the Abrams even if slightly better are the previously mentioned points.

I just find the Abrams so underwhelming ingame… it’s suppossed to be the workhorse MBT of the nation with highest military budget on the planet and yet it doesn’t hold a candle against stuff like 2A7V, 2A7HU or any of the multiple 122s. The only thing saving the Abrams from being an absolute disgrace is the recent reload buff…

Maybe Gaijin could take the extreme glass canon route and give SEPv2 M829A3, so that at least it felt actually better than SEP, AIM or even basic A2 from 2019 in at least one way.

I just want the Abrams to be a tank to be feared in Top Tier. Instead, to me, coming across an Abrams is barely any different from coming across an Ariete at this point, when I am playing a 122, for example.

4 Likes
831

Your evidence is anecdotal

2 Likes
832

They skipped a bunch of Leopard 2 variants to jump from the 2A6/PSO directly to the 2A7V, I still don’t understand why they decided to not skip the SEPv2 for the time being, like you said it’s a downgrade anyway compared to the SEPv1.

2 Likes
833

What can they possibly base their guess around on armour values of SepV3?
Maybe thats the reason.

1 Like
834

Honestly, I don’t know how Gaijin will even model sepv3 since the armor is even more classified than sepv2. Maybe they will use the 35% increase in the KE figure that was found in the sepv2 bug report but at least we have hard confirmation regarding hull and turret armor upgrades. I still personally believe that the sepv2s hull was upgraded with improved ceramics or DU armor. Hopefully, when they add sepv3 they get it right and add the full package like APS and m829a3/a4 etc because honestly top-tier US really needs all the help it can get.

7 Likes
835

We’ve already admitted that the generation of chobam is not present in what we’ve sent to Ukraine, because it was classified. There’s definitely more present in there.

836

When people cry for “Muh Abrams Turret Ring Fix”, its not to make it 1000mm of HHRA, Its to help protect against bounces and auto cannons.

If the turret ring were 200mm it would protect against alot of the Auto cannons as well as protect against UFP ricochets where APFSDS bounce up through the turret ring and or under the composites.

It would also help if APFSDS shatter was thing but thats a different story.

10 Likes
837

You’re wasting your time, i’ve posted this to necrons, other people have posted this to these people, they dont care. These people simply hate the U.S the vehicles and everything else.

1 Like
838

the Ukrainians are even putting the ARAT era tiles on the turret lol https://youtu.be/puL0L4j2RHo?t=167

1 Like
839

kenny, you already know they are never going to properly model the Seps. They are just going to say " we don’t believe that the U.S Army could ever make a tank with this much protection and probably copy paste the V2 armor.

the round… they said can’t penetrate Russia ERA… because gaijibbles says it cant?

1 Like
840

Leaving even real world performance aside and realism, American Top Tier is just underwhelming because it feels like they haven’t really got a new tank since 2019.

Every Abrams that has come since 2019 is identical to A2 save for the thermals and extra weight. Gameplay wise, not a single one of them has brought anything new to the table in 5 years.

The Abrams had underwhelming armor in 2019, and it has underwhelming armor in 2024. Only nation in the game that hasn’t got armor upgrades in 5 years; at this point, even ITALY, a life long underdog at Top Tier, has got a better armored (and overall) tank than America.

Of course knowing the Abrams in War Thunder being a far cry from its real life counterpart makes it even worse.

4 Likes
841

Extra hull and turret armour won’t get rid of the turret ring. Meaning, all Abrams will ultimately play the same in War Thunder. The M1E3 looks like it will be the first upgrade that changes the structure of the tank significantly.

843

Would you say Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A6 play the same just because they continue to share weakspots even though the main armor is drastically improved?

Of course not; and it would be the same with the Abrams.

A tank which has just a 33% vulnerable front surface area is FAR from playing the same as a tank which has a 66%+ vulnerable front surface area.

There is a huge difference between having to aim for specific weakspots to kill a tank… or being able to annihilate a tank just for firing on its general direction.

1 Like
844

The 2A7V and 2A6 don’t share the same weakspots though. The Leo 2s had a basically unarmoured hull for a long time, which the 2A7V fixed, massively reducing the penetrable area. The main weakspot on the Abrams wouldn’t change at all, as the armour would only increase in areas you likely won’t shoot at already. So they’re really not comparable.
Before you mention the lfp, it is basically a gamble already, quite often only killing the driver and destroying the engine.

845

You can kill both a 2A6 and a 2A7V by hitting their LFPs; however, unlike 2A6, you can’t kill a 2A7V by hitting the UFP.

That’s a huge difference;

Likewise, you can currently kill any Abrams by hitting anywhere but the turret cheeks… now imagine an uparmored Abrams which has a nearly immune hull as well.

Yes, you can still hit SEPv3’s turret ring, just like you can still hit 2A6’s LFP. The difference is that if you hit the hull, you are done; while, as of now, any hit on an Abrams hull either mission kills it or completely destroys it (save for the few trolly shots it may be able to survive).

4 Likes
846

The lfp isn’t a weakspot on the 2A6 though, the whole hull is. Without any ammo in the hull, the lfp is also a gamble just like it is on the Abrams.
To explain it more precisely:
On the 2A6 you would usually shoot in the left side of the ufp, killing the driver, gunner and commander. It’s the easiest to hit and most obvious weakspot. The 2A7V has increased hull armour, making this weakspot unusable. You are now forced to shoot the driver’s hatch, breech or gamble the lfp.
On the Abrams however, the easiest to hit and most obvious weakspot is the turret ring. Increasing the hull armour doesn’t affect this weakspot at all. Therefore, it doesn’t change anything about the vehicle’s playstyle or how you counter it. It would at best be a nothingburger to appease US mains.