I don’t know why you still agruing about pointless shit, don’t you wanna see every tank in this game balanced and have equivalent armor? Also necron spent his life in this topic arguing on something he has no idea about, people already proved that Gaijin is wrong and provided sources that prove otherwise, you can check them provided by @Count_Trackula.
9 Likes
You are arguing with the forces of chaos!
yup anything that penetrates an abrams will leave spall smaller than a pencil
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/m1-penetration-iraq-2008.pdf
thats why i generally laugh at these idiots who keep saying the abrams has no spall liner.
Behold the shape of the debris field
10 Likes
These images show that the side-skirt was effective at reducing the penetration of a shaped charge (Maybe RPG-7?) before it impacted the side-armor. The considerable distance probably degraded the energy of the Jet since it was only pencil sized by the time it impacted the actual armor (Google search the size of direct RPG impacts), but it was still able to barely punch through the side armor.
Look at how the hole expands in size from a pencil shaped entry hole into a larger exit hole. You can clearly see that as the Jet created additional spall when it burst through the armor. The lack of after penetration damage is probably due to the offset distance from the sideskirt reducing the strength of the Jet. If you imagine a more powerful shaped charge creating both a larger entry and exit hole you can imagine that the spall would both increase and more of the shaped charge’s copper would actually make it into the crew compartment.
While i have questions on weather the abrams has a spall liner or not. The spall that seems present looks like it could have came from the basket sheild.
Both the angle of the hole and the hole itself are very shallow, though, so the spall would have been contained to a small angle.
I mean that is not what the report says at all. The diameter of the penetration is “smaller than a pencil” not EVERYTHING that pens will generate spall smaller than a pencil?
Also doesn’t the amount and size of spall generally follow the diameter of the penetration and amount of penetration vs the thickness of the armour? So if this warhead was only capable of creating an initial penetration of ~3mm in diameter why would you expect large amounts of spall?
And then why would you think a much larger diameter penetration would also generate the same size spall as the 3mm diameter example?
Also (working on my untrained eyes here) once it was done with the initial penetration and had hit more internal objects the cone appears to be much larger;
I would be apprehensive in taking the position “all spall is pencil sized” from a very small peneration that appeared to have enough penetration to cut clean through the side, go through the whole vehicle and make what appears to be a sizable hole on the other side of the hull.
Its a sample size of 1, taking a single example of a small diameter penetration and applying that to all penetrations doesn’t make any sense to me.
1 Like
The main thing is that when the jet (or whatever was left of the jet) entered the Abrams, the angle of the spall as seen in the turret well photo was rather shallow, with the excess fragments in the photo you show likely being from internal components coming from things other than the armor.
Right, but isn’t this characteristic of “over penetration”. Assuming this is an RPG of some flavour typically pen something like 300mm flat right? So if the side is only say 50mm (dont have the value at hand) isn’t this typical when the warhead over penetrates?
1 Like
It went through the side skirt, then the side armor, then the turret well - which is probably something like 150-200mm effective (also just a guess)?
1 Like
So as a penetrator starts to slow when passing through the armour the front starts to mushroom, which widens the amount of material pushed out the exit hole, slowing typically happens closer to the limits of the penetrator? (I assume so anyway). If there is enough energy left to exit the armour into the internals that will generate a good amount of spalling.
Where as if the armour isn’t anywhere near sufficient enough to slow the penetrator as its too thin vs the penetrative capability of the penetrator it will maintain a more straight an uniform shape and push less material out of the hole?
1 Like
Interesting, guess it would help to know what warhead hit the Abrams here.
1 Like
It’s pretty easy to tell that the skirt was overpenned, but the turret well looks like it had to have some suppression of spallation due to how small the diameter of the exit hole (can’t remember the correct name right now) is.
Using this document as an example of what a Soviet RPG-7 would do to aluminum, I would guess that something in the armor is suppressing spallation. To be fair, the study is talking about how spall liners function and how an integrated spall liner is not impossible (although they are testing two more traditional forms of spall liners), and uses only a ~44.45mm thick aluminum plate.
If the skirt over penned, and the the diameter of the entry hole into the armour was only a few mm in size and only marginally larger when exiting in the armour. I’d say it had plenty of penetrative power left when it entered the vehicle, typically I wouldn’t expect a large amount of spall in that situation. I would be reticent to adopt the position that’s indicative of some kind of spall protection being at play. Seems to me to be a pretty classic over penetration.
I mean, the exit hole being nearly the same size as the penetrator itself is what the result of an integrated spall liner would look like (where the whole point of it is to minimize the shockwave at the interior surface enough so that very little of that surface will be broken off as spall).
1 Like
That’s what every penetration looks like
Would depend on what is doing the penetration.
right
I suppose HESH would look a bit different
HESH and kinetic penetrators.
???
Unless the entire plate cracks and fails kinetic penetrators will also leave a hole around the size of the penetrator diameter