Huh, spall liners before the inner metal lining yet again? Looks like you guys can’t accept that a spall liner doesn’t have to be exposed in a crew compartment.
17 Likes
Did we chase away the creator of the thread again because he was completely wrong about spall liners again? Not the first time a clown created a thread refusing to believe spall liners can be between layers.
20 Likes
I’ve got to say, thanks for doing the work of doing all this research. I don’t even play ground (mainly air and now naval) but it’s really frustrating to see how terribly Gaijin has made NATO ground vehicles.
7 Likes
Thanks for the support! :D
1 Like
Yes. Your active ignorance is incredibly powerful and repel any rational argument.
3 Likes
Except the ignorance is entirely on your end. When I show documents that show testing with integral composite armor that has spall liners incorporated, you try to claim ‘IT’S ONLY ON VEHICLES THAT HAVEN’T BEEN PRODUCED’ when the document came to no such conclusion. They never limited the reach of the technology, they only mention a couple programs that incorporated it. You continue to claim to know about the Abrams armor despite it still being classified.
Then your buddy throws a fit because a spall liner between glass layers can’t possibly have a similar application or effect on metal…despite having linked studies demonstrating as much.
Between the documents talking about the XM1 having spall liners, analysts and historians speaking of spall lining in Abrams tanks, official Army DTIC documents explicitly mentioning spall liners in Abrams tanks…even these studies you can see for yourself that incorporate spall mitigation between metal layers…and you still make claims that have been disproven. XD
There is no helping clowns like you. But if you want to ignorant, here are the sources you refuse to acknowledge.:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914723001186
’ Moreover, each sequence of the distinct materials, properties and mechanical impedance are significantly important for the performance of the whole structure. Consequently, each of the different laminate has an important role towards preventing projectile piercing of the armour. The two frontal laminates (face sheet and strike face) fragmentate and mitigate the projectile’s nose. The two rear laminates (intermediate and back plate) hold the frontal plates, stop their fragments and absorbs ∼40% of the projectile kinetic energy. Hence, the strike-face should have high hardness and compression strength to break the tip of the projectile and the face-sheet should contribute to the spall protection, from spalls created by the strike-face fragmentation, on the front of the armour and to hold the strike face in position after the impact of a projectile. The subsequent laminates (intermediate and backplate) should have high toughness and energy absorption, to absorb a significant amount of energy during the impact of the projectile, while the third laminate has a great tensile strength to hold the strike-face’s fragments and protect the contact between the strike-face and the backplate. The back plate of common composite protection system is usually made up of a high-density material, especially metals, thus contributing the most to the total mass of the armour system. This research focuses on the reduction of the mass of the backplate and overall composite armour system, through the utilisation of ultra-light weight materials as backplate. The proposed materials is a Metal Matrix Composite (MMC) reinforced by nanomaterials which is designed and manufactured with enhanced mechanical and ballistic properties.’
’ 2.2.2.1. First laminate: face-sheet
The first laminate (face-sheet) is used for the spall protection, after the projectile impact preventing the micro damage to the following strike-face, protection from possible damage associated with system vibrations, protection from various environmental factors (i.e., thermal stress, ultraviolet radiation) and low Radar Cross Section (RCS) signatures. The basic functional requirements for the face-sheet layer are high dynamic stiffness, high-speed inelastic resistance to deformation, high compressive strength, and desirable hardness. These requirements contribute towards the main function of the strike face which is the mitigation of the projectile’s nose and/or the fragmentation and high shear strength due to the shearing behaviour of the material.’
’ 2.2.2.4. Fourth laminate: backplate
The backplate (last laminate layer) is used to absorb the projectile’s remaining kinetic energy through the plastic deformation mechanism, provide structure support to all of the protection laminate, and act as a load bearing element during the post impact period after the damage have taken place in the strike-face, support the strike-face body post-impact fracturing, and deform during the impact and recovery stages producing a high bending recovery and reaction. The backplate basic functional requirements are high toughness (rupture), high flexural strength, high bending stiffness, high fracture strength, suitable thickness (thin plates fail in tension due to the lack of structural rigidity), in-plane and through-the-thickness ductility (since this layer should be in deformation correspondence with the intermediate plate) and support the intermediate layer to avoid surpassing its bending strength under the projectile impacting. The backplate is a very important laminate of the composite armour since it absorbs up to the 40% of the kinetic energy.
Ductile materials, such as metal and polymer fibre composites, are ideal for use in the backplates. Metals are the most common material used for backplate due to low brittleness compared to polymer fibre composites.’
lol. Spall liners before metal layers, metal layers are ideals for backplates. An internal spall liner works with glass layers, even though glass is very brittle and prone to spalling. These internal spall liners are used in ballistic glass. Something that catches projectiles, and still resists spalling BECAUSE of a spall liner BETWEEN the spalling surfaces.
Deny it all you want, you’re still wrong.
14 Likes
Pre-1996 M1 does not have spall liners, it is stated here
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA360935.pdf
Please note that this document can be applicable only to pre-1996 abrams, not after.
3 Likes
That study wasn’t even done by the Army. That was outsourced to a private entity. The Abrams armor is still classified, so I don’t know how they came to that conclusion in a 3rd party unclassified document.
This states the XM1s design had them.
So are the multiple Army documents talking about the earliest Abrams tanks having spall liners to be thrown out when an outsourced 3rd-party company speaks at unclassified levels on armor compositions that are still classified?
Even if we can’t agree on the Army reports or this study being conclusive, what has been shown repeatedly is that spall liners can be incorporated via internal layers of composite armor modules. Spall liners still work when put between two surfaces that would spall otherwise.
Edit:…and as shown in different tests and documents, metal itself can be a spall liner. Especially if it is a more ductile metal. See Krupp Cemented Armor that has a hard face, but softer core and inner side.
8 Likes
Projection.
This was my original point as to why OP was wrong. You’ve doubled down and insisted spall liners have to be the final layer. Despite overwhelming proof to the contrary.
Edit: Spall liners can even be metal, as shown in studies and reports posted above! :D
Get yourself some pills, since you can’t handle reality .
8 Likes
One more time… A spall liner is a layer of material to catch ricocheting fragments within a compartment. It is not to prevent penetration of the armor.
Putting it between layers of armor defeats the purpose, and in fact probably would produce more fragments.
What you keep clinging to, is that composite armor modules contain the same “kevlar” epoxy matrix to hold the actual armor components in place, be they DU, ceramic, or moon cheese.
These are not the same in function or location as “spall liners”.
You are clinging to BS in order to not have to admit that you are wrong.
3 Likes
Again, projection. You can’t accept that spall liners can be between surfaces and still have effect. You are the one trying to move the goalpost and get mad when evidence shows the mechanics and physics behind spalling.
‘You aren’t even talking the original point, you are talking about nano-materials.’
The topic is spall liners, keep up, slo-mo. Multiple documents, studies, and reports show the inclusion of spall liners between spalling surfaces and their ability to mitigate spall. Disprove them. But you can’t.
You can’t seem to accept that spall liners adhered to surfaces can prevent spalling, regardless of which side they are on.
You’re the one insisting a spall liner has to be one thing in only one location. The evidence refutes your BS that you desperately cling to. Have fun coping some more. Maybe you can rage and call me a Trump supporter again. Since you don’t have any actual point.
11 Likes
Okay I’m just going to ignore you now. You didn’t “win”, you are just totally irrational. bye.
4 Likes
Projection again. Have fun denying evidence, science, and reality! :D
13 Likes
Would you mind sharing those sources?
2 Likes
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA065838.pdf
‘(Note that no current tanks have spall liners; the proposed XM-1 does.)’
‘As a result, the design of the XM1 included lower vehicle profile, armored
bulkheads between the crew and fuel cells, ammunition storage behind armored doors, blow-off
panels in the turret roof to vent explosions up and away from the crew and a spall liner and
Halon fire extinguisher system.’
Edit: Linked wrong document for first quote.
2 Likes
Let me clarify. Do you have a source of M1 Abrams / M1AX Series having spall liners?
7 Likes
Not sure why this discussion continues to live on.
Pictures from inside the Abrams show that it hasn’t got any liners:
And this is from a SEPv2 that was/is stationed in Poland:
Either the liner is invisible to the human eye, or Abroomz hasn’t got one. Occam’s razor indicates the latter.
6 Likes
This talks about the XM1 design evolving into the accepted M1 Abrams. It was there since the XM1.
Couple the previous entry of the XM1 having a spall liner with this.:
‘In May 1979, the XM1 was approved for low-rate production, and Chrysler received a
contract to build 110 more vehicles for extensive field testing in various weather, topographical,
and radioactive environments. These tests went well, with the exception of continued reliability
problems with the gas turbine engine. This vehicle was standardized as the M1 in 1981, with
production approved for 7,058 tanks. The first M1s were provided to combat units in Europe in
late 1982 and fielding continued throughout the 1980s.’
3 Likes
This doesn’t directly prove or disprove it, Leclerc does have spall liners but they are not visible from the inside of the tank. But if a source specify the M1A2 have spall liners, i would believe it if there are multiple sources stating that, but for now all the guy was sending was XM1 documents.
6 Likes
How does XM1 and M1 Abrams correlate?
5 Likes