I read somewhere that the spall liner was built into the hull armor behind the internal metal plates, I cant remember where I saw that but I suppose that some metal or kevlar spall liner would catch the spall when the round pens the external armor and then have to deal with the inside layer of metal (most likely panels to cover electronics and wiring) after having all the spall caught by the liner in between the external armor plate and the wiring/interior panels. I saw a picture of the inside of the tank somewhere on the bug reports that showed the internal plating to be secured by screws so there must be some sort of spall liner since the US army likes redundant safety mechanisms. Surely they wouldn’t be so overconfident that they cant be penetrated that they say the PPE worn by crew is enough.
Issue with that is then the inner metal plate would spall. Might be less but proving such would be hard.
Or even not at all. In War Thunder, plates with a thickness of 4mm and below don’t generate any spall at all;
So- if the Abrams DID have an internal spall liner behind a 2mm thick metal sheet covering them, they would be as effective (if not even more, since the 2mm thick plate would be an additional spall liner) as regular spall liners.
In war thunder that makes sense. But if you put a thin metal sheet behind a spall liner i would think it would produce spall wouldn’t it?
Well, not really. If it’s a 2mm metal sheet, there really isn’t any metal to spall; rather, the shell would punch through it just like butter.
For example, a Shilka that was hit by an APFSDS shell; notice how the hole is just the perfect shape of the rod and the fins? There was no spalling at all, the shell just sliced in through.
And that’s 9mm… now imagine 1-2mm.
Fair point
What happened to this
I’m waiting for a response on the Distribution Code status or FOIA release of a couple key documents, with some other weirdness involved with that particular situation that I won’t go into…
As far as my other project of the L-O Tutorial. I’ve had to hunt down other public documents and information as a way to skirt around the classified or restricted nature of documents regarding certain rounds. And that’s involved sifting through many patents on the USPTO site, and the International and European Patent and trademark office sites. And I just haven’t had the extra free time to make 3D models of all the rounds yet, as it takes time to prep the base 2D Sketch images.
Example, my best current render of 90/40mm T320E10 or E16 based on the descriptions I’ve been able to find. Though I feel like I might need to modify the fins a bit, as the descriptions say swept back at 7-7.5°. However, with this one L-O does confirm the 5"/127mm RHA penetration ability at ~4800ft/s at 60° obliquity for the steel penetrator version.
On a side note, T320E37/E60, can’t really use L-O for this one though, as the front portion of the penetrator is Tungsten Carbide. Only real difference physically E37 and E60 have to do with the fin assembly and sabot being slightly higher diameter than the bore on E60. From the documents I now have, the tungsten carbide versions of T320, could pen the same 5"/127mm @60° at ~4600ft/s. Oh yeah, another difference being E37 muzzle velocity was usually 5100ft/s, and E60 was 5200ft/s.
Glad to see it is still being worked on! Looking forward to seeing what you’ve scrounged up.
where are the spall liners for the Abrams, the M113s the M60s the Strykers, the LAVs?