Fair point
What happened to this
1 Like
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.
10 Likes
Glad to see it is still being worked on! Looking forward to seeing what you’ve scrounged up.
1 Like
where are the spall liners for the Abrams, the M113s the M60s the Strykers, the LAVs?
Welp, Gaijin denied the spall liner bug report, but of course they didn’t bother to check the sources that weren’t just new articles. Here’s a new one that makes it clear what the sources are coming from (and that a source titled “Canadian Army Trophy” is not, in fact, written by a Canadian, but a US Army Armor School historian): Community Bug Reporting System
8 Likes
Do you think the metal just disappeared from this place?
2 Likes
So from your report. How does integral ‘spall liner’ stop spalls from inner armour plate?
It certainly didn’t create a 120° arc cone worth of hellfire.
5 Likes
The inner structure isn’t basic RHA / CHA / HHA as would be found in Armor arrays / external structure but a bonded layer of dual hardness steel which should spall significantly less (it uses a similar process(Krupp method) to Class B Special Treatment Steel which does not spall and is present in Naval, also similar properties are already conferred to ESR (Electro-Slag Remelting) steels present on tanks and so is not without precedent within War thunder) due to being designed to do so.
3 Likes
I just responded to this statement.
There was no such information in your report. And it is unclear whether this applies to the Abrams.
This armor can be found in german tigers, but no one has yet thought of creating a report in which it was equated with spall liner. Maybe you will be the first))
1 Like
I wonder what else happened in 1976(note the Supersession date on -46099B)? Maybe just maybe, the Abrams began the EMD phase of development.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA135524.pdf#page=25
Also
So what other Armored vehicles does Australia operate, sufficiently to attempt to create common standards between the US, UK / NATO and itself?
I’ll put it on the list of things to get around to, I’m still waiting on a number of reports to be actioned though.
Here’s a few;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eiJ7Wg5ff5uq
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LbD7XSmoaAJc
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fsqcDieAhCl3
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yUohrEMuQLna
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/DQVcEbp6pedZ
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/cz09XoPRMtPc
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Hx7gGP3cy428
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WH23XAMoBjeO
8 Likes
I read it… And I became convinced that the Abrams never had spall liners and there is no evidence of this. And all attempts to give them to it through various bug reports are only demagogy and wordplay.
1 Like
Gaijin should just add a Kevlar vest mod for the crew on the Abrams at this point.
1 Like
Sure, no distinct external liner exists, but steps were taken to reduce and mitigate the risks posed by spalling, and that doesn’t take into account any potential systems integrated into the armor array(s) itself.
And Considering the Abrams is struggling as it is, is it really so hard to make slight improvements it won’t be the first or last time “game balance” takes precedence over accurate mechanics.
Is that not the reason why Gaijin haven’t done specific things as well?
Take for example two of the linked bug reports as explicit examples of Gaijin engaging as such;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LbD7XSmoaAJc
As per the relevant Devblog (linked in the report) Can you in your own words explain why POST seeker equipt missiles were not also provided with the Contrast Lock-on range extension mechanic? It should be evident that due to its use of a dual- band detector, Pseudo-imaging seeker algorithm that it should be otherwise eligible for the mechanic.
Except for the fact that it uses the combination of SWIR / UV detectors, instead of two IR bands or IR / EO like relevant Russian designs, and as mentioned in the blog and since UV isn’t in the visual spectrum, it wasn’t included. Is it any surprise?
There is also;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yUohrEMuQLna
Where there is a blatant assumption in the Blog that because systems look the same they must work similarly, which has been evidently disproven (literally took all of 5 minutes of Google to find the Patent(s) in question) in the report.
Both of which they have had for three, nearly four Major updates without implementing the changes since the reports were acknowledged So things are dragging on for seemingly no reason when a Stinger Overhaul (also a sperate report to extend the lock on range to ~6km) could greatly improve existing issues for a multiude of nations and BR brackets.
6 Likes
It’s really not though.
1 Like
It stops them from being generated in the first place, rather than just catching what is generated.
6 Likes
Welp V2, they denied it again because apparently a liner that stops spall from being generated is not a spall liner.
3 Likes
Really? Can you describe mechanism that stops spall generation in case of through penetration?
1 Like