Seems to me, next on the list is that Abrams and Russian and whoever else uses DU should be asking for modified ammo types. If only certain tanks get a spall liner, and all rounds are acting like Tungsten penetrators. Then those same tanks with spall liners get the biggest boost. Since it normalized ammo to further increase their already strong tanks.
Nations that use DU wouldn’t be so affected by spall liners and nothing would need to change. US mains for example are already used to the status quo. Sweden, Germany and Italy however with their leopards now would be affected by nations using DU. Further dampening the crews during a successful pen.
So nations that already get penned and eff’ed wont be affected too much further by a more damaged crew. But really would help and balance those that don’t use tungsten.
If some nations can get spall liners, because that’s what they had and other don’t have it. I don’t see why we can’t use different ammo types with different effects.
It’s not magic, it’s material science. Put simply, if the shock wave is weaker than the dynamic material strength, no spall is made. If the shock wave is weakened, the amount of spall generated is lessened. The integrated spall liner within the Abrams (assuming the innermost layer is thin steel or aluminum whose purpose is to have things welded to it) stops the non-innermost layer of armor from spalling, and the thin steel/aluminum plate does not generate enough spall to be an issue for tankers wearing spall vests. Visually, it would look something like this:
As for the innermost plate’s spall, as the armor plate gets thinner, the amount of spall taken gets decreased dramatically. You can see this in one of the figures of Source 9, where the difference between a 2" and 3" plate is plain to see:
SPANISH_AVENGER showed another great example with this photo:
Of course there will be spall generated, but due to how thin the plate is, the angle of spall generation is near-zero.
That source is to prove the idea, we already know there has been massive amounts of experimentation with composite materials.
I’m not even sure what you’re saying here, an integrated spall liner functions because of composite structures, so yes for it to exist within an armor package that armor must be composite.
This is a common mechanic for all tanks. The generation of spalls occurs on the last inner armor plate on spaced and NERA armour. If you have a scheme of the Abrams armor, then provide it to us, otherwise this picture is just your imagination.
This common spall generation mechanic for all tanks. But you are fighting only for the exceptional Abrams.
Oh! Maybe then you will create a bug report on the shilka?
The idea is not equal to the practical implementation. Show that such armor is implemented on the Abrams. Provide us with armor protection schemes.
In addition, the generation of spalls now depends on the thickness of the plate. On thin plates, the spalls are smaller and have less destructive power. So I don’t know what you are unhappy with. Probably because the Abrams does not kill all living things with its appearance.
P.S. I can agree with one thing. The angle of spall generation is too big for thin plates. More precisely, the angle is correct, but in such a wide angle there will only be metal dust, which does not pose any danger. But if we fix this, we will get practically zero damage from APFSDS to light vehicles like the BTR-80.
This is the only officially documented cross-section we have for the M1 it’s of the basic NERA Arrays (there is also various images of the assorted Ukrainian M1 hulks but it is often hard to identify components due to significant battle damage and / or lacking camera skills on the part of the photographer), and as can be seen there is significant space in most arrays that is apparently unspecified.
Also there may be some grounds to have the mantlet changed, but as we know its a game balance issue.
So then why the need to define Non-Conventional Armor separately from Conventional Armor and Special Armor in the report’s definitions section if it was not relevant? Also the cut-aways do not make a specific distinction about its presence, only that of Conventional and Special elements of the array.
Also as a modular system revisions were possible if need be, so it at most is probably only confirmed at best in regards specifically to the XM815(s) and initial configuration of the baseline M1.
It may also be worth mentioning that polymers & rubbers tend to pyrolyze completely when exposed to heat, the same way the textolite (reinforced resin) layers in Russian armor arrays does so may not be present once the hull burns down.
Same reason they included exposure and flash radiography. To be thorough with all terms used in the testing. NCA =/= spall liners anyways. It’s a catch all phrase for everything not Conventional (rha/hha/dha) or Special (composites).
I never claimed that it did, only that as per the definitions section; it is likely that anything performing as a Liner material would be classed as such, and considering that the cutaways do not include NCA’s in the key, and I doubt that the internals would contain significant voids, that could otherwise be filled with more effective material.
Take for example Chobham includes a Plastic Liner material, on the inside of the array.
So its not as if it was never done.
and we know that the baseline Abrams array (Burlington) is based of slight modifications.
and the same blog even has it’s own article on the M1’s array.
Probably because the Abrams (at least the early variants) didn’t use such armour. As per your blog and document, the Abrams used Steel-Rubber-Steel as its NERA array.
Those voids are actually pretty crucial for defeating chemical energy weapons.
In contrast on thin plates buff. They can balance it by adjust HE type round (HE , HESH , HEAT) damage out put (mostly HEAT in this case). As for high caliber AP I would suggest that direct hit on important module like engine , tranmission , Ammo rack should be more fatal or out right result in kill. (maybe repeated hit on lower caliber should also have the same effect) Not to mention Ammo getting hit should alway be fatal not random rng.
In WT “no armor is best armor” Are a things also because there are no infantry around to pose a threat to them. Not to mention crew stun mechanic that Gaijin suggest but most people decline
Thus they are more effective than they should.
Keep in mind that despite the source showing how composite arrange look like. There still no official source state which material is which on the inside M1 Abrams armor package.
Which is why I alway said that "There are no disclosure about Abrams internal spall liners “yet”
While leaving such gap empty could save some weight. But depending on design. Others material might also be in use to reach the same effect or even better.
That’s not true for the majority of circumstances; sure it can be just the inner layer, but often elements of earlier armor sections are torn off as well.
So a tank having a thin plate of non-spall-liner material will generate zero spall - even if there is an armor package in front of it? No, obviously some of the earlier armor will be pulled along. The Abrams is different in that the earlier armor is not pulled along (as much, at least) as spallation is reduced.
I’m pretty sure there’s already a form of reduction in the amount of spall for thinly-armored vehicles.
I’ve already shown everything that I can find from public sources, and it shows that an integrated spall liner exists.
Only in your fantasies. None of your documents show the existence of spall liner on the Abrams. Moreover, your sources are not connected with Abrams at all and he is not mentioned anywhere in them.
Any armor ever? Do you think spall can literally only come from the innermost layer without any sort of spall reduction?
All of the ones in the first report do.
The second bug report is to show how an integrated spall liner functions, as the first one (that was specifically about the Abrams) was denied due to a bug report mod thinking an integrated spall liner doesn’t exist. Plus I ran into the character limit on the second, so I couldn’t include the original bug report’s material.
Bro, what? Only one of the sources doesn’t explicitly say the Abrams (or XM1) has a spall liner, and all of the ones that do have citations for the relevant section.
You clearly didn’t follow the source trail to see if the sources are legit tbh. Equivalent of thinking that because a Wikipedia claim is sourced that it’s a valid one, instead of reading the citation.
Which source art you talking about? As far as I can tell, there are only a couple sources that I couldn’t find:
“Technical Challenges of the U.S. Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle Program” - From the Congressional Budget Office, although this is just going over what a spall liner is.
“Transformation: Transition From A Heavy To A Lighter Family Of Armored Vehicles” - An Army Strategic Research Project
“Armor Technology,” - The only source (outside of the author themselves) that is relevant is: “See: M. Szymczak in: DREV paper, Sept’95,” which I couldn’t find online.
“The Canadian Army Trophy: Achieving Excellence in Tank Gunnery” - From U.S. Army Armor Branch Historian, with the referenced sources for the paragraph (which talked about more than just spall liners), besides the author’s own experience, being:
“XM-1 Baseline Cost Estimate: Management Review I: 105mm and 105mm/120mm Programs,” - Couldn’t find this online
“M60 and M48 Tanks: Characteristics and Performance Book,” - Likely unrelated (couldn’t find online for free)
“M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-1992” - Unrelated to spall liners, I found the pages mentioned
“Killing Zone: The Story of the M-1, America’s Super Tank” - Couldn’t find online for free
The sources for the second bug report are essentially unrelated to the Abrams, as they prove that an integrated spall liner could function, and that there are more methods of reducing harm to crews than just putting a curtain on the walls.
