Not sure if this has been seen:
1 Like
Also your source is literally talking about a Model inside
Windows. Not an actual real life tank.
“GVSI is stored under the file name “GVSI.XLS”. Copy this file to your computer’s hard drive. Start Excel 5.0, and then load the spreadsheet. The top level worksheet is labeled GVSI-Top Level. If the model doesn’t display this worksheet after the workbook loads, switch to the worksheet by clicking on the appropriate tab at the bottom of the screen.”
“The user can document changes to system design by either saving the model to a different file or printing the spreadsheet out.”
"Although GVSI provides an integrated approach to systems design and analysis, there are many opportunities to improve this model. Recommendations for future enhancements include: "
“GVS| limits spall liner application to the crew compartment.”
"Since the Abrams tank does not use a spall liner, the decision to use a spall liner
decision to use a spall liner is a “Yes” or “No” question for the GVSI user”
The program model does not have a spall liner to give an opportunity to the user to choose which is more important. More weight or increase survivability by %50.
1 Like
You’re arguing with a primary source, not me.
Your TikTok can say whatever it wants, but Gaijin will always trust a written document from a company that works on the Abrams more than a tank crewman. Especially when several have come forward and said the opposite of you.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say.
It clearly states the Abrams does not use a Spall Liner, which implies that it would need to be put in for any model.
It clearly states that it was prepared for the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command as well.
I’m not arguing with a primary source, I’m pointing out that the primary source you’re using is faulty in your conclusions because Gaijin doesn’t use volumetric armor and integral spall liners. K thanks bye.
5 Likes
How could I have ever known that someone disrespectful and unwilling to discuss this would show up? Can I tell the future?
This is exactly what I didn’t want to happen. An emotional outburst without logic behind it.
Armor being used in a specific way to stop spall from being created is not what a Spall Liner is. A Spall Liner is a metal plate or fabric cover that is intended to stop spalling once it has been created. What you are talking about is not a Spall Liner.
No. This is not the only definition of a spall liner. Integral spall liners are, in fact, spall liners. Furthermore, the armor itself can mitigate spalling via sandwiched materials.
Also, gaslighting someone with the excuse of ‘you’re being emotional’ doesn’t work around here.
Stop that immediately and address the damage models and the faultiness thereof, or leave off.
15 Likes
Can Gaijin just fire TrickZZter already?
13 Likes
You’re “source” is using a model based off the Abrams your source cannot disprove spall liners in Abrams do you understand what I’m trying to tell you? That source is nothing but a computer program made to model next generation armored vehicles for the military
2 Likes
This is incorrect, the SEPv3 baseline weighs as much as the Challenger 3 i.e. metric 65 / 66 tons. The 70.6 metric tons you are talking about is its weight with APS installed.
Bro, Sep v3 did not start until fy 2020.
M1s started being upgraded to SEPv3s in 2018.
If you actually cared for evidence, you would have noticed that a Spall Liner would require nearly three additional tons on top of its current weight.
Spall liner weight for the SEPv3 is most likely irrelevant, as it most likely has Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) in said armour package, that plus other things like advanced ultra-high-strength steels (UHSS) is probably why they called it the Next Generation / Next Evolution Armor (NEA) package.
1 Like
“ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This report documents the Ground Vehicle System Integration (GVSI) and Design Optimization Model. GVSI is a top-level analysis tool designed to support engineering tradeoff studies and vehicle design optimization efforts. The model uses simplified functional and parametric relationships to evaluate system performance issues. GVSI’s primary function is to illustrate the dependence of various system and subsystem functions; the goal is to provide a better understanding how a change in the performance of one subsystem affects the rest of the vehicle.”
This model based of the Abrams tank does not have a spall liner. This doesn’t mean all Abrams tanks do not have spall liners only the specific model in the program.
1 Like
Calling that gaslighting is incorrect. Calling you Disrespectful is not Gaslighting you.
Being Disrespectful is saying that my source is bad without showing that it’s bad. It’s then replying “k thanks bye” because you don’t want to be constructive.
It’s berating me and saying you’ll need to make another “tiktok” for people to “grasp it” as if that’s not insulting them.
You’ve been nothing but disrespectful. Stop resulting to insults and converse like everyone else.
It quite literally means that the tank would need the addition of an Internal Kevlar Spall Liner. It’s been debunked over and over. A Kevlar Spall Liner inside the armor would not make sense and is not visible on any trustworthy sources. The Military did the math and found that it would take 4800 pounds or almost 2.5 tons of extra weight to give the Abrams a Spall Liner, and seeing as how they were weight conscious, it was not done in favor of Flak Vests.
In the document, it flat out states that the Abrams does not use a Spall Liner. Stop nitpicking.
That is not what the Document made for the US Army states. You do not know more than the people working on the vehicle.
The Military is weight conscious of the Abrams. Seeing how the V4 was cancelled partially because of just that. Without a Spall Liner, the V3 already clocks in at nearly 70 tons. What you’re doing isn’t using evidence. It’s making assumptions based on technology and budget. Almost every, if not every, reliable source, especially primary source, has shown that the Abrams does not use a Spall Liner due to the weight needed to reinforce it.
FYI putting a bunch of carpets inside of your tanks isnt the only way to reduce spall from a penetrating hit, it has already been discussed in a machinery of war thread
2 Likes
so far ive seen only 1 source outright stating the abrams doesnt ahve a spall liner, do you happen to have the other sources on hand?
Seem like Gaijin is gonna have a rough time to choose which is the “suitable” way for the V3 in the future:
- T-72B3/BVM method which is using Sep V2 model 2/3 as a baseline then got the V3 package (which is fully equipe with mine roller, trophy and counter weight
- Or slap the V3 like they done with the V2 and perhaps made the trophy and mine roller as “upgrade option”
US uses short ton so fully equip SepV3 gonna has 82.5 tons weight for standard “tons”.
1 Like
No offense or anything but im gonna believe what the person who SERVED in the vehicle says over this.
1 Like
They’ll just copy the SEPv2 in terms of armor and slap a V3 behind it lmao.
People will ask them about it and they’ll respond “well we have no actual values so we don’t believe the actual effectiveness of the armor was increased, now piss off”.
I do not, but they have been shared around.
While true that there are other ways of reducing spall, the primary two Spall Liner types are metal linings on the interior of the turret and fabric linings on the interior of the Turret.
Two examples of this are the Leopards with metal linings and the T-90M with a fabric lining.
Fabric linings tend to be lighter but are also weaker. The tradeoff is that they also fit over equipment easier.
Metal linings are heavier and take up much more space, but they eat significantly more spall.
1 Like
And many others who served claim otherwise. Being in the Military doesn’t make your right. There are many who claim things that simply aren’t true.
Luckily, my friend is joining the US military as a Tanker, so I’ll probably have some more hands on information soon.
okay i’ve looked at that document further.
-
its not a primary source, its a private company putting forth a computer model for engineers to use as a preliminary assessment of performance change in the event of a new feature implementation.
-
its just that, a computer model. no real world info can come from this looking forward.
-
its from 1996. even if the information in there is correct, its outdated.
-
the calculations they have used for spall liners make absolutely no sense. they have used a previous estimation of a “Future Armored Resupply Vehicle” (i.e a truck) using x amount of weight for spall liner, then for some reason divided that by number of crew (??). then taken that per crew weight and made a guess that the same is true for all other vehicles and made it x 4 for the Abrams. that makes no sense since A LOT of the liner protects several crew at the same time in an Abrams.
-
what they have calculated for spall liner is for use in the computer simulation(and apparently involved guesswork), not actual real life Abrams numbers. what the added weight for Abrams would be we can’t at all tell from that document.
-
even if the “Since the Abrams tank does not use a spall liner” information is correct, that goes for pre 1996 tanks. so any M1A2 SEP variant comes after that.
-
page 10 outlines the limitations of the computer model:
“The desire to keep GVSI an unclassified model limited survivability
characterizations to representative threats and an unclassified survivability
database developed by the US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
(AMSAA).” -
the newest source they themselves have used for their research is from 1994, while most of the sources used are from the 1980’s. making the data even more outdated.
-
since they had to use external sources i’m starting to believe that this report even is a third party source and not even a secondary source (but this is just a personal feeling more than fact).
i’m doubting that paper more and more and i don’t think it would be an acceptable source in almost any situation.
10 Likes