…Then you proceed to explain how it is an article and not a technical manual in any sense.
Thank you.
1 Like
Not to sound stupid but what’s the point of an integrated spall liner? Wouldn’t the whole point of having a spall liner be to not integrate it into the armor so it catches the shrapnel instead of creates it?
So according you this is a just an utterly worthless articles not a report made by goverment that proof Integrated Spall Liner does exist ? mkay. (this source doesn’t proof Abrams has spall liner btw it just show that Integrated Spall Liner does exist and US Congress know about it)
This also not the first time i’ve seen comment like this
It also true that there are no official source that clearly said Abrams has “no spall liner” yet [if there is feel free to bring it here] others than some people claim (Include those who said he is tanker or have been inside Abrams) and a picture of interior came explaining that there was no spall liner as a back plate visible to see. And that 1 source which DITC document/study talks about how to use “computer program”
On the other side
There are people claim that Abrams has Integrated Spall Liner .They give source/study to explain that by design spall liners doesn’t alway have to be the final layer. And point out why it doesn’t visible to the see.
Back up with a few the source that mention Abrams has spall liner . like book , articles , etc .
No official source yet. But there is source none the less
You’re free to think or believe as you like obviously; but until more official source can prove/clarify this. Your massive word wall of a post also aren’t proof either.
Yes, it is worthless. Sorry, but it is.
Your source literally states “provides background information for understanding the
technical challenges”. It is not a source of any kind, not even a secondary source. It’s not even clear.
I have not seen a single person claiming that the Abrams has an “integrated spall liner” (an impossibility) that wasn’t either:
- talking out of their ass
- grossly misconstruing an article that in itself isn’t a source for anything
It is a logical impossibility - because RHA creates more spalling. It doesn’t catch spall. The last layer of the Abrams interior is undoubtedly RHA. There’s nothing more to be said. Having armor that’s RHA > Kevlar > RHA would be pointless because any spalling caught by the Kevlar will be disregarded by the shell (because this is a PENETRATION we’re talking about) continuing to travel, hitting the last layer of RHA - and spalling.
1 Like
To put it simply. It there to limit shrapnel that main armor / composite armor create
And then use backplate as a spall catcher. While backplate itself are ductile enough. it would barely create any spall itself.
The purpose of spall liner is to limit the shrapnel that goes through it. aka reduce spall cone.
As some case some spall wound still make it through anyway minus main penetrator.
3 Likes
So if the report made by Goverment are worthless.
What the value of your word would have left ?
Lot of people debate in there
Yes there are no source indicate that Abrams has integrated spall liner (possible tech) same as there are no source that indicate Abrams has no integrated spall liner . As i said There are no disclosure about Abrams internal spall liners “yet”
Read Count_Trackula answer in that topic i gave you.
He debate with that and gave lot of source about integrated spall liner.
1 Like
If that was the case, Sweden and Germany’s tanks wouldn’t be the meta. They reload slower, are slower and have less gun depression that other comparable NATO tanks. It’s their armor, spawl liner(not sure if we’re putting this under armor or not) that make them the META.
2 Likes
More source to back this up
take a note how sneed, necron, and venom keep responding, it doesn’t matter what you show these clowns they will continue to post stupid psychobabble, even when we post stuff from U.S Government source stating the hull received D.U Upgrades, they ignore it
This is why i laugh at these people
4 Likes
yes there is
bro blocked me bc im responding to him on the forum I posted.
It doesn’t. You’re choosing to misconstrue the words on the page.
Im directly saying that there is an armor upgrade between the two tanks.
You can buy as many kits as you want. After 20 years you believe the Abrams has the same exact hull armor layout, while all of the armor upgrades were simply focused on the turret lmao.
Seems like a glitch, It happens with all vehicles in my experience. I think that guy was talking about the fuel tanks stopping all spall, which can be kinda annoying at times because the internal armor doesn’t spall (or at least very much)
The M1 abrams does not have a spall liner. I’ve heard countless firsthand accounts by US tankers, both ex-tankers from the USMC and tankers in the Army. It doesn’t have a spall liner, so lets stop beating this dead horse please.
1 Like
I highly doubt you know the contents of the abrams’ composite. Lets not play this “Im very certain it is x” game.
1 Like
It’d probably be on the back of the composite, because having it in between composite plates would be pretty damn useless.
1 Like
Ah yes, the very secretive USA not giving out their documents to every curious bastard means they don’t have it. Brother do you hear yourself?
And don’t take that and run with it saying Gaijin can’t implement what they don’t know. They have done guesswork in the past with multiple vehicles.
2 Likes
…You can literally see it.
It’s literally visible.
That doesn’t mean you know what the material is you’re looking at. It could easily be ceramic or rubber.
1 Like
Yes, I don’t know what those welds or that texture (that’s identical on all other spall-liner-less tanks) could possibly be.
You do realize that you’re basically unable to accept that the Abrams isn’t some wunderwaffe mega American tank - but a mere mass produced vehicle like all the others, using a German gun?
And since you can’t find anything concrete pointing to the contrary, you’re grasping at straws in desperation?
Maybe yet another argument on how “it’s totally possible” and “we explain how it’s totally possible here (without a technical manual)” will help your cause - ironically becoming what you’re projecting onto me, since you’re basically assuming something about it, without directly truly knowing.
Except I at least have images of the tank and Mk.1 eyeballs to go off of…
1 Like
Obviously you’re just ragebaiting yourself by playing and buying these kits since you DO hate NATO vehicles as the narrative demands it.
Just like how I’ve been called the Russian Defender because I call the 2S38 easy to kill and fine at 10.0.
3 Likes
Some nice painting.
2 Likes
I won’t call you a russian defender but i will say that just because something is easy to kill doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve an uptier, for example the M18 TD going up multiple times in BR, and at no BR was that thing a difficult target to kill.
3 Likes