You’re so tone deaf that you pretty much volunteered to provide an example of bad faith argument.
Do remind me, we’re talking about time of implementation of fixes? We’re talking about the stinger? Was this source rejected or labeled as non-factual? Does the Abrams uses the Stinger as ammo and no one told me that?
In case you don’t know, the answer to all of that is “no”.
And see this is what happens instead of focusing on one thing at a time you go off on about something else entirely, this is why the abrams wont get “fixed” because gaijin sees you as just annoying and whining about everything and they dont need to pander to you so go spam bug reports about the abrams actual issues not bullshit DU hulls and once the abrams is fixed then go spam about stingers
I love how “The US is missing blank” threads always end up a crying contest with minor nations mains trying to invalidate the often valid complaints of US players.
Its not as if the US getting its vehicles corrected means your favorite nation cannot also get the fixes it needs, yet that is so often the attitude. Never save a drowning man, never argue with a minor nation main.
Wdym? No one is anti American everyone loves Americans.
This never happens its quite literally the other way around a few days ago the chinese spall liner thread was filled with US mains crying about the abrams not getting its fantasy spall liner
Effectively yes, it was straight up ignored did you even read the MANPADS devblog? They had to make significant oversimplifications, and assumptions (on the level of; both a a banana and a lemon must taste similar because they are both yellow, thus the Igla and Stinger must work the same way)
There are two fundamental flaws with what they present that they rely upon these assumptions that allow out of plane response forces can be modeled directly as;
Surface Response Force * Cos(Angle out of plane) = Net Force
which as established by ADA111769
Viewing collectively the results obtained, it is concluded that the
effect of directing steering control out of the angle-of-attack platte can be
approximated, for the conditions tested, by directing the control-force increments and control-moment increments obtained when 0 = 0’ to the new steering
direction, then resolving these increments back to the non-rolling axes system
used herein. The accuracy of this procedure (exact at zero angle of attack)
deteriorates somewhat as angle of attack increases.
Does not hold, for Rolling Airrame missiles (The Study uses the RIM-116 as the investigated case)
The second is that it assumes the Stinger uses a Single control channel
With a single-channel relay control of a rolling airframe missile
Which can be obviously seen from the following Block diagram to be False (at least for those derivatives that use the POST seeker, I’d have to actually dig further to see if sources for the Redeye or FIM-92A can be turned up.)
Still, no one asked. Also, in case you didn’t notice, no one is doubting that, you’re forcing a non-argument here because of your lack of insight.
It seems you’re approaching the whole situation in a very childish and egotistical manner, being unable to observe the big scene.
Gaijin is a private civilian company, it takes a BIG RISK by having military information in it’s game as it could face severe repercutions for it. If you REALLY want them to implement stuff correctly, you have to understand that it is only natural that they will take time and caution before implementing something that could be critical information.
The first source you posted has these words and you expect them to act immediately?
It is their right to be cautious. It’s not a whiny gamer that will tell them otherwise.
Related to this topic (not the Stinger) available information makes it clear that the Abrams models currently in-game, do not have the DU hull and spall liners people are demanding. It’s simple and this is the correct course of action by Gaijin.
I’m expecting you to argument in good faith after knowing that. Don’t let me down.
So why are Russian missile calculations being used for a an American missile?
I don’t agree with that too.
Being reasonable makes things simple don’t it?
It’s literally a non issue, appropriate disclosure statements and or relevant FOIA documentation are well known to them since it was turned up out of a UK manual acquired from a museum. and further was provided to a Techmod, I just don’t have it on hand to compile them into one image.
here’s another one for you, too.
And the bug report it was used in
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BZtiBBaH7uwL
Sure, but that’s not specific to any particular Abrams’ and implies that there are few differences between the numerous potential array configurations let alone which implemented variant is equipt with what (e.g. XM-1(SAC),BRL-1, BRL-2, EAP, HAP-1,-2 , -3 etc.) and what they are composed of, let alone for either the Turret, or Hull array.
On a separate point the M1 KVT for example has a 105mm gun in place of the 120mm it should have. Which as a paper configuration probably has the wrong armor as well since its been adjusted
to be based on the ?A1? , not an A2 as it actually was.
Referenced above there are sources that claim that the liner is actually integrated into the NERA array itself in place of being a separately accountable internal item.
Further there is some evidence of the use of techniques that would reduce spall in comparison to RHA / HHA for the backplate, on top of the confirmed use of tessellating and repeating Ceramic, Rubber, Kevlar and Air based composite matrix layers that would reduce and assist with eliminating particular sizes of spalling, and so perform a similar role, and so the arrays themselves should probably be provided similar qualities in game to the stand alone Spall Lining.
Potentialy with some reduce ability against larger fragments, though its capacity to stop high velocity spall would be increased in comparison (energy imparted to a fragment depends on the share of mass of the system, thus light fragments travel faster, as the energy is conserved due to 1/2m*v^2)
That’s not reasonable, that’s using a missile with completely different characteristics to justify why by no means could a US missile be better
Spall liners keep getting brought up in this thread. I never said the Abrams had a spall liner. For every piece of evidence I find that says they had it, I find another saying it doesn’t. So, I’m sticking with “it doesn’t”.
Can you not read?
‘‘T-64A is missing it’s 3BM-46 APDSDS, spall liners and Relikt ERA for the hull’’
‘‘Anyone who disagrees with that is just a minor nation main that wants to invalidate the complaints of USSR players’’
Surely you can see how flawed this reasoning is?
Just claiming that a tank is missing various things doesn’t magically make it a fact. Similarly, pointing out the falsehoods doesn’t mean someone is wholly opposed to that nation. Things aren’t black and white like that.
Well at least I’ll get a good laugh when the SEP v3 gets added with no improved hull armor since per here, Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft, Gaijin claims they believe there have been no hull armor reinforcement on any production model Abrams
As for rest of thread, is it really any surprise the US Mains were exceedingly disappointed that the SEP v2 has wound up largely a downgrade in every way compared to the preceding SEP v1? Tandem protection that’s mostly irrelevant at it’s BR, same optics and rounds as preceding SEP v1, no ability to part out TUSK for better mobility, no implementation of Trophy even though the SEP v2 served as a test bed for Trophy HV, etc etc. Hell even if they do implement M829A3, since Relikt’s becoming ever more common and Gaijin is of the opinion it won’t defeat Relikt, it’s not like that’ll make much difference either.
Not to mention the reload buff screwing over various minor nations who are even worse off.
SEP v3? I’m half expecting it’ll have the same exact armor protection values due to a lack of hard numbers. Maybe the turret’ll be slightly thicker 'cause Gaijin’ll take a guess due to the higher LoS thickness, but at this stage I’m keeping my expectations low enough that they’ll need a shovel to dig beneath them.
I’m even half expecting them to implement the SEP v3 (whenever it does show up) without Trophy so they can just add a second one later with Trophy, that’s how low my expectations are.
Flagged lemme guess by who?
Also can you repeat what you said.
It had a curse word in it, it was flagged well within reason. It had nothing to do with the idea being put forth
A spall liner reduces or catches spall, it does not solely need to be in the form of a Kevlar carpet draped on the interior. All that needs to happen to get rid of spalling is make the force of the shock wave that the interior surface experiences be less than the dynamic strength of the interior’s dynamic strength. A liner can be placed inside of the armor whose purpose is to absorb the majority of the shock wave so that the interior is stronger than whatever remnant of the shock wave (this is true even if the round penetrates).
How can someone write something like this?
“Absorbing shock waves”? The absolute insanity…
Do you not realize that a spall liner is something that acts in the case of a PENETRATION?
That means the shell was powerful enough to go ALL THE WAY THROUGH, and a shell that goes all the way through… Spalls RHA. If the last layer is RHA. Because it creates spall as it exits.
The utter mental gymnastics necessary to write this slop regarding “shock waves” that you’ve written is unfathomable to me.
Spall liner “drapes” (Jesus Christ, not the “drape” thing again - as if the USA doesn’t use “drapes” as spall liners, because they do. It’s on the M3A3 Bradley. And it’s been added as a spall liner. Christ.) work because there’s RHA that the shell exits from, which spalls, but right in front is kevlar - which doesn’t spall, while catching some of the spalling from the RHA right behind it.
Such insanity… “Shock wave”. “All that needs to happen to get rid of spalling is make the force of the shock wave that the interior surface experiences be less than the dynamic strength of the interior’s dynamic strength.”
Only threads about the US can have this kind of conversation…
Edited because someone appears to be very angry over this post.
Material science? In armor designs? Outrageous.
Regardless, here’s the document I was going off of:
“An Analytical Evaluation of Spall Suppression of Impuslively Loaded Aluminum Panels Based on a One Dimensional Stress Wave Propagation Model” by Michael K. Asada (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA143173.pdf)
“The spall curtains incorporated by FMC are as stated, a retrofit method to capture existing spall and behind armor debris caused by a shaped charge. As is, the spall liners do not actually reduce the amount of spall that occurs. Instead this after the fact suppression technique accepts that the spall will occur and the problem is to attenuate the effects of the spalation. What is actually needed and proposed in this study is an attempt to incorporate analytical methods to determine suppression techniques and then confirm it by extended experimentation” (pg. 24).
“The principle for total elimination of spallation for a target perforated by a shaped charge jet is embodied in an armor system composed layers of materials having different thicknesses and specific impedances. Therefore for certain jet impact conditions, the reflected shock wave strength at the interior surface of the target is less than or equal to the dynamic strength of the material at the interface. Under these conditions, the target material will not spall, even though the jet perforates the target. Hence by making use of only the fundamental equations it is possible to decrease the stress of a pulse by the use of an extended series of materials, each material decreasing specific acoustic impedance” (pg. 48).
“In addition, it is recognized that the shaped charge jet penetration is basically unaltered by the addition of the liner; the primary function of the kevlar liner is spall and associated fragment suppresion” (pg. 50).
“The spalling of armour plate and the influence of backing liners,” W. M. Evans (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0596288.pdf)
“This note examines theoretically the influence of backing liners, such as Perspex and Tufnol, on the spalling of aarmour plate under attack, particularly by hollow-charge jets. Very little supporting experimental work has been undertaken but the report suggests that relatively thin liners can significantly reduce or suppress spalling, with consequent reduction in behind-plate lethality. (If the liners are thick, a further reduction in lethality by spall absporption in the backing material can occur; this is not analysed in the note)” (pg. 4).
“The more important guides towards methods of increasing spalling in attack or suppressing spalling in defence may then by indicated” (pg. 7).
“Furthermore although fracture may occur, spall detachment cannot unless there is more than sufficient energy in the system to cause circumferential failure by shear, for in this region there is considerable localized strain and it is only when a critical value of strain is reached that failure occurs. Thus a backing either inhibits fracture altogether or positions fracture such that the mass and velocity characteristics of any spall produced are reduced. The suppressing influence of the backing can of course be redressed by increasing the strength of the incident wave.”
Are you suggesting that HE explosions can’t create spall?
The idea of a spall liner has been around since the earliest days of cannon-armed sailing ships and/or fortresses, where they would drape curtains on the walls to catch fragments. Using “drape” here is correct, even though it also was done for rhetorical effect as well.
