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.
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.
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)
Relevant quotes from first source:
“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).
“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.
Did you know that spalling can be generated without complete penetration
So what acting principle causes the discrepancy in HESH performance against spaced and composite arrays vs Monolithic amour of equivalent protection?
Effectively what happens is that due to the change in density of the propagating media at the boundary some energy is reflected as a standing wave(due to deliberately mismatched impedance), which results in reduced stress concentration on the far side of the armor, thus less spalling is generated.
The Bradley uses a monolithic armor scheme and an aluminum alloy at that. And isn’t trying to not be overmatched by larger calibers nor has the weight to spare for a complex solution.
The ariete is a little underperforming but it kinda sucks irl, the leclerc is def underperforming in armor but it was meant to be a lighter MBT so without the extra kits it’s armor is probably mid. The challenger is way underperforming in armor.
Both Leclerc S1/2 suppose to have better hull protection then Leopard2A6 model while SXXI suppose to have even better protection then previous Leclerc models due to having reinforced titanium armor.
Not to mention Leclerc family should have much better mobility/top speed, fuel tanks should be modelled as external and it should also have Spall Liners.
But this is not the proper thread to discuss Leclerc Family.
So where does the imparted momentum from said AP shell’s impact go? Sure armor might be pretty advanced but it would be very obvious if it was somehow being vanished into the aether or otherwise.
For what it worth
-There are no disclosure about Abrams internal spall liners “yet” .
(There are a few source saying that Abrams had spall liners. but not official one like manual. So if it was Integrated Spall Liner. It would likely be classified infomation as it would be another the part of composite armor)
So with no official on either side. We still not know if Abrams has spall liners or not.
The only way we would know is when Abrams armor being declassified (at least the first one) or anythings mention why not putting one on Abrams.
Or when the next generation Abrams tank would have “spall liners” state in its upgrade list.
I’ve been trying to find any mention about spall liners on Abrams X project as well. Nothing so far.
In term of ingame balance with spall liner
Gaijin could just give Ballistic vest+helmet to compensate the lack of spall liners to any vehicles that need them
If they care that is.
Because by design last layer can be made to not spall or barely has any spall ? You know ? with combination of laminate design and metallurgy ? Ductile steel ? steel engineering ?
Yep, there’s a lot of laminate designs and magic engineering to not make basic RHA spall.
This Abrams interior is clearly lined with adamantium liners and not a very basic RHA weld that literally anyone can tell is just normal RHA.
By the way - you do realize your image is all cases that we’re not talking about?
We keep talking about a penetration, which is what causes spall in this game.
You keep bringing up high explosive, petalling, “ductile steel”, without realizing that you’re just making clowns of yourselves. RHA will spall when penetrated fully, and the Abrams interior is clearly RHA. There is no liner, no internal “physics” you try to bring up as you grasp at straws will ever stop the simple truth that, when penetrated, RHA will spall.
And the Abrams didn’t end up very effective against high explosive shells anyway… If we’re talking about magic “shock absorbing” materials.
I’ve literally shown you sources that experiment with this exact idea, why do you think it is impossible?
Again, a shock absorbing material will still massively reduce spalling even in the case of penetration (I have already shown this in the above sources).
Your non-direct article, that isn’t a technical manual, or anything at all.
Is LITERALLY - only talking about how armor in general works.
You’re essentially taking things out of context that aren’t even directly talking about any specific Abrams variant or specifically anything at all, and construing this entire narrative from that.
I would be ashamed, personally.
Nothing you’ve shown is a source. None of it would ever be accepted by Gaijin. None of it is even direct nor does it prove anything.
The fact that you’re able to write all of this malarkey without a tinge of shame, thinking you can count unfocused rants about “evaluations” and “general information” about loosely related topics as something to directly affect the Abrams…
It is absolutely insane. I cannot believe that someone can be this much of a madman.
“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.”
It proves that the material science behind the idea works, and that a spall liner does not solely need to be in the form of curtains.
Really? Did you read the sources? I am literally showing you that the idea of a liner meant to reduce the amount of spall created through shockwave absorption is a thing:
“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 spallation. 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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).”
“The more important guides towards methods of increasing spalling in attack or suppressing spalling in defence may then by indicated.”
“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.”
You’re just straight up trying to ignore how physics works, I guess.
You do get that it is a technical report written, by a nation that operates the Abrams.
Guess what American armor, Australia uses?
it references US standards (e.g MIL-DTL-12560K(MR), MIL-DTL-46100E(MR), MIL-DTL-32332(MR) , MIL-A-46099C ). And further Ballistic Testing of Swedish Steel for U.S. Armor Applications
Its has some implications on their characteristics, especially the for the M1 AIM.
