How many T-90M’s have been blown up at this point? So it should be fairly obvious that it doesn’t
stop everything I know there was a relevant presentation slides for the Bradley’s liners around somewhere.
It also wrong about the M60 not having a liner either… considering it also references a laser range finder and M21 Ballistic computer is referencing the M60A3 RISE or -TTS configuration which have Kevlar turret liners.
I’m 101% positive this has to do T-90Ms ammunition placement (what good will spall liners do if the KEP or the CE jet are heading straight for the carousel, again?). But, if that makes you feel better, you can keep believing that T-90Ms exploding to direct ammunition hits prove that spall liners do not work (technically speaking, that makes it a logical fallacy but i’m not sure which one yet).
Spall liners in the game don’t stop everything like you state (they’ve went through nerfs ever since their addition), have you checked them out recently, honestly speaking? Cause T-90Ms & 2A7Vs liners basically don’t function anymore, their spall cones are comparable to those found in vehicles without spall liners (>90°).
Its probably more to do with the spare charge placement (in the fighting compartment), and the combination of; the use of two piece ammo, combustible cases and a carousel autoloader, being a bad idea, since it puts readily flammable materials inside the fighting compartment with no ability to release pressure with blowout panels.
Well something has to explain the observed performance discrepancy and it isn’t Russian bias right?
Not particularly since US doesn’t really benefit from them outside the M3A3, and with the modeling of the TOW-2B being what it is. There are issues with it finding a slot in my lineup in comparison to something like the AGS, HSTV-L or M551.
for reference I think the Slides came from or somthing similar
Also there might be more for the XM1(XM815) / M1
The Chieftain isn’t the one working on the Abrams. Nor should his word be fact. He’s a historian but it does not mean he magically knows everything. One more thing calculations are still estimations. They’re not precise. Anything on the internet is the surface layer at best. Some of it can be wrong, So learn what a grain of salt is.
One more thing, you cannot compare a prototype to the M1 or any of the variants or successors that came after it. Vehicles do not remain the same for eternity. Ever.
Ex: M26 Pershing eventually evolved into the M46 Patton. However, at this point, they were functionally completely different tanks. With little but the hull or just the tracks remaining the same.
So as I said using info, from the M1 with the 140 really shouldn’t be used to claim that all Abrams are identical. Nor have the same layout. This still applies to the DU armor layout as well given the current models are classified. You’re not gonna find any sources related to whether they have DU armor in the hull or not however it is rather safe to assume it does. The issue is determining the thickness of the said armor and backing up the source. As of currently 2023->Gaijin did confirm that the abrams did have it however, they weren’t so sure about which variants hense->Where the term classified comes into play.
So why did you bring that up as an example of spall liners supposedly “overperforming”? If I wanted to read arguments made in bad faith, I’d talk to the people over on the Russian forum.
Well something has to explain the observed performance discrepancy and it isn’t Russian bias right?
The explanation for the observed ‘discrapency’ is that components are eating up spall… yes, that’s the reason as to why T-90Ms may appear to generative less fragments. As of today, spall liners are practically useless in this game (for MBTs, not sure how they perform on IFVs).
Not particularly since US doesn’t really benefit from them outside the M3A3, and with the modeling of the TOW-2B being what it is. There are issues with it finding a slot in my lineup in comparison to something like the AGS, HSTV-L or M551.
You’re operating on the assumption that your info is up to date then, when in fact it is horribly outdated.
for reference I think the Slides came from or somthing similar
What do you think?
I’ve actually made a report on 2A7Vs spall liners since they can’t perform as advertised. The typical claim is that they can reduce the spall cone from ~90° to about ~30°, as of today they don’t do that.
I wouldn’t know the extact information about that. Since I’m not a tank designer or go dig that deep.
Just my opinion
If it was purely RHA armor i would agree that you’d lose actual protection. But with composite armor you rely on multiple different materials in layers to obtain a better all round protection that they need at the time.
I could see they think that “what if we make armor package that can mitigation spall on its own ? So we don’t have to put extra one in ?”
By that you don’t have to worry about putting more weight onto the armor package itself. If it already mitigation spall on its own. also save a bit of interior space and weight.
Again just my opinion don’t quote me on that.
Also it seem that the spall liner they had a time seem to weight a lot. judge from computer program they seem to estimate that Abrams with spall liner would add 4800lb. Interestingly spall liner for M1 CATTB turret weight only 1250lb . (but then again they have different turret and CATTB probably has auto loader)
Refer to Count_Trackula
One more for example https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA419912.pdf
titanium laminates
"Again, the HIP bonded laminate of titanium alloy and C.P. Ti was the best. The maximum diameter of the penetration channel was approximately the diameter of the original projectile, nearly eliminating secondary lethality effects from spall behind the armor. " page 7
Other than not showing in spec. Nowhere it state M1A2 doesn’t have a spall liner ? or talk about integrated spall liner either.
Ok, so - why are spall liners explicitly mentioned for one vehicle and not the other?
I’d suggest not making a claim about the supposed performance then.
If it was purely RHA armor i would agree that you’d lose actual protection. But with composite armor you rely on multiple different materials in layers to obtain a better all round protection that they need at the time.
Yes, however the backplate is a physical part of the armour itself. It is meant to absorb the eroded by the composite projectile - NERA by itself is in fact quite bad against KE rods for example and you need a potent (read: very hard) steel backplates to stop it from perforating (most of the time).
Refer to Count_Trackula
All his claims rely on the metal being “ductile enough” (How soft [ductile] is enough though? To my knowledge, ductile metals/steels tend to be very soft in comparison to armour steels, but that point they’re indistinguishable from materials like titanium in terms of spalling & protection) and the backplate being adhered to another ballistic layer to actually act as the spall liner. However there’s little to no evidence that could confirm the properties of M1s backplate (the Aussies claim the dual-hardness steel is still within the range of High Hardness Armours at 300 - 360 BH, and thus it cannot be considered as ductile as say, Titanium or Aluminium, and from internal photos we can see that there is no layer that could function as the spall liner in this equation.
who know ?
Even BFVs which is Bradley Fighting Vehicle. also doesn’t have spall liners mention in its list
That’s because the regular M3 Bradley doesn’t have spall liners. Only the M3A3.
Actually “‘A2 model” are the one that included those spall liners and steel applique armor which is around 1987-1990. 2-3 years before that report.
page 10
“in the late 1980s, the Army began to incorporate a number of survivability enhancements into a Bradley high-survivability configuration referred to as the “‘A2 model” (see fig. I. 1).
The high-sunivability modifications for the A2 model include the following:
Addition of steel applique armor. This armor, consisting of steel plates added to existing armor on parts of the turret and hull, increased protection from 14.5~mm to 30-mm ammunition.
Addition of spa11 liners. Spall liners were added to the interior of the crew compartment to protect the crew from high-velocity debris (spall) caused by rounds’ penetrating the vehicle”
What are you on about ?
The claim i make was
which could also be other composite material or laminates not just steel thus making them spall less are possible.
Since i didn’t talking about NERA armor.
It would still depend on how would they design such composite armor. for what purpose. etc
For example this study which mention that
"Many different metals can be used for backplate armor laminates such as titanium alloys, aluminum alloys, and hybrid composites, divided into fiber hybrid and matrix hybrid composites (i.e., MMCs). "
Actually his claims are the same as the method that SpeclistMain explain. not just “ductile enough”
Did you read all his source i gave ? there’re more than what i mention here.
Reminder that armor steel with anti-fragmentation / spall negation properties are already a thing in game and IRL, they are present only in naval currently, in the form of “Anti-fragmentation Armor” or STS, and Cemented armor.
Both armor types have create secondary shatters set to off as, both IRL and in game, they use the concept of ductile steel to mitigate or outright stop the creation of spall on an impact or penetration. STS in particular is legendary for being the spall plating on almost every single USN warship during WW2 and set the global standard for such armors post WW2, with steel of it’s design being used in navies across the world to this day as a high strength, full armor grade steel which can also be used for critical structural components. Cemented armor however fell off after the death of the concept of heavy warships as such belt armor was no longer needed in modern combat, yet, the concept of a face hardened strike plate with a ductile back plate as heavy armor still remained in use just like STS.
do you realize that this array would make literally no difference in game ? as backplates already catches all spall by default and the actual spall is generated by the actual backplate itself
My dude, if the spall liner is actually modeled in a way so that it would function in a similar way how it works irl (while still being simple) then what would happen is that the backing plate would generate little to no spall at all. The backing plate isn’t what is catching the spalling, the backing plate is what spalls, and the spall liner just makes it so that the backing plate spalls less (or not at all).
More or less in game this would just look like an extra liner in front of the backing, and then the backing itself having a much, much lower spall generation number (or multiplier, or whatever Gaijin uses).
still the liner in front of the plate has little to effect to the spall generated by the backplate itself, and it would not, i would even question to the ability of kevlar to stop anything when it is over a surface to begin, as it doesnt have any room to even deform, behind of the individual plates of the nera would make a more sense , and still it wouldn’t decrease the density of the spall at the higher angles just at the narrower ones.
And for your ductile steel argument, feel free to make report the armor, but dont expect much seen the values that @FurinaBestArchon is claiming for the hardness.
The sep v3 didn’t need to be introduced, they should have just got rid of the(HE shot trap) useless crew serve weapons on top and given it the trophy system. That would have been a welcomed change. No need for a sepv3.
SEPV3 should’ve been introduced instead of the SEPV2 that adds zero value like the other tanks that got added with it, tons of weights but zero armor???
SEPV3 is going to be ass anyway. Regardless of what armour it has.
APFSDS shatter doesn’t exists so UFP bounces still exist
75t weight, base A2 is just better mobility wise
Won’t get APS, even if it did, APS is useless
No M829A3/A4
Hopefully won’t get forced TUSK/ARAT kit
Should have optional TUSK1 and TUSK2 modification
CROWS HE magnet
Doubt the new turret drive will do anything
Turret ring woes still exist
Aux power unit won’t be feature