thats not what it says, they are taking about the strength of the “interface” at the interior, and since they later on refers it to backing, it is pretty safe to asume that they are talking about the interface between the back plate and the liners, also
they are taking about liners at the inside of a tank,
no, they clearly call the liner as backing.
also notice how they make the distintion that if the liners are thick there will be absorption IN the backing material, it is kinda impossible to absorb already generated spall by the back plate itself.
Just to reiterate this makes it pretty clear that they talks about the liner when they use “backing”.
In the specific quote mentioned, the reflected strength of the shock wave at the interior surface of the target just needs to have a lower dynamic strength than the material before it. It does not mean that the shock wave cannot be weakened enough before an armor plate so that the the dynamic strength of an armor plate is stronger than the strength of the shock wave. The tests were done with the more ductile material behind it being a kevlar liner, but that does not mean that the principles demonstrated cannot work elsewhere.
Both quotes are from the second source, which discusses the conventional curtain-like spall liners. They were meant to respond to someone saying that for something to be a spall liner, it must catch spall rather than reducing or suppressing them (i.e. not letting them define an integrated spall liner out of existence).
I really hate when people bring up a few russian tanks and try to claim russian bias lmao. “Oh the T-80BVM/T-90M is impenetrable and impossible to kill in my Leopard” Always just sounds like cope to me tbh. If you wanna talk russian bias, bring up the Pantsir or the R-27ER, not some tanks that, in all honesty, make me breathe a sigh of relief when I see them in game.
He stated the TOW-2B not the 2A my guy, and its universally agreed that the 2B is a joke currently, after all its literally missing 50% of it’s warheads.
Im talking about tandem warheads, of which the Javelin uses one. Im saying that may make a difference with the Javelin, if it came, which the TOW-2B doesn’t have
And he is not, he is making a comparison to how prior unique weapons like the 2B are horribly implemented, there is nothing as of late that would show that the Javelin would be treated otherwise, after all such F&F missile guidance in game is also incredibly bad to boot.
And the original statement and my own highlight that it wont be good to begin with due to all the facets of it’s implementation being flubbed like the TOW-2B’s own implementation.
I can’t find any sources that say the abrams definitely has a spall liner, but I do hear from Marines that operated M1A1s pre-2021 that the Abrams did have spall protection built in.
To make this matter even more suspicion.
In this report it mention that they did live fire test to Abrams through 1987-1988. Page 242-243
"In FY88, "An LFT program (funded by PM-Tanks) was conducted to determine the vulnerability of various Abrams tank components to “behind-armor spall fragments”
“All the program objectives were achieved with the following generalized conclusions: The Abrams meets current vulnerability/lethality GROUND SYSTEMS survivability requirements regarding ballistic protection—the armor and ammunition compartmentation perform to design. The Abrams capability to survive and protect its crew makes the use of Battle Damage Assessment and Repair (BDAR) an essential element, and the vulnerability models currently appear to predict the correct Abrams internal damage and crew casualties from the primary penetrator and spall as compared to the test results. Lessons learned from this highly successful test will expedite the design and reduce costs of future tests.”
while the Bradley test were conduct on 1985-1987. page 241
“As a result of LFT of the Bradley, the BRL developed spall liners, redesigned stowage of ammunition, and enhanced armor protection. The BRL also developed an RA package for protection against hand-held SC weapons. Many of these items were tested during the LFT effort.31”
So according to this report they don’t think that Abrams need spall liner but somehow they develope spall liner for Bradley. And this whole time there still no mention about putting 1 on newer Abrams.
The last mention about spall liner was clearly state on XM-1 spec list. But that gone as soon as it turn into Abrams without any reason.
I don’t expect anything from this game anymore lmao. If I do have expectations, they aren’t high ones. For example, i really do expect this update to air RB being terrible because of so many people with so many missiles and not having much multipath to work with. Gaijin doesn’t make great gameplay decisions, I think the gameplay is supposed to be grueling atp.
I just do not understund why the M1A2 SEP does not have the upgraded third-generation depleted uranium armor, but has seccond-generation depleted uranium armor like M1A2.
