Internal layer of protection: Many technical descriptions note that the inside of the fighting compartment is lined with a Kevlar spal liner or similar material, which is intended to reduce the risk of shrapnel to the crew.
I understand that the US Army will never officially say what kind of armor they have. But the fact that it’s there is 100% a fact. So why don’t the Abrams still have spall-resistant armor?
Because it doesn’t have one. Unless we start counting flak vests on crew as “spall liners” at least.
It is found on later Abrams models.
Uh huh… Sure…
The older models certainly didn’t.
1 Like
Wait, are you using Block III stuff as proof of a spall liner or something else?
Like, this Block III? (TTB I know but was related to Blk.III for the nerdbobs out there)
This document indeed states that at the time it was written, the Abrams tank did not use a spall liner and that installing one was considered an optional choice due to the significant weight increase. However, this does not contradict other Abrams documentation. Early M1 and M1A1 variants relied on composite armor and blow-out panels and operated without a dedicated spall liner. In later requirements, such as those for the Abrams Block III, spall liners are explicitly required for critical areas. This shows a clear shift in survivability philosophy over time, where spall liners became a separate and necessary element of crew protection rather than something replaced by composite armor. Therefore, this document does not prove that later Abrams variants could not have spall liners; it simply reflects an earlier stage in the tank’s development.
Therefore, this document does not prove that later Abrams variants could not have spall liners
And just like it, just because Abrams Blk.III proposals had Spall Liners as a requirement, doesn’t mean service models actually got them, do you have anything saying things like M1A2 onwards had spall liners?
1 Like
The thing is, we’ll never know. The Pentagon is keeping all data on the Abrams’ armor secret. And we can only guess what’s in there. But the point is, the Abrams’ armor in the game is simply terrible. It needs to be redesigned.
Everything with composite armor in game is simply terrible, everything needs to be redesigned because nothing is modeled correctly compared to irl.
Either way, Why should M1A2 onwards even get spall liners then?
The most important thing is that even if a shell penetrates multilayered armor or NERA TUSK, it leaves just as many fragments as if there was no armor at all. Although there shouldn’t be any fragments at all.
Let me give you an example. Penetrating the T-90M’s gun mantlet creates minimal fragmentation; sometimes, these fragments aren’t even enough to destroy the breech or injure the gunner. But penetrating the Abrams’s gun mantlet or other part creates a gigantic amount of fragmentation.
Ok, but why should Abrams get a spall liner though? and is TUSK even NERA? Pretty sure it’s primarily for Anti-CE work.
also Merkava mk4 doesnt have any spall liner even M60T sabra has spall liner irl
1 Like
Patria AMV still lacks it’s as well, unlike Abrams.
In some areas there is a “spall liner”
It’s currently not modeled and the area around it counts as the horizontal turret drive.
AFAIK this panel acts as one.
1 Like
To avoid dying from any shot at the Abrams silhouette.
TUSK is a “tank urban survivability kit”
The square panels on the side you see on the M1A2 SEP are M19 ARAT ERA
For TUSK 2
The shield things on the side of the M1A2 SEPv2 are a second ERA layer called M32 ARAT 2 ERA
Because the military didn’t purchase and install spall liners.
Abrams Block III never made it to production.
And we would know because Abrams crews take internal photographs of Abrams all the time.
This is most likely correct imo. Spall liners like kevlar aren’t in the tank. There may be other systems at play like spall liners integrated into the hull (there are some techs), structural support, equipment placement, or even in the paint in certain sections.
The US military’s attempt at “overmatch” policy seems at odds with allowing a 3BM42 round pen the tank frontally. They had to do tests and upgrades against that round in the 40 years it’s been out.
There’s already accepted (as suggestions) bug reports for various inaccuracies in the tank’s armor model but I wouldn’t hold my breath.