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?
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
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.
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.
The most they can do to be accurate is give the crew flak jackets like they have in helis
Wrong. The mesh panel is just that, like a porch window screen and the white slotted panel is to keep the driver from getting eaten by the Turret Monster.
See the other thousand post thread on why Abrams have never and don’t have spall liners.
There’s mesh panels then there’s that slotted one.
If that’s something like ar500 steel it’d be a barrier that blocked a fair bit of spall just by being there.
It’s not a “spall liner” in the autistic must be named that way sense. But it is possible that was a design consideration for that piece.
It would block small shrapnel from entering the main area and it would block it from the main area to the driver.
Its not. Its just thin sheet metal.
which is what it should be, because it will absorb some spall while not creating any more
If you feel like the armor protection of the Abrams is inadequate, move this conversation to the Abrams technical data thread to get that thread the attention it deserves. There you will find multiple bug reports that have been accepted by Gaijin that would significantly increase the survivability of the Abrams, but Gaijin has continued to procrastinate the addition of these bug reports for years. (M1 Abrams (all variants) - Technical Data and Discussion) The Eurofighter technical data threads, T-72, Challenger, etc, all have thousands of replies and likes while the Abrams has 50.
On the topic of kevlar spall liners, this is a highly debated topic with no direct primary sources stating its existence similar to the DU hull debate. Unfortunately Gaijin’s stance on topics like this are that they will stick to what is 100% certain. There will be no kevlar spall liners. So please, harass Gaijin on the outstanding bug reports in the link to the other thread. This includes a significantly strengthened turret ring, increased lower front plate and upper front plate thicknesses around the fuel tanks, increased gun mantlet protection, increased turret cheek protection, moving the hydraulic pump. I believe all of these changes would produce a greater sum of survivability than kevlar spall liners anyway. Make some noise.
Sigh… That isn’t how that works.
that is though?
softer materials produce significantly less spalling, and even very thin aluminum will either stop, or significantly slow down a lot of the spall created by the armor
