Is ‘spalling’ BAD?

Well, yes, spalling is bad. But is it BAD?

I had wondered about BAD this afternoon, but a note from a reader convinces me to ask the question.

In the article about explosively formed penetrator (EFP) bombs and the shortage of FRAG 5 armor kits for Humvees I linked to earlier, you may have noticed this:

The penetrator, a heavy, metal projectile, is propelled by an explosive and strikes with enough speed and power to shatter the relatively brittle, “high hard” steel of up-armored Humvees, creating what experts call “behind armor debris (BAD)” — essentially, turning pieces of the vehicle into shrapnel. [emphasis Murdoc’s]

Now, I think we can all agree that BAD is bad, but is BAD the same as ‘spall’? I don’t believe that I’d ever come across the acronym BAD before (and part of me wonders if someone wasn’t funning with a journalist on that point) but I have at least a passing familiarity with ‘spalling’ as the phenomenon of knocking armor and such off the inside of a vehicle that isn’t actually penetrated has been around for quite some time. For a cool animated graphic demonstrating spalling, see Wikipedia.

This BAD seems to be more or less the same thing as what has been traditionally called spalling. So, experts, is it? If not, what’s the difference? If so, why a new and basically dumb acronym?

(And I apologize for suggesting that military personnel may “fun” with a journalist. Murdoc knows that this sort of thing just doesn’t happen.)