Talk:Vehicle armour

Only Good Against HEAT?

Spaced armor also defeats HESH rounds which can kill operators inside crew compartments without spall liners. AshRandom (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Chobham

The article seems to refer to Chobham armour and composite armour as being the same thing: "Composite (aka Chobham)" I believe this to be incorrect, Chobham uses metals so it is not a true composite. More importantly Chobham is made from specific materials, which has a different sense to composite which would cover any combination of non-metal materials.

It's certainly true "Chobham" and "composite" shouldn't be equated; and your last remark is certainly true: "composite armour" is the more inclusive term. However, though those tanks most commonly associated with Chobham armour, the Challenger 2 and the M1 Abrams, today certainly use additional heavy metal armour modules, this wasn't always the case. "Chobham", in its original (and I would say "correct" :o) sense refers to the ceramic modules. And all operational AFV's have some metal element as part of their armour package.

--MWAK 06:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi.

Composite armour is a generic term and means any armour system using two or more materials. Thus Chobham is composite. I know because I was taught armour design by the people who made....Chobham armour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.139.156 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Also Chobham armour is called Chobham because that's the town where the defence research establishment was located that invented it. Similar principle to Pendine Blocks which were named after the town in Wales where they were first made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.139.156 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

German WWII panzer armor skirts (picture)

The armor skirts of WWII on German panzers were not added to counter HEAT warheads. Their purpose was to protect the drive-train and suspension against Soviet anti-tank rifles (in contrast to HEAT in widespread use on the eastern front). I once read a pretty well written article about this (and other) wrongs of allied intelligence, but I can't find it right now. - Alureiter 15:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this also the function of the turret wrap-around, and the top of the skirt protecting the hull? I can clarify the description, but this is still a good example of this type of spaced armour, and I'm speculating that it probably would have defeated bazookas, etc. See also the second picture at T-34#Combat history. —Michael Z. 2005-11-18 15:24 Z

That is correct, the Soviet 14.5mm AT rifles could penetrate the side armor of German tanks; the schurzen (skirts) were developed specifically to counter that threat. It certainly would have provided standoff for HEAT but sometimes that actually helps penetration - it depends. May I suggest that a different photo be used to illustrate the concept of spaced armor since we may be inadvertently be perpetuating a myth otherwise? DMorpheus 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I only know about the armor skirts. And to be more precise: The factory added skirts consisting of plates. There have been other skirt-like field modifcations, e.g. with flexible meshes that are also more spacy than the skirts which are only a few centimetres from the tracks and rollers and those were (IMHO) clearly made to counter HEAT.

BTW: The (again IMHO) best example of spaced armour were the (anti-) torpedo bulges of capital warships of the 1880-1940 era, but I haven't found a good picture yet. - Alureiter 15:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the section to better reflect the reality. If someone can find a good reference, it would be helpful—I can't find much more than speculation in a quick Internet search. I still like the picture; it's a good example of spaced armour skirts regardless of their originally-intended function, but go ahead and replace it with another if you like. —Michael Z. 2005-12-9 19:07 Z

---

Tangential to that, I was thinking this article might be better with a more generic name, since it could apply to warships, aircraft, armoured trains, perhaps bunkers, etc. I was thinking of armour plate, but then that doesn't cover things like ERA. —Michael Z. 2005-11-18 16:17 Z

A reference to "Electrically charged armour" Can be found here;

http://www.armedforces-int.com/article.asp?pubID=15&catID=232&artID=451

I'm afraid I haven't the time to set the references up but it explains it pretty well

Hi,

Your both correct. The skirts were added to specifically defeat inert kinetic energy projectiles and give drive chain protection. However as an unintended bonus they could disrupt a shape charge by utilizing the spaced effect. This is for two reasons (1) All shape charges have an optimal standoff (roughly three times the diameter of the cone depending on cone angle) from the target where maximum penetration is achieved. Thus the plates would provide a greater standoff than this and hence reduce the penetration effect of the jet onto the rear/main armour and (2) more importantly the jet is only stable when it is in a material ie when it is penetrating, when is exits the rear surface of the target it becomes very unstable and in essence just splatters itself about it is no longer a defined jet. What this means is that the jet would penetrat the skirts as a jet, but would then break up as it exited this and just splatter onto the main armour behind with little to no significant penetration. This is what bar and splat armours do today. They detonate the warhead before the target and cause the jet to go through fresh air, break up and just splatter onto the target.

It would be nice to get the original design documents to see how much this was appreciated, after all the germans/Hungarians did do a hell of a lot of original research into shaped charges and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.139.156 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Tanks only?

The article concentrates exclusively on the heavy armour carried by tanks. Other vehicles and their armour are not mentioned at all – cars, aircraft, ships and even satellites. Jll 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

True, this article is more like "AFV armour" right now. Be bold! —Michael Z. 2006-02-07 17:42 Z

Armor vs Armour?

Which is it? IMHO "Armor" runs off the tongue better. --Theredstarswl 08:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Either should be fine (American or British). It just has to be consistent throughout the article per WP:MOS. heqs 11:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How about beyond the article? At the moment some Wiki pages are English(British :P) spelling, others American. For example armor directs to armour and reactive armor to reactive armour while slat armour directs to slat armor (ok, it actually directs to cage armor, but you get the point. Pissedpat (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policy is pretty clear on international spelling issues. US or British English are both fine as long as the spelling is consistent throughout the article. The original author decides. Whatever spelling was used by the creating editor should remain.Dino246 (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But if its an American subject then US spelling probably should be used, and "English" English for European subjects. I didnt see any official policy on being consistent throughout the article so why not just reflect the international nature of Wikipedia and each subject? And "armor" looks like a typo to me anyway, especially in context of being developed at Chobham Commons, England. I'm not British, I just borrow their language lol...Webwat (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an official policy of being consistent in an article. Technical and scientific subjects cross borders. Steel behaves the same in Europe and the US and in Japan. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Glacis and mantlet

I find this edit a bit odd. The heaviest armour generally is on the glacis or mantlet of a tank. The remaining armour comprises the turret front (which sometimes is the heaviest), and the front belly (the antitank gunner's sweet spot on a cresting vehicle, which generally is not). Ergbert, can you explain the edit? —Michael Z. 2006-12-16 00:31 Z

Non sequitour!

> Electrically charged armour is a recent development in the UK by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. A vehicle is fitted with two thin shells, separated by insulating material. The outer shell holds an enormous electrical charge, while the inner shell is a ground. If an incoming HEAT jet penetrates the outer shell and forms a bridge between the shells, the electrical energy discharges through the jet <

Some shaped charge warheads use glass material for the cone insert, not the usual copper, so they are not conducting and thus nullify electromagnetic armour. It is not worth the money developing this tech if it is so easily defeated. 81.0.68.145 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Electrically charged armour?

Per the Reactive armour article, electrically charged armour (rightly electric armour, electric reactive armour or electromagnetic reactive armour) is a sub-set of Reactive Armour, thus that portion could probably be removed from this article or merged with the Reactive armour article, without losing the topic entirely. Just losing a little weight from this article. The link from the Reactive Armour section to the Reactive armour main article should suffice. So, who wants to do the honors of cleaning this up? Assuming that's non-controversial. Feel free to post a note when it's done. Mgmirkin 06:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Electric charged armour is kind of reactive but doesnt cause any actual reaction, mostly just closes an electrical circuit to damage the fuse. Its more like spaced armour; still kind of unique but not enough to deserve a whole article. I vote to leave it there... Webwat (talk)

Armour alloys

It would be nice to meniton there what was the typical composition of alloys used for (tank) armour construction for ww1, ww2 and soviet T-60. It meas typical composition of metal armour before some composites, boron ceramic and such hi-tech materials were invented. Was it just Hi carbon steel, or hi alloy (chromium, nikel... ?) What was the typical mechanical properties such as tensil strength of typical armour plate? German tanks has forged panzer plates welded together but soviet tanks has molten turret. What was the difference between these different armours? If someone say that "this warhead penetrate 1000mm of steel armour" what people should think? It means steel plate of tensill strenght 500MPa 1000MPa or 2000MPa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProkopHapala (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sloped Armour - check ?

The "Sloped Armour" section says:

"it encloses less volume with less material"

Shouldn't this be "it encloses more volume with less material" ? Darkman101 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Maybe "it encloses more area with less material".Dino246 (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Slat Armour

The explanation for how cage armour functions does not match the explanation in the main "Slat Armour" article. Edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.239.84 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft armour is not common???

Then why the Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter was made a example for having no cockpit armour when compared to WW2 western aircraft designs of the same period like the P-40? FWIW, someone really needs to do something about this ridiculous claim in the section. Thoughts? Anyone. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What steel composition/grade/spec

At the moment, under Steel, the article just says "cast steel" - can we be more specific than that please. Is it a maraging steel, What alloying elements does it contain apart from carbon ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)