Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

NERA & ERA from South-Africa     Ingwe ATGM being tested against armor

Polish simple NERA armour= better cut-viev:     the same descibe here:        

Made in iraq, IIRC with external support. It's NERA all right, here's a better look at the cutaway section:

Posted Images

Just now, Sturgeon said:

Oh no, you did offend us. See, here we don't get offended by nazi memes or unpopular political opinions, we get offended by retard non-contributors coming in here swinging their dicks around and acting like their opinions are all that needs to be said.

Referte aut morimini, bitch. Opinions don't trade. Ya ken?

So when I provide sources that are unpopular, you feel offended, this is the case? Just be strait with it, or if you don't like what I post just simply ban me. Because I see where it goes, I defended the US made design, provided the sources, but all the sudden you came here, and you say I do not provide sources good enough. Ok, that's okay with me, it's your opinion, but if you do not like my contribution, simply be open about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Damian said:

So when I provide sources that are unpopular, you feel offended, this is the case? Just be strait with it, or if you don't like what I post just simply ban me. Because I see where it goes, I defended the US made design, provided the sources, but all the sudden you came here, and you say I do not provide sources good enough. Ok, that's okay with me, it's your opinion, but if you do not like my contribution, simply be open about it.

I don't like your contribution. It's WoT Forums level shit, complete with bizarre white knighting for a tank.

The M1 isn't gonna let you fuck it, bro, no matter how hard you defend it on the Internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Damian said:

Object 187 upper glacis is the same RHA below 100mm thickness... so again what is the point?

 

This is why you shouldn't believe wikipedia about the technical aspects of tank design.  Wikipedia articles about tanks are often written by people that have no idea what they're talking about.  Also, I have heard rumors that they are occasionally vandalized by hooligans.  Does it make any sense to you that a tank designed to replace the T-64, T-72 and T-80, all tanks that had composite hull armor, would itself lack composite hull armor?

Moreover, even if the Object 187 prototypes didn't have the composite modules actually installed (no way to be sure), the clearly had provisions for advanced armor on the hull and turret.  Here's a picture of one of them with hull ERA installed:

iKBRiH4.jpg

and here is a picture of the turret composite armor package:

3yGBNN2.jpg

Also, what makes the Object 187 glacis design so good isn't the specific armor package that was used in it, it was the shape.  Unlike every other modern tank it lacked the weak point around the driver's position.  But you should know this already, you wrote an article on it once.

I'm beginning to get the impression that you simply enjoy arguing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking the Object 187's glacis as a basis for frontal hull layout, combined with the T-14s and from what we learned about composite armor, how well do you think this would work?

tfOyOoh.png

Black - RHA.
Grey - NERA plates.
Orange - High Hardness shatter plate (ex. DU).
Yellow - Lighter High hardness shatter plate (ex. ceramics).
Dark blue - Backing plate (ex. HHS, HH aluminum alloy.)
Light blue - Absorbing material (ex aluminum).
Green - Liquid cell.

 

Front layout is similar to the Leopard 2, with a thinner LFP, but not massively thinner like on a T-64. A sloped roof plate like on Object 187, with a closely grouped NERA plates and ceramics to shatter and take out LRP and stop top attack munition.  On the the flat part of the roof, the liquid cells are used instead to provide maximum protection against top attack CE.  The bottom of the crew capsule is covered with a absorbing layer against landmines and IEDs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, convincing everyone that your cheap, disposable MBT is super-duper well armored and nigh impenetrable is a great way to get them to spend a bunch of money on anti-armor systems, especially if you've already determined that it would be impossible to completely protect against any such future technology. Make 'em waste the time and effort, even though your armor never justified it.

Just sayin'. Hypothetically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎09‎/‎11‎/‎2015 at 8:56 PM, Collimatrix said:

What about it suggests that it's NERA?  If there's some clue I am missing it.

 

The majority of "special" armor does seem to be NERA though.  So many authoritative sources said that special armor was ceramic-based in the 1970s and 1980s, while polymer/steel composite structures have proven to be the most common.  I strongly suspect it was a deliberate misinformation campaign.

I think I finally have an answer to this old post.

Looking at the availble DTIC documents, research and patents; it seems that glass/ceramic armours really were the secret sauce for a long while. You can actually test this by looking at penetration in glass, normalising ME and TE to RHA and then multiplying the two. Even though glass has only 60% of the TE of RHA, it has a whopping 6 times ME. Which means that, overall, it is 3.6 times as efficient as RHA.

This is amazing, given that magic titanium alloy has only 1.8 times the efficiency. Even better; glass is cheap and easilty castable. I can't test harder ceramics directly, but my guess is that they'd be better still. And that's just against long rods - ceramics are even more effective against shaped charges.

 

So far, so good. However; even with this comparative advantage over steel you're still looking at an areal density of something like 2000kg/m^2 to stop a modern APSFS round. To the scientists working on this stuff, then, ERA/NERA must have seemed like a quantum leap in effectiveness. So my guess is that the second they had got the data in all the research on NERA was locked up tight. The glass/ceramic sandwich stuff, which had seemed like the answer a short while ago, was now allowed to dribble into the public domain due to irrelevance. The only information about NERA that made it through to the public was in the form of garbled rumours about arrays of special plates suspended inside the armour package. From there on, simple extrapolation (and a bit of cod logic) gets you the honeycomb laminates and super-ceramics that we heard about in the 90's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Hypothetically, convincing everyone that your cheap, disposable MBT is super-duper well armored and nigh impenetrable is a great way to get them to spend a bunch of money on anti-armor systems, especially if you've already determined that it would be impossible to completely protect against any such future technology. Make 'em waste the time and effort, even though your armor never justified it.

Just sayin'. Hypothetically.

The idea that no modern tank can achieve protection across more than a limited frontal arc jives well with the fact that modern tanks do well when crewed by competent soldiers and die in droves when crewed by Saudis or Iraqis. If your magic armour only works from the front (and then only in certain spots) you need to be good at your job to stop people from flanking you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a side-note triplepoast: the limitations of the longrods calculator still allows you to test a few interesting things.

For instance; tooth enamel has about 2.5 times the effectiveness of RHA against APDSFS (3.8ME; 0.7TE). Which means that Godzilla could actually do pretty well against tanks if he had thick enough scales and sub-dermal plates (about 40cm thick each) of the correct type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Toxn said:

I think I finally have an answer to this old post.

Looking at the availble DTIC documents, research and patents; it seems that glass/ceramic armours really were the secret sauce for a long while. You can actually test this by looking at penetration in glass, normalising ME and TE to RHA and then multiplying the two. Even though glass has only 60% of the TE of RHA, it has a whopping 6 times ME. Which means that, overall, it is 3.6 times as efficient as RHA.

This is amazing, given that magic titanium alloy has only 1.8 times the efficiency. Even better; glass is cheap and easilty castable. I can't test harder ceramics directly, but my guess is that they'd be better still. And that's just against long rods - ceramics are even more effective against shaped charges.

 

So far, so good. However; even with this comparative advantage over steel you're still looking at an areal density of something like 2000kg/m^2 to stop a modern APSFS round. To the scientists working on this stuff, then, ERA/NERA must have seemed like a quantum leap in effectiveness. So my guess is that the second they had got the data in all the research on NERA was locked up tight. The glass/ceramic sandwich stuff, which had seemed like the answer a short while ago, was now allowed to dribble into the public domain due to irrelevance. The only information about NERA that made it through to the public was in the form of garbled rumours about arrays of special plates suspended inside the armour package. From there on, simple extrapolation (and a bit of cod logic) gets you the honeycomb laminates and super-ceramics that we heard about in the 90's.

Toxn, I think you are making a wrong conclusion. While glass can have a very high thickness and mass efficiency in laboratory testing, it won't have such an efficiency in actual applications. Glass is one of the weird materials (much like ceramics vs KE ammunition) that losses efficiency when sloped. You can see how the thickness efficiency of different steel-glass-steel sandwiches is influenced by the slope in "Glass Armour and Shaped Charge Jets" by Dr. Manfred Held. The most effective glass and steel sandwich plate provided a thickness efficiency of about 3 when not sloped, but sloping the armor at 60° resulted in a decrease of TE to only ~1.1. This value was however measured against "jet guns" (extremely unoptimized shaped charge warheads (e.g. something comparable to WW2 quality) at only 10 inches (254 mm) standoff distance.  

TU6sRon.png

Based on assuming that the tested glass has the average density of standard civilian glass, this would result in a mass efficiency of up to 5.47 when not sloped, but only 2.0 when sloped at 60°.

p8BJ4P2.png

The biggest issue with such experiments and laboratory testing is however that the TE and ME are always exaggerated as a result of the test setup. An nice example is the different glass armor tested by Dr. Held against a 115 mm Milan K (Milan-2) warhead with a standoff distance of 345 mm. The reference plate was spaced 16 calibres (1840 mm !) away from the the glass armor module, in order to allow making high-speed radigraphic photos of the distrubed shaped charge jet. The huge distance between armor module and reference plate affects the TE and ME drastically, as the disturbed shaped charge jet losses much more penetration power than in a regular armor layout. 

aiE7fJq.png

This can be somewhat seen in another test by Dr. Held, where "conventional" NERA consisting of a 2 mm steel plate, a 20 mm Dyneema plate, and a 4 mm steel plate were used as NERA sandwich against a Milan K warhead. The warhead was placed 350 mm in front of the armor, which was sloped at 60°. The distance to the reference target was 1700 mm. This armor reduced the penetration of the 115 mm shaped charge by 400 mm, i.e. the thickness efficiency (not accounting the empty space) would be 7.7! Given that  the Dyneema has an extremely low areal density (21 kg/m²) the ME would be 23.4! This is an incredible level of protection per weight, but cannot be achieved on actual tanks, due to the limitations to the armor volume and the need of layering the armor.

Glass armor and ceramics have a very different defeat mechanism. Glass has a bulging effect (a result from glass locally changing it's density during penetration), thus can be used as an interlayer material for NERA. Ceramic armor on the other hand does not have such a behaviour, Chinese tests of aluminium oxide against shaped charges show a TE of ~1.0-1.1 and a ME of ~2.2-2.3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed post!

However; I'm not assuming anything about slope or the real limitations of ceramics. I'm simply laying out what I think is a plausible story for why glass or ceramic sandwiches got into the public domain while NERA didn't.

 

My argument is that researchers really were working on glass and/or ceramic arrays (the DTIC documents confirm this) and were very excited about them at some point. But, as you just pointed out, NERA arrays are much better than sandwich arrays (4X efficiency in tests compared to 20X efficiency). So my guess is that, having discovered NERA, the researchers were then very hush-hush about disclosing it. The older sandwich array designs, however, got discussed and slowly leaked into the public domain.

 

Now, you're a reporter and you know something about glass sandwich arrays. But you also know that the work going on that you've heard about was a decade ago. So, having heard almost nothing about new tanks with fantastically effective new armour arrays, what is your assumption?

My guess is that you put together what little you can find out (something about special plates inside the armour package) and add it to what you already know (the layered composite arrays). Add in a few hints about fantastic materials (super-ceramics, advanced polymers, depleted uranium) and you end up with the story about composite armour (honeycomb arrays, supermaterials, plates 'turning' inside a polymer matrix) that we all got told up until a few years ago.

 

TL;DR - Secrecy and the unexpected nature of the advance in technology is what lead to all the stories about fantastic sci-fi materials used in modern tank armour. All along, however, the real secret sauce was in attacking the problem from another angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

That sounds pretty reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised if the same "glass/ceramics are super" myth has repeated itself with other technologies (I am looking at you, heavy metal alloys in armor!).

Reporters again. The idea of tempering goes straight over, but the fact that there's 0.01% tungsten in there sticks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Also, you can see from that image that the hull protection on the Abrams, even accounting for the fuel cells, is not spectacular.

This is a flaw shared by many Western MBTs, sadly.

 

edit:  and most Soviet ones, come to think of it.

Hull armor was never more, or even, as important as turret armor, because the turret is exposed far more frequently, thus more susceptible to being hit. Explaining why turrets have traditionally better armor than tanks' hulls.

The exception would be the T-14, which chooses to rely solely on an APS for its turret's protection. A bad call I believe. While the turret is no longer manned, it is definitely just as much exposed to hostile fire. 

20 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Not on the upper glacis it isn't.

We're getting off topic, but basically all MBTs have a weak spot around the driver's position.  The Challenger 2 is the worst offender, 

I wouldn't say "all". At least the Leclerc and Merkava, who share a rather similar protection scheme, don't have that weak spot. 

20 hours ago, Damian said:

That's your problem, first I never seen a hit in the M1's upper glacis, because it's so small target, second thing is, there is still big chance of a bounce due to angle. You don't like it, well, find a better design... oh wait, there isn't a better 3rd generation designs. So yeah, this is a pointless discussion.

Pretty sure that somewhere in the AW forums, in one of the threads that I cannot recall its name, there were pictures of an M1A1/2 (don't remember which) pierced in its UFP by an ATGM which IIRC was a Konkurs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of discussion of glass in armour arrays in hunnicut - IIRC it was considered for M60 or T95

On 15/02/2017 at 3:32 PM, Renegade334 said:

I surmise then that filling spaced armor cavities with fluids (fuel or otherwise) is not worth the trouble, compared with just leaving air between the plates, since it'd cause a rather consequent increase in weight?

I remember (from AW's forum, some time ago) some Soviet tanks having those turret cavities filled with some sand/concrete-like matter. Does it merely absorb shockwaves or slow down KE projectiles, or does it have some sort of abrasive effect on penetrators (whittling it down or simply deforming it) and such?

Density of diesel is about 1/10th that of steel, so if it's 7 times less effective on a thickness basis then you're still ahead

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The exception would be the T-14, which chooses to rely solely on an APS for its turret's protection. A bad call I believe. While the turret is no longer manned, it is definitely just as much exposed to hostile fire. 

It does have a much lower frontal area than any MBT with a manned turret, so hits to the turret will be less likely

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's really an argument. Soviet tanks were designed with the principle of being smaller to minimize chances of being hit (though largely also because of bad infrastructure), and look where that got them - it cost the users a great deal of lives, cost them capabilities, and eventually they abandoned it. All that anyone ever had to do to counter this design feature was make a digital FCS (not those funky Chally stuff) that is reliable enough. Surely even a narrow turret isn't much of a problem nowadays. 

I know there's a whole debate surrounding this, about whether the T-14 (or any future MBT) is going to sacrifice mobility to get better protection, or sacrifice protection for better mobility (current state). Doctrine-heavy.

Russia could have gotten that sweet spot in between by at least making a turret that is ready to accept various configurations, including a modular armor on short notice, but it didn't. They went instead with having a wholly modular turret, which means they can still change it (and it's a very good future-proofing decision) but they will not be ready on short notice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Digging back into the earlier posts, the tests seem to show that a single rubber NERA array plate expands to about 5X its original thickness when hit by a shaped charge.

 

My question here is what effect does stacking the plates closer together have on effectiveness? Presumaby sticking the plates too close together will limit their effectiveness, but at the same time you want to stack them quite closely to maximise the amount of material the penetrator has to go through.

 

Follow-up question: is there a penetration calculator for shaped charges comparable to the longrods calculator?

 

Yet another question: does anyone have TE values of unusual materials against APFSDS and/or shaped charges? I just ran some speculative numbers on reinforced concrete, and the results against long rods should actually be pretty good (0.6 TE) according to calculations. Which makes me think that the calculations are off somehow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone. This is my first post! I'm the guy behind the Tankograd blog https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/ Mike E, which I think is a familiar name to some of you, used to help me out there.

I've done some research into NERA armour in order to better understand the armour of the T-72B, but I definitely don't pretend to know all about it. I've posted some stuff on NERA in my blog's T-72 article, but I'll repeat the most relevant bits here. According to Rolf Hilmes, adding a heavy armour plate in front of the NERA plate boosted the overall effectiveness against KE projectiles. No idea how true this is, but the guy that said it is a world expert on the topic, so hey. As far as I can tell, the heavy plate presumably contributes by fracturing or chipping part of the projectile before it enters the NERA plate, where it is further damaged, but to be honest, I don't know the exact mechanism.

Comparisons between independent research involving NERA plates of the same configuration but with different bulging plate hardness has shown that the hardness of the bulging plates directly affects the ability of the NERA armour to disrupt shaped charge jets. So using titanium or aluminium is actually very counterproductive. It is better to use high hardness steel sheets. We must not forget that even though titanium and aluminium may sometimes have better ME than steel, you need quite a large thickness to achieve the same relative armour thickness. When we are talking about bulging plates, thick = bad. Thick plates are very stiff, and that makes it difficult for it to be bulged by the interlayer. But this is not a problem if the objective is to feed as much material as possible into the path of the projectile, right? The thing is...

 

4 hours ago, Toxn said:

My question here is what effect does stacking the plates closer together have on effectiveness? Presumaby sticking the plates too close together will limit their effectiveness, but at the same time you want to stack them quite closely to maximise the amount of material the penetrator has to go through.

 

... the point of NERA probably isn't to feed material for the projectile to penetrate. It is to impart lateral forces. With that in mind, I think that it is better to have more space. This enables you to impart forces on a bigger area of the projectile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Iron Drapes said:

I've done some research into NERA armour in order to better understand the armour of the T-72B, but I definitely don't pretend to know all about it. I've posted some stuff on NERA in my blog's T-72 article, but I'll repeat the most relevant bits here. According to Rolf Hilmes, adding a heavy armour plate in front of the NERA plate boosted the overall effectiveness against KE projectiles. No idea how true this is, but the guy that said it is a world expert on the topic, so hey.

Source? Because he says pretty much directly the opposite about the T-72B's (T-72M1M's) armor in his book "Kampfpanzer heute und morgen: Konzepte - Systeme - Technologien", page 382.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Iron Drapes said:

Hi everyone. This is my first post! I'm the guy behind the Tankograd blog https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/ Mike E, which I think is a familiar name to some of you, used to help me out there.

I've done some research into NERA armour in order to better understand the armour of the T-72B, but I definitely don't pretend to know all about it. I've posted some stuff on NERA in my blog's T-72 article, but I'll repeat the most relevant bits here. According to Rolf Hilmes, adding a heavy armour plate in front of the NERA plate boosted the overall effectiveness against KE projectiles. No idea how true this is, but the guy that said it is a world expert on the topic, so hey. As far as I can tell, the heavy plate presumably contributes by fracturing or chipping part of the projectile before it enters the NERA plate, where it is further damaged, but to be honest, I don't know the exact mechanism.

Comparisons between independent research involving NERA plates of the same configuration but with different bulging plate hardness has shown that the hardness of the bulging plates directly affects the ability of the NERA armour to disrupt shaped charge jets. So using titanium or aluminium is actually very counterproductive. It is better to use high hardness steel sheets. We must not forget that even though titanium and aluminium may sometimes have better ME than steel, you need quite a large thickness to achieve the same relative armour thickness. When we are talking about bulging plates, thick = bad. Thick plates are very stiff, and that makes it difficult for it to be bulged by the interlayer. But this is not a problem if the objective is to feed as much material as possible into the path of the projectile, right? The thing is...

 

 

... the point of NERA probably isn't to feed material for the projectile to penetrate. It is to impart lateral forces. With that in mind, I think that it is better to have more space. This enables you to impart forces on a bigger area of the projectile.

Welcome!

 

Look at some of my previous posts - I mentioned the application of lateral force.

What greatly puzzles me is how the actual NERA arrays we have pictures of seem to contradict what little coherent theory we have about how they work. If you go over the pictures posted earlier, you find arrays with very small gaps (or no gap), arrays with thicker front plates than back plates and arrays were a lot of the NERA plates are orthogonal to the axis of the penetrator rather than at an oblique angle. I'd love to know why.

 

I agree with you that NERA plates should be further apart (again, see my earlier posts), as the brute physical reality is that the only way to seriously lower the penetration of a long rod or shaped charge jet is to somehow disrupt it or break it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Second hand source, unfortunately: http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.my/2017/01/early-m1-abrams-composite-armor.html

"A common design principle according to Dipl.-Ing. Rolf Hilmes, who formerly worked at the German BWB, and according to a presentation from the British Defence Science Technology Laboratory (DSTL), is to incorporate a further heavy layer in front of the armor array, which servers to disrupt (shatter/break) the projectile, before the fragments enter the NERA array."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight erratum: I realised that my calculation for ME was wrong, and replaced it. The results make MExTE comparisons much less spectacular, as most things only get a bit over RHA overall.

 

I also ended up with enough stuff to stick into excel and made a solver for arrays to stop long rods. So far, the results seem to show that magic quatz would be the way to go, but the picture becomes much more complicated once you adjust it to a realistic sandwich array.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Must Be Spoon Fed
      Hello,
       
      I'm interested in Soviet armor production and deployment. Especially of T-55 tank and its variants. Sadly, most sources touch this subject very generally while I would want to get a more detailed view. How much tanks were produced in which country and at what year. Were Soviets producing armor for themselves or for export. Any source which would go into bit more detail about it is appreciated. I would appreciate if someone could help me find information required about those tanks as so far I can rely only on quite general information. 
    • By SirFlamenco
      I want to calculate the weight required to make an armor that can resist 7.62 RUAG SWISS AP, also known as VPAM level 12. I needed a baseline so I took NIJ Level IV and then tried to find the difference of weight so I could get a percentage. The only plate that's still made for this threat is the TenCate CX-950 IC. This plate is 8.93 lbs for a sapi medium and is alumina in-conjonction with soft armor. I then needed to find a Level IV alumina IC, which I found on UARM's website. It's 7.6 lbs, so if we do 8.93/7.6 we get around 1.175, but I put 1.25 considering UARM's plates are often quite heavy. Now that we have 1.25, we can start applying it to silicon carbide and boron carbide. Denmark's group has a level IV silicon carbide plate at 5.95 lbs, so times 1.25 it gives 7.4375. Hesco's boron carbide IV plate is 5.1 lbs, so times 1.25 we get 6.375.
       
      Now, I wanted to know what was the weight for hardened steel. I took MARS 600, which is one of the best armor steel you can get. Using this page, I can easily calculate that you would need about 19mm to stop it. Using a calculator, we know that a full inch sapi medium plate would weight 33.9 lbs. 19mm/25.4mm = 0.748 inch so if we do 0.748*33.9 we get 25.3572 lbs. 
       
      The problem is obvious : How is boron carbide 4 times as light as steel? Silicon carbide is 3.4 times as light too? It doesn't make any sense, giving that they are both around 2.2 ME and hardened steel is 1.3 ME, so it should be around 1.7 times heavier for steel. What did I get wrong? 
    • By Gripen287
      Do you like pontificating on the infantryman's load? Want to see how different gear choices affect said load?  If so, check out this spreadsheet including an itemized list of "best of breed" (IMHO) gear! Download it and customize to suit your own preferred equipment.  The "Configured Totals" section should auto-calculate weights and ammunition totals for your selected items, and you can copy and paste "Configured Totals" values into the light and heavy load sections for comparison. 
       
      I've tried to provide a fairly comprehensive list of gear for the rifle squad and machine gun teams.  A few items are notional, and those should be noted as such. I've also tried to balance both lightness and capability.  I, however, mostly intend this spreadsheet to serve as an outline and handy way to calculate total values for any items you choose to add or change.
       
      While I'm sure there are a more than a few errors, this spreadsheet is merely intended as a starting point for your own explorations, and I am NOT likely to maintain this particular version. Enjoy!
       
      Infantry Packlist Spreadsheet
    • By Indigo
      Hey y'all, long time no see. I Thought I understood the premise of perforated armor, but earlier today I realized I probably don't. I thought perforated armor was just supposed to damage/decelerate a projectile as it passed through, but then I realized that I thought that's what spaced armor is for, so what's the difference. I also realized I may not really know what perforated armor is at all. I realized that I simultaneously associate two fairly different images with perforated armor.

       
      I imagine this as just breaking small projectiles as they hit it. But then there's this

      which appears to have slots all throughout it, which is more of what I think of when I think of something being perforated, but this doesn't look like it really serves the same purpose, nor do I have any idea what purpose this does serve now that I think about it. So what am I missing about perforated armor(and whatever one of these things is if not perforated armor)?

×
×
  • Create New...