Sturgeon

Others have said/alluded that "shot traps" aren't really a thing anymore, but I wanted to add that a big part of the reason for this now is that for the most dangerous threats a lot of the tank is simply "all or nothing". Yes it's true that fin doesn't ricochet so much, but a part of this that is forgotten is that modern tank armor is absolutely bursting at the seams, it's as much armor as anyone can stand a vehicle to have, and it's all directed at stopping the biggest threats from only so generous an angle. A really good book to read if you want the story on how tank design went from "okay we'll protect against this threat everywhere" to "we really need to be making compromises here" is Hunnicutt's Abrams, specifically the section after MBT-70. That's when designers in the West had their come to jesus moment.

These armor arrays are so huge that shot traps are simply a cost of doing business (albeit, again, not a terribly costly one in the current environment), because there's no practical way to make a NERA-box that had flush armor arrays like an M48 has.

Others have said/alluded that "shot traps" aren't really a thing anymore, but I wanted to add that a big part of the reason for this now is that for the most dangerous threats a lot of the tank is simply "all or nothing". Yes it's true that fin doesn't ricochet so much, but a part of this that is forgotten is that modern tank armor is absolutely bursting at the seams, it's as much armor as anyone can stand a vehicle to have, and it's all directed at stopping the biggest threats from only so generous an angle. A really good book to read if you want the story on how tank design went from "okay we'll protect against this threat everywhere" to "we really need to be making compromises here" is Hunnicutt's Abrams, specifically the section after MBT-70. That's when designers in the West had their come to jesus moment.

These armor arrays are so huge that shot traps are simply a cost of doing business (albeit, again, not a terribly costly one in the current environment), because there's no practical way to make a NERA-box that had flush armor arrays like an M48 has.

Others have said/alluded that "shot traps" aren't really a thing anymore, but I wanted to add that a big part of the reason for this now is that for the most dangerous threats a lot of the tank is simply "all or nothing". Yes it's true that fin doesn't ricochet so much, but a part of this that is forgotten is that modern tank armor is absolutely bursting at the seams, it's as much armor as anyone can stand a vehicle to have, and it's all directed at stopping the biggest threats from only so generous an angle. A really good book to read if you want the story on how tank design went from "okay we'll protect against this threat everywhere" to "we really need to be making compromises here" is Hunnicutt's Abrams, specifically the section after MBT-70. That's when designers in the West had their come to jesus moment.

These armor arrays are so huge that shot traps are simply a cost of doing business (albeit, again, not a terribly costly one in the current environment), because there's no practical way to make a NERA-box that had flush armor arrays like an M48 has.

Welcome to the forum. Go check out the various competition threads down in the Competitions subforum. We've done... Oh, four or five tank design comps? Should be illuminating.
 

Inspired by Primitive Technology, I made some Neolithic-Style Ground stone tools, a knife and hand axe/prospective axe head.
 
http://i.imgur.com/4b3Myyi.jpg
 
http://i.imgur.com/f8gdRxT.jpg
 
http://i.imgur.com/XZuMGTK.jpg
 
http://i.imgur.com/gWKoOBd.jpg

I also think like, the A-10 has really twisted around people's ideas about what CAS is supposed to be. Close air support is ordnance delivery in close proximity to friendly forces. That's it. We now have this idea that it means some flying turd hovering around a platoon getting JTACs commands and brrrrting at anyone who looks funny. This is a hyperspecific artifact of the way CAS was conducted in the GWOT. But a 'Chief flying in at 800 miles per hour and dropping bombs on enemy positions and then zooming off is CAS, too. A B-52 dropping a JDAM from 35,000 feet onto a ground lased target is CAS, too. CAS is not just "that thing the A-10 does".

This is irrelevant to the question of the A-10, and it also isn't clear to me that in the case of CAS you get a different answer with either premise.

The reason it's irrelevant to the A-10 is that the A-10 doesn't exist as a "repository" aircraft, it exists to pretend to be a helicopter so that Congress doesn't take away scope from the USAF's mission-budget holdings. The USAF (circa 1965) doesn't care about CAS that much, it cares about any kind of tactical air being given to the Army, which it sees as a first step towards the Army being able to recapture scope that was split off from it in the 1940s. And you look at what the Army was playing around with at the time, and it's pretty clear that the A-10 exists primarily as a physical "lid" on the Army's tacair capability. In other words, the Army cannot have any aircraft as capable or more capable than the A-10. That's pretty much its entire purpose (even if no one person was thinking exactly that, there's a reason these things shake out this way).

Now why do I think the domination/repository models don't get you a different answer? Well, simply because fighting wars requires methods of conduct which use assets and which together are based on doctrine. So whether you think of the Air Force as a "battlespace dominator" or as a "plane battery" is irrelevant. It is a battlespace dominator that requires a plane battery and both are subservient to the doctrine. Which one has "primacy" does not change the math. I could maybe conceive of a structure where that did change the math, but it would have to be very tortured indeed to apply to CAS.

Confirmed, the A-10 Threshold is below the Ju 88

bah! as if you'll find another!

ah yes assured you ukranitian government already know of deals, no need 4 u to call an verify!

ah yes assured you ukranitian government already know of deals, no need 4 u to call an verify!

Only for imagination time. When doing urbex having ability to hear is kind of important. Guard dogs, contruction workers, etc.

ah yes assured you ukranitian government already know of deals, no need 4 u to call an verify!

We are friends, yes? I make special deal, very low price for you!

please achieve more than 8 years of age before posting on this forum

This is irrelevant to the question of the A-10, and it also isn't clear to me that in the case of CAS you get a different answer with either premise.

The reason it's irrelevant to the A-10 is that the A-10 doesn't exist as a "repository" aircraft, it exists to pretend to be a helicopter so that Congress doesn't take away scope from the USAF's mission-budget holdings. The USAF (circa 1965) doesn't care about CAS that much, it cares about any kind of tactical air being given to the Army, which it sees as a first step towards the Army being able to recapture scope that was split off from it in the 1940s. And you look at what the Army was playing around with at the time, and it's pretty clear that the A-10 exists primarily as a physical "lid" on the Army's tacair capability. In other words, the Army cannot have any aircraft as capable or more capable than the A-10. That's pretty much its entire purpose (even if no one person was thinking exactly that, there's a reason these things shake out this way).

Now why do I think the domination/repository models don't get you a different answer? Well, simply because fighting wars requires methods of conduct which use assets and which together are based on doctrine. So whether you think of the Air Force as a "battlespace dominator" or as a "plane battery" is irrelevant. It is a battlespace dominator that requires a plane battery and both are subservient to the doctrine. Which one has "primacy" does not change the math. I could maybe conceive of a structure where that did change the math, but it would have to be very tortured indeed to apply to CAS.

I also think like, the A-10 has really twisted around people's ideas about what CAS is supposed to be. Close air support is ordnance delivery in close proximity to friendly forces. That's it. We now have this idea that it means some flying turd hovering around a platoon getting JTACs commands and brrrrting at anyone who looks funny. This is a hyperspecific artifact of the way CAS was conducted in the GWOT. But a 'Chief flying in at 800 miles per hour and dropping bombs on enemy positions and then zooming off is CAS, too. A B-52 dropping a JDAM from 35,000 feet onto a ground lased target is CAS, too. CAS is not just "that thing the A-10 does".

This is irrelevant to the question of the A-10, and it also isn't clear to me that in the case of CAS you get a different answer with either premise.

The reason it's irrelevant to the A-10 is that the A-10 doesn't exist as a "repository" aircraft, it exists to pretend to be a helicopter so that Congress doesn't take away scope from the USAF's mission-budget holdings. The USAF (circa 1965) doesn't care about CAS that much, it cares about any kind of tactical air being given to the Army, which it sees as a first step towards the Army being able to recapture scope that was split off from it in the 1940s. And you look at what the Army was playing around with at the time, and it's pretty clear that the A-10 exists primarily as a physical "lid" on the Army's tacair capability. In other words, the Army cannot have any aircraft as capable or more capable than the A-10. That's pretty much its entire purpose (even if no one person was thinking exactly that, there's a reason these things shake out this way).

Now why do I think the domination/repository models don't get you a different answer? Well, simply because fighting wars requires methods of conduct which use assets and which together are based on doctrine. So whether you think of the Air Force as a "battlespace dominator" or as a "plane battery" is irrelevant. It is a battlespace dominator that requires a plane battery and both are subservient to the doctrine. Which one has "primacy" does not change the math. I could maybe conceive of a structure where that did change the math, but it would have to be very tortured indeed to apply to CAS.

please achieve more than 8 years of age before posting on this forum

Confirmed, the A-10 Threshold is below the Ju 88

We are friends, yes? I make special deal, very low price for you!

We are friends, yes? I make special deal, very low price for you!

We are friends, yes? I make special deal, very low price for you!

@Destroyer Hello and welcome to the forum.
please read the guide before posting.
Thanks.