Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout
It tells that the sides and rear cannot be expected to withstand some types of infantry carried Anti Tank weapons.
|
Name a tank that can!
What the Tiger? Close but its rear end could still be penetrated by the infantry portable AT weapons of the day.
Tanks are built to punch though enemy forces
so they have the heaviest armor on the
front. The Taliban and AQ forces don't fight a conventional battle so will not provide a solid defensive line for US forces to punch though or provide a mass assault to defend against. Taliban and AQ attack aiming for the
weak points, slat armor removes or minimizes the weak points susceptibility to HEAT warheads with out adding the weight of additional "steel" armor. (Yes I know not really "steel" but lets keep things simple here).
Quote:
|
Chobham armor protects against both sabot and HEAT warhead but the necessasting of the installation of AD-HOC chicken cage protection around the sides and rear substantiates the suspicion that those areas are not well protected against more modern types of HEAT warheads be it RPG or ATGM type.
|
But Chobham armor is heavy, it protects against both but its still HEAVY! Slat armor is light and protects against HEAT only however when was the last time you saw a Taliban fighter with a gun that could fire a SABOT round?
Tankers over there are forced to drive up one lane dirt roads where they are subject to attack from the sides. In a conventional battle most current MBTs were built for they would no do this! They would fight line abreast with infantry guarding their flanks or in some other formation that minimizes exposure of the weaker side and rear armor.
Slat armor is simply the adapting of the current MBTs to a less than optimal situation where the addition of additional steel armor would be wasteful and unnecessary.