Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout
Anyway I'm a tank enthusiast and seeing slat or chicken cage armor installed on a main battle tank is just ridiculous to me. It directly points to inadequacy of their default protection. Kind of heart breaking because it made MBTs look silly. It made the tanks look like a wimpy sheep to me meaning I hate it.
It's like seeing a caged lion but the purpose of the cage is to protect the lion from the crowd instead and not the other way around.
I hope better chobham armor could be produced and installed to get rid of the necessity to install these chicken cage armor to MBTs. It may look good on Stryker but for God sake now way for MBTs. Though I can understand the reasoning behind them.
|
I love my enemies in war favouring cosmetics over efficiency - it gives me the easiest possible fight.
Do some research on the difference in any kind of armour for kinetic and chemical ammunition - you always have TWO ratings describing the protection of armour at a given spot of the tank - the protection against two basically different types of projectiles, SABOT and HEAT. The first rating may say "equals 740 mm of RHAe (steel) against SABOT", while the same armour may have a rating of 1860 mm of RHAe against chemical warheads". The differences can be huge, and the relations between both values is not linear and is no constant, because the way in which different pieces of armour on different parts of the tank are produced, varies.
the only question with slat armour is: does it serve it'S intended purpose and does it offer the protection against certain types of ammon, yes or no? If it does serve its function, then it looks good and nice. If it does not, then it looks ugly. the only thing that always looks ugly, is a sexy-looking tank that is burning.
"Caged lion" - now, come on, why the dramatic language? That is pathetic.