Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
That has been the case since the advent of gunpowder weapons. That's precisely why they develop things like slat armor, spaced armor, ERA, and skirt armor. They offer additional protection against low-velocity weapons that are specifically designed to penetrate armor.
I think you may be under the impression that there is some sort of armor that protects against all projectiles. That simply isn't the case. Even the most modern MBT in the world, the M1a2 Abrams, has a cage-armor turret bustle intended to deform armor-piercing projectiles before they reach the Cellular Amuunition Storage. The is no armor of proof in the modern world. Anti-tank missiles and projectiles have seen to that. There is only a combination of firepower, protection and mobility.
|
Yea I'm aware of the turret rack bustle in M1 tanks but that looks good on the tank while slat armor well . . .
Actually chobham protects against all just that tandem HEAT warheads pose great risk because the ceramics is only so thick.
ERA looks great on tank because they are properly put on the tanks surfaces.
I know I'm complaining about a tank's aesthetic aspect when given slat armor and it's ridiculous but I'm a ridiculous man
ERA, spaced armor, angled armor, and skirt armor as well as chobham were all born from tank designers and incorporated well into the inherent design while slat armors were never meant to protect MBTs as far as I knowand was only added as an ad-hoc solution.
But I never meant to argue, just saying that I hate slat armors on MBTs though I accept the reasoning behind them and I believe it's fairly easy to defeat the slat armors it just needs a preceding explosive to open the way for the the real warhead to pass through. With a little innovation this could be added to AT weapon system and or warhead. It would just make anti tank weapons a little heavier.