Talk:Reactive armour
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] error in image
im purty sure I go tit worng. let me know if the signs are wrong, the movement of current always confuses me too, I knwo that should be electrn flow so I htin its okay.Wolfmankurd 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The text contains the following sentence: "Though it was once quite common for a dozen or so infantrymen to ride on the outside of a tank's hull, this is not done with ERA plated vehicles—for obvious reasons."
The alleged link between external ridership and ERA is unconvincing. It is certainly not 'obvious'. Sitting on an ERA plate when it explodes is indeed a hazard to life. However, it is hardly relevant since sitting on the impact zone of an anti-tank missile is also lethal.
What do others think? Bobblewik (talk) 18:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You are quite correct. Any hit which would set off ERA would also be hazardous to anyone riding the tank anyway. Besides, modern ERA explosion doesn't even necessarily destroy the box it's in. --Mikoyan21 14:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's a lot more explosive in an ERA box than in a typical incoming warhead, and there is a serious fragmentation and blast damage risk to those standing or sitting nearby. The US doesn't typically let people ride tanks because tanks attract fire, and people fall off and get run over fairly often (a serious hazard in training, and a significant hazard in combat), and the US has plenty of Humvees and M-2 IFVs. Other countries tended to both want to reduce training injuries and keep people away from the ERA blocks, and restricted tank riding at the same time. You saw it a bit in Chechenyia with Russian tanks, but they lost a fair number of infantry to the secondary ERA explosions and stopped doing it.
-
- I support putting the article back for that reason... Georgewilliamherbert 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
From memory, T54 and T55 used to be very similar. In my (albeit somewhat outdated) experience, the greatest difference between T54 and T55 was that the gun in T54 had only vertical gyro stabilization while in T55 it was stabilized both vertically and laterally. One unintended consequence of the lateral stabilzation was that, if one forgot to switch it off when going back on the road, the turret (and the gun) could end up pointing sideways thus collecting telegraph poles or anything else in that direction.
Can someone find a picture or diagram of this?
This? 
Wolfmankurd 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Electric Reactive Armor
I recently saw a Discovery Channel program that featured Electric reactive armor technology. I think the program was called "Weapons of the 21st Century", or something like that.
In the program, they tested slabs of Electric reactive armor mounted like side skirts on an English Warrior armored vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_Tracked_Armoured_Vehicles
On the side, they placed an RPG rocket facing directly into the reactive armor.
They detonated RPG rounds 3 times into the armor, and the armor didn't appear damaged, even though the narrator remarked that the armor slabs only had "dents."
If this is so, then the diagram in the article here somewhat appears different since the RPG didn't even penetrate or make a hole.
Im not gonna change anything in the article here, but it really made me think about its function. Jak722 22:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have personally seen electric reactive armor (also called 'electromagnetic armor') hit by an RPG. The outer layer gets holed by the jet, and dented by the explosion of the charge. The key is what happens to the jet between the two plates; it gets disrupted so that it either doesn't come out the back side or it comes out incoherently. -Amatulic 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling
Is it just me or isn't it kind of weird that the article is 'Reactive armour' but almost every other instance of the article, 'armour' is spelt 'armor'? Shouldn't the English spelling with the 'u' be used? --Remy Suen 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
