Talk:Vehicle armour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

The article seems to refer to Chobham armour and composite armour as being the same thing: "Composite (aka Chobham)" I believe this to be incorrect, Chobham uses metals so it is not a true composite. More importantly Chobham is made from specific materials, which has a different sense to composite which would cover any combination of non-metal materials.

It's certainly true "Chobham" and "composite" shouldn't be equated; and your last remark is certainly true: "composite armour" is the more inclusive term. However, though those tanks most commonly associated with Chobham armour, the Challenger 2 and the M1 Abrams, today certainly use additional heavy metal armour modules, this wasn't always the case. "Chobham", in its original (and I would say "correct" :o) sense refers to the ceramic modules. And all operational AFV's have some metal element as part of their armour package.

--MWAK 06:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 German WWII panzer armor skirts (picture) 2 Tanks only? 3 Armor vs Armour? 4 Glacis and mantlet

[edit] German WWII panzer armor skirts (picture)

The armor skirts of WWII on German panzers were not added to counter HEAT warheads. Their purpose was to protect the drive-train and suspension against Soviet anti-tank rifles (in contrast to HEAT in widespread use on the eastern front). I once read a pretty well written article about this (and other) wrongs of allied intelligence, but I can't find it right now. - Alureiter 15:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this also the function of the turret wrap-around, and the top of the skirt protecting the hull? I can clarify the description, but this is still a good example of this type of spaced armour, and I'm speculating that it probably would have defeated bazookas, etc. See also the second picture at T-34#Combat history. —Michael Z. 2005-11-18 15:24 Z

That is correct, the Soviet 14.5mm AT rifles could penetrate the side armor of German tanks; the schurzen (skirts) were developed specifically to counter that threat. It certainly would have provided standoff for HEAT but sometimes that actually helps penetration - it depends. May I suggest that a different photo be used to illustrate the concept of spaced armor since we may be inadvertently be perpetuating a myth otherwise? DMorpheus 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I only know about the armor skirts. And to be more precise: The factory added skirts consisting of plates. There have been other skirt-like field modifcations, e.g. with flexible meshes that are also more spacy than the skirts which are only a few centimetres from the tracks and rollers and those were (IMHO) clearly made to counter HEAT.

BTW: The (again IMHO) best example of spaced armour were the (anti-) torpedo bulges of capital warships of the 1880-1940 era, but I haven't found a good picture yet. - Alureiter 15:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the section to better reflect the reality. If someone can find a good reference, it would be helpful—I can't find much more than speculation in a quick Internet search. I still like the picture; it's a good example of spaced armour skirts regardless of their originally-intended function, but go ahead and replace it with another if you like. —Michael Z. 2005-12-9 19:07 Z

---

Tangential to that, I was thinking this article might be better with a more generic name, since it could apply to warships, aircraft, armoured trains, perhaps bunkers, etc. I was thinking of armour plate, but then that doesn't cover things like ERA. —Michael Z. 2005-11-18 16:17 Z

A reference to "Electrically charged armour" Can be found here;

http://www.armedforces-int.com/article.asp?pubID=15&catID=232&artID=451

I'm afraid I haven't the time to set the references up but it explains it pretty well

[edit] Tanks only?

The article concentrates exclusively on the heavy armour carried by tanks. Other vehicles and their armour are not mentioned at all – cars, aircraft, ships and even satellites. Jll 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

True, this article is more like "AFV armour" right now. Be bold! —Michael Z. 2006-02-07 17:42 Z

[edit] Armor vs Armour?

Which is it? IMHO "Armor" runs off the tongue better. --Theredstarswl 08:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Either should be fine (American or British). It just has to be consistent throughout the article per WP:MOS. heqs 11:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glacis and mantlet

I find this edit a bit odd. The heaviest armour generally is on the glacis or mantlet of a tank. The remaining armour comprises the turret front (which sometimes is the heaviest), and the front belly (the antitank gunner's sweet spot on a cresting vehicle, which generally is not). Ergbert, can you explain the edit? —Michael Z. 2006-12-16 00:31 Z