2 ms·
I'm wondering why tank armor is (appears to be) basically flat, when the AT warheads appear to be based on creating that super-heated jet, optimized for strikin
by jacobn 5y ago
I'm wondering why tank armor is (appears to be) basically flat, when the AT warheads appear to be based on creating that super-heated jet, optimized for striking a flat surface?
Why not stack a few layers of corrugated steel/ceramic plates to try to split the jet apart?
Basic theory would be to present the projectile with a surface that has drastically different amounts of resistance across the front of the projectile, in the hope of destabilizing it & the jet it creates.
I guess it would make the armor quite thick, but with varying density/composition it may not end up that much heavier?
(And maybe it just wouldn't work ;)
- jiggawatts 5y agoYou basically invented composite armour, which is a thing already, and actually somewhat outdated. The problem is that at such high velocities, during the impact everything acts like a fluid. Tensile strength and shape is almost irrelevant. You can think of the atoms in the armour not as a solid but as individual particles just hanging in space. Their mass — and hence inertia — is more important than anything else! Modern armour design is about trying to have moving components that present “fresh” volume/mass to increase the effective thickness. Either via rubber layers that can distort, moving steel plates, or explosive reactive armour that do the same thing but faster.
- chipsa 5y agoNot super heated jet. It's still roughly room temperature. It's being moved fast enough that it acts like a fluid more than a solid.