| Thread Review for Reactive Armor (newest post first) |
|
Campisi |
Posted on 2:17 pm on May 5, 2004 |
| ...A disturbing thought... |
| |
|
Urza123 |
Posted on 7:25 pm on April 29, 2004 |
| Yes, the brown note....Sounds like a solid plan. The only problem is really poeple. I've been to concerts where poeple just shit and throw it around. If the Hype factor was high enough, it might just encourage poeple.
|
| |
|
ChrisDickerson |
Posted on 9:18 pm on April 28, 2004 |
| Interesting...
|
| |
|
tomexe |
Posted on 8:06 pm on April 28, 2004 |
Quote: from ChrisDickerson on 5:03 am on April 28, 2004
The gas pressure thing only has one problem that I can think of. And that is the fact that in order to compress enough gas into that small an area, it would actually become liquid. Liquid is generally not able to flash vaporize fast enough to allow that sort of use. The sond emmiters are a possibility for non-lethal duty like crowd control. It has been considered and tabled at this point. We will look more into it as we get functional prototypes.
But using a large charge of electricity on the other hand seems to work. That is the basis of electric armor research. Becuase the jet produced by the Monroe effect has a good bit of length to it can make a bridge between two electrified plates. If the power is high enough the jet will pop like filliment in a fuze when it blows, and the jet will instead electroplate itself to the inside of the spaced armor chamber it was going through instead of penetrating.
|
| |
|
Caesar02 |
Posted on 8:01 pm on April 28, 2004 |
The problem with using a directional sound device that merely emits a sound that is uncomfortable to listen to is that it can be defeated by simple ear protection, like earplugs. For this reason, most sound devices impliment a combination of audible sounds along with very low and very high frequencies which can cause physiological effects. If applied properly (or improperly, depending on which side of the speaker you're on), the effects can be lethal. I have heard many a story of unfortunate researchers being harmed or killed by their sound weapons.
One thing that could make the riot-control sound device much more practical would be the implimentation of the fabled brown note- the note which triggers a physiological response where control of the sphincter is lost and the subject shits him or her self. I don't know about you, but I'd probably stop tipping cars and starting fires if I had a pantload of crap to haul around with me.
|
| |
|
ChrisDickerson |
Posted on 8:03 am on April 28, 2004 |
| The gas pressure thing only has one problem that I can think of. And that is the fact that in order to compress enough gas into that small an area, it would actually become liquid. Liquid is generally not able to flash vaporize fast enough to allow that sort of use. The sond emmiters are a possibility for non-lethal duty like crowd control. It has been considered and tabled at this point. We will look more into it as we get functional prototypes.
|
| |
|
Urza123 |
Posted on 10:46 pm on April 27, 2004 |
| Hey, didn't have time to read through all of the thread but I had an idea. Take that reactive armor, but use compressed CO2 inside to plates. This would creat an outward release of gas (it would have to be VERY high pressure to have an effect). This gas is C02, witch can be VERY cold and also drown any explosion using an outside oxidiser. Also just a thought. Now another thought, you've hear of directional sound right? If not it uses extremely loud pulses of sound, so loud they give an instant pain in the head. Have directional sound emiters on all sides of the mech, instead of trying to stop a bullet flying toward, stop the person firing. Of course this would only work at a short range, like say 300 yards BEST. Good luck
|
| |
|
noahrei |
Posted on 9:07 pm on April 15, 2004 |
| Apparently, twelve layers of woven bamboo is as strong as steel. Just an Idea.
|
| |
|
ChrisDickerson |
Posted on 6:33 pm on April 15, 2004 |
| Have you looked at how much Chobham armor weighs? It's not feasible for our mech designs... Yet.
|
| |
|
Merlyn |
Posted on 5:43 pm on April 15, 2004 |
IIRC, Chobham armour acts as a reactive armor without the explosive charges. A search online for chobham armor reveals that the reason for this is the layer of ceramic is pulverized at the point of impact, then when the plasma jet burns through the outer armor the ceramic dust expands out the hole and disrupts the jet.
There are also some very interesting things going on with cermet armors which leads me to think perhaps multiple layers of cermet and pure ceramic could function as a very effective armor system and withstand multiple hits from various weapons.
|
| |
|
Eric |
Posted on 10:51 pm on April 12, 2004 |
OoH... Okay. I didn't acually read the whole panel. However, I read recently that Liquidmetal re-did their product, and they have been experimenting with different alloy combinations to try to fix the catastrophic shear failiure problem. With Liquidmetal2, they they have the problem partially solved, and they think they'll have it solved within the next few years. I'm just saying that when the time comes to build a heavily-armoured monstrosity, amourphous metal may be an option, and the catastrophic shear failiure may not be an issue. It was just an idea.
|
| |
|
Caesar02 |
Posted on 2:05 pm on April 12, 2004 |
| Yeah, we've been over the amorphous metal topic in another thread. Another downside to consider is that because of it's extreme hardness, it is extremely brittle.
|
| |
|
Eric |
Posted on 9:07 pm on April 11, 2004 |
Also, there is Amorphous metal. I don't know if this was mentioned before because I didn't read the whole page, but amorphous metal, or glassy metal is a newly-developed alloy. An example is Liquid Metal 2. This metal makes a great armor because: 1. It can be molded into any shape like plastic 2. it is very elastic. It's so elastic, in fact, that if you make a sphere of this stuff the size of a golf ball and drop it on a steel plate, it will bounce for almost two minutes! 3. It is two to three times stronger than conventional alloys. This stuff would be difficult to penetrate even with bombs! However, there is one problem: It costs over $15 per pound, (60 times more than steel), so anyone who needs large amounts of this stuff had better have pretty deep pockets. However, the price is expected to come down in the next few years.
|
| |
|
tomexe |
Posted on 4:19 pm on Mar. 23, 2004 |
THEL and now MTHEL (Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser) is the Joint US/Israeli project to build a laser that can destroy incoming missiles, bombs, and shells in flight. It is still the size of a semi truck. A bigger unit is the Airborne Chemical Laser, which requires a 747 to lift and the optics turret alone weighs 11,000 pounds, but it can burn a basketball sized hole in a ballistic missile booster from 200km away.
ZEUS is a solid state laser, different and potentially much more compact technology than the THEL or the chemical laser in the ABL. There is no problem aiming the thing, the use as a demolition weapon is just because it has only 10Mw of power. It can only burn small objects and then it takes a while to achieve burnthrough, about two seconds to burn through a hand grenade casing at 30m. Even with the best FCS and mount it would have trouble staying on a vheicle or missile long enough to destroy it at that power level. There are two in existance, one doing demining in Afghanistan and one cleaning up the bombing range at Nellis AFB. I think they ordered a couple more, to send to Iraq to see if they can knock back this problem with improvised explosives left on the roadside blowing up shredding unamrored US vheicles as convoys pass by. The idea is to put a Zeus at the head of a convoy and just burn up any "trash" that looks like it might be large enough to hold some explosives.
But it is at least small enough to fit in a HUMVEE. The USAF now is working on making it smaller and fitting it into fighter aircraft and the rear gunners position in the remaining B-52H's. They say they need to get to a minimum of 75Mw to be useful at destroying fast moving targets, 100Mw would be ideal, and to remain at the current 5000 pound weight of ZEUS and preferably less. 100Mw would give them the power to kill another fighter or burn up unarmored ground vheicles, as well as shoot down missiles in flight (at least to the limits of the FCS, the THEL shot down 155mm rounds going only 800m/s, Hypervelocity missiles like LOSAT travel at 1800m/s and could strike before the FCS could respond)
The USAF is also testing combining the solid state laser with fiber optic technology. Allowing the generator to be placed near the vheicles engine but the emitters to be anywhere. Specificly they are looking at a laser package for the F-35A JSF that would go in the place of the Fan section of the USMC/RAF F-35C and be driven by the same PTO off the front of the compressor section that would contain a dynamo, coolent pump, and the laser generator. This then would lead to small gimball ball turrets, like TI/laser rangfinder ball on the Sukhois and MiG-29's mounted above and below the nose. Or in the B-52H it would be mounted in the bombay but the turrets would be under the nose and in the old tail gun position.
A ZEUS size laser with fiber optic emitters would fit in with the all electric drive and weapons fit invisioned for the FCS. Its also something that a mech could carry into the back country, its not going to be something a infantryman can carry with him anytime soon on his back, but its something that would be very useful for mine clearing and anti-aircraft/missile defense.
|
| |
|
Ajay |
Posted on 4:52 pm on Mar. 22, 2004 |
I think that was the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL). It was developed by both the US and Isareal to shoot down ballistic missiles and other projectiles.
They have made a much smaller laser system that can be mounted on a Hummer, running off of the engine (ZUES was it?). It can't destroy missiles and artillery shells in flight, as it lacks the tracking systems and power to effectively do so, but it is being used to detonate ordinance from a distance. They're working on upping the power of the laser too which may give it capabilities against light material targets like infantry and trucks.
The US military (and I'm sure many others) have intentions of equipping future ground vehicles with such laser defense systems.
|
| |
|
noahrei |
Posted on 10:35 am on Mar. 22, 2004 |
| I remember an article way back talking about how the army used a laser to shoot down and artillery shell in flight. Maybe some sort of adaption of this system could be used...if the Army is willing to share.
|
| |
|
Ajay |
Posted on 11:31 pm on Mar. 20, 2004 |
Even if you can survive a missile hit (which few light systems are intended to do from the begining), surviving high velocity projectiles fired from autocannons and large bore guns (or whatever new systems are developed) would still suggest decent passive armor protection. The move to lighter armor has many motives behind it (mostly regarding deployability and terrain mobility). Although new active defenses will ease the move to lighter armor, they are not a driving force behind it.
|
| |
|
Caesar02 |
Posted on 10:12 pm on Mar. 20, 2004 |
<<MAybe you could have some sort of sonic system to prematurely detonate incoming missiles.>>
I imagine that this would require a massive power supply, since most high-end car sound systems require large supplies, and they arent even military grade. However, I do hope that the Mark One and subsequent mechs will be equipped with kick-ass stereos. Hell, I'll donate the system once the mech gets built, and thats a promise, Earle.
<<However, there will never be a fool proof replacement for good, old fashioned, stop-a-round-in-its-tracks, armor cover.>>
I agree completely. Even if you can stop incoming missiles and rockets with a laser, you can't stop machine gun fire. However, I do think that the amount of armor needed will be significantly reduced when an active missile system is implimented.
|
| |
|
noahrei |
Posted on 9:00 pm on Mar. 20, 2004 |
| MAybe you could have some sort of sonic system to prematurely detonate incoming missiles. Just use a highly focused sound wave and fight off missiles with the bass in your mech (doubles equally well at winning out street custom competitions).
|
| |
|
ChrisDickerson |
Posted on 7:50 pm on Mar. 20, 2004 |
The Metal Storm is an interesting weapon. Incredibly high rates of fire, approaching 1 million shots per minute are possible. The problem with this particular weapon is that it takes soo long to reload. One thing that seems to be missed on the whole rotary cannon debate is the fact that some of the cannons only fire about 650 rpm. This gives them the same ammo dependency that a single barreled chain gun might have, with longer service life due to the inherent design differences. Most of the time when I speak of rotary cannons, this is what I mean to say. I'm not normally talking about a 4,000-6,000rpm gun system. Toward that end, I am starting to really favor the General Dynamics XM-301, 20mm rotary cannon.
Caesar, I'm going to start researching more on the laser designs to check out your ideas. That last comment about being a possible secondary power source for the mech intrigues me. However, there will never be a fool proof replacement for good, old fashioned, stop-a-round-in-its-tracks, armor cover. Even when they do somehow come up with a shield system like on Star Trek, armor will still play a key role in vehicle defense.
|
| |
|
Caesar02 |
Posted on 4:06 pm on Mar. 20, 2004 |
You could use a Metal Storm style system to launch a couple dozen smaller fragmentary rounds in the path of an incoming projectile. Seems to me like that would be a nice compromise between a phalanx-style system and a single fragmentary round.
However, I still back the gasdynamic laser over any solid active defense. The laser has very high power levels, requires no electricity from the mech, can fire very rapidly, is small and lightweight, and could actually generate extra power for the mech while not in use. Plus, you never have to worry about running out of ammunition, unless you spend more that about 30 days on a mission.
|
| |
|
Ajay |
Posted on 10:16 am on Mar. 20, 2004 |
There is work being done non-energy based actide defense systems that actually hit and destroy the missile (hard kill) and they don't involve phalanx style systems. SLID and AWISS are western systems being developed, while ARENA and DROZD ones already developed and I believe are currently being fielded by the Russians.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/slid/slid.htm
http://www.pml.tno.nl/en/pt/arena.html
In general, all the systems are little pods containing little canisters that are linked to some kind detection system and radar array. When an incomming round is detected, the canisters are launched at it and detonate, releasting whatever their contens are (most likely some kind of flechettes) to damage/destroy the projectile before it hits.
Compared to such an option, phalanx systems using smaller caliber weapons are for too ammunition intensive.
(Edited by Ajay at 9:20 am on Mar. 20, 2004)
|
| |
|
Chrome Dragon |
Posted on 8:53 pm on Mar. 19, 2004 |
Chris posted this picture (http://www.helispot.com/photos/03224.html) suggesting that the minigun turret will be a 'chin turret'. While I agree that it would maximize the utility of the minigun for ground targets, with a head turret it could be used in an early generation missile interceptor (until Stavatti irons out the kinks in their nuclear ray gun)
Quote: from Caesar02 on 6:11 pm on Feb. 25, 2004
Nice linkage.
I still prefer active defense systems over passive ones, even if reactive armor does reside in the grey area between the two. I think the ideal system for a mech would be an anti-projectile gasdynamic laser system, a la http://www.defensereview.com/352003/TIS1.pdf .
That was posted on another thread a long time ago, but I dont know if many people read it. Anyway, its basically a really powerful, really lightweight laser that could easily be used to vaporize incoming projectiles. An active defense would be particularly useful for a mech due to its greater height as compared to other land vehicles- it could detect and counter threats much more quickly and effectivly from an anti-missile system mounted on the top of the mech.
|
| |
|
kaempfer |
Posted on 5:37 pm on Mar. 1, 2004 |
Quote: from Caesar02 on 10:38 am on Feb. 29, 2004
How about an aerogel spaced armor skirt? I know we've had a long thread about this already, but maybe the newbs have something to offer on this one...
For those of you who don't know, Aerogel is a solid material that weighs, I beleive, about 4 times more than air. In other words, next to nothing. It looks like glass, and has similar properties. Of course, that also means it can be shattered like glass, so if you were going to use it as spaced armor, it would have to be incased by something, like a thin sheet of aluminum perhaps.
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/overview/faq.html#aerogel
|
| |
|
geneofols |
Posted on 8:17 am on Mar. 1, 2004 |
Quote: from DizzyDroid on 12:47 am on Mar. 1, 2004
Two words.....MECHA CUP!!! We could even have little holes in it to allow for 'breathing'.
That wasn't too off color was it?
Yes, it was. Little too much gamma there...lol.
|
| |
|
DizzyDroid |
Posted on 12:47 am on Mar. 1, 2004 |
Two words.....MECHA CUP!!! We could even have little holes in it to allow for 'breathing'.
That wasn't too off color was it?
|
| |
|
noahrei |
Posted on 8:46 pm on Feb. 29, 2004 |
Quote: from tomexe on 1:09 am on Feb. 29, 2004
The exceptions would be if someone stood right underneath and shot up the skirt, or the backs of the knees.
But who in their right mind would try to look up a skirt?
|
| |
|
Caesar02 |
Posted on 10:38 am on Feb. 29, 2004 |
How about an aerogel spaced armor skirt? I know we've had a long thread about this already, but maybe the newbs have something to offer on this one...
For those of you who don't know, Aerogel is a solid material that weighs, I beleive, about 4 times more than air. In other words, next to nothing. It looks like glass, and has similar properties. Of course, that also means it can be shattered like glass, so if you were going to use it as spaced armor, it would have to be incased by something, like a thin sheet of aluminum perhaps.
|
| |
|
ChrisDickerson |
Posted on 10:05 am on Feb. 29, 2004 |
| You'd have to have more than just bolts holding the tiles in place. They'd have to be fitted into slots/grooves in the primary belt of armor along with being attached by the bolts. This would be the only way that I can see for a tile not to be moved out of alignment and the bolts to be torqued so they can't be removed without serious work.
|
| |
|
tomexe |
Posted on 4:09 am on Feb. 29, 2004 |
Quote: from Caesar02 on 7:05 am on Feb. 28, 2004
A skirt long enough to cover the two most vulnerable parts of a mechs leg- the hips and the knees- would be extremely long and bulky. It would end up making the mech much heavier, and it would definitely get in the way of the legs. If you are bent on having a skirt on the mech, make it plain old spaced armor to detonate warheads. That would be much, much lighter and therefore would reduce many of the problems presented by a reactive armor skirt.
A fauld would cover the hips easily, the knees would be quite adaquately protected by grieves. The exceptions would be if someone stood right underneath and shot up the skirt, or the backs of the knees. But the front and sides of the knees could easily be protected by extensions off the shin armor, both to the front and side. They probably would have to be made sturdy enough, to withstand kneeling, that they could take tiles. The question would be could you get the tiles to stay on and work if the mech kept kneeling?
|
| |
|
noahrei |
Posted on 9:48 pm on Feb. 28, 2004 |
May as well jsut think of this as an Armor topic, trust me we wander way further off topic than this. I think any sort of reflective armor is just a mirrored surfacve that would reflect light away and slow the time it would take for a laser to burn through.
As for the earlier subject, if all we want to do is detonate a shell earlier then we could just right a sort of chain mail with a micro coat of C4 or somethign similar right.
How do pilots feel about this, "Oh by the way son your armor is explosive."
|
| |
|
ChrisDickerson |
Posted on 5:41 pm on Feb. 28, 2004 |
| Kilt wearing Mecha? The Scotts of the world would love that.. Refractive armor? Never heard anything about it other than in Mechwarrior. I don't even know if it exists.
|
| |
|
DizzyDroid |
Posted on 3:50 pm on Feb. 28, 2004 |
| This may be a little off topic, but I figured I have started enough 'new' topics for a while. What discussion has there been on light refraction armor? Could anyone post a link on that subject? I have heard a few things about, not much really.
|
| |
|
Ajay |
Posted on 10:21 am on Feb. 28, 2004 |
Reactive armor tends to need another layer of conventional armor beneath it to work to its utomost effect. I don't believe you'd want a skirt composed entirely of reactive armor, so the skirt itself would probably be made of some other conventional armor, with a layer of reactive armor on top.
The running sequence involved with armor skirt pannels hanging close/past the knees would be interesting as well.
Armor panels to cover the legs need not comform to the actual shape of the leg. They can be simpler angled shapes, bolted onto the outside. This would be even easier if the outside leg armor is mostly featureless and devoid of too many creases and folds (as it should be).
How about spaced armor panels attached directly to the hips and knees? Tomexe had a good suggestion that included aluminum/steel panels and a thick layer of foam/other lightweight packing material. It might not stop higher velocity KE rounds, but it might still slow down incomming shaped charge projectiles enough to detonate them. It also sounds much lighter and safer to implement around infantry than reactive armor.
|
| |
|
Caesar02 |
Posted on 10:05 am on Feb. 28, 2004 |
| A skirt long enough to cover the two most vulnerable parts of a mechs leg- the hips and the knees- would be extremely long and bulky. It would end up making the mech much heavier, and it would definitely get in the way of the legs. If you are bent on having a skirt on the mech, make it plain old spaced armor to detonate warheads. That would be much, much lighter and therefore would reduce many of the problems presented by a reactive armor skirt.
|
| |
|
EdZ |
Posted on 9:06 am on Feb. 28, 2004 |
Would it be more practical to incorporate reactive armor into a kind of 'skirt' over the mech's legs instaed of putting it onto the leg itself? It would:
a) keep the explosion away from the leg (of both armor AND warhead)
b) Be a LOT easier to design (square panals instead of shaped ones for the legs)
c) allows for armor covering joint areas, which wouldn't be posible with reactive armor.
d) allow for easier replacement of armor 'patches' (posibly even by the mech itself. Heh, mecha bandaids)
e) the flexibilty of the skirt would lessen the need for active balancing when the armor activates
The main problems I can see are:
a) attaching it to the mech
b) freedom of motion when the mech crouches/goes prone
c) taking up a lot of space (i.e. it may be the same width as the mech itself or wider to give good leg clearance.)
(Edited by EdZ at 6:08 am on Feb. 28, 2004)
|
| |
|
ChrisDickerson |
Posted on 7:53 pm on Feb. 27, 2004 |
| I would much rather have reactive armor exploding outward than an RPG exploding inward... Especially in my mech's legs.
|
| |
|
noahrei |
Posted on 7:22 pm on Feb. 27, 2004 |
| I would say that if you were using reactive armour, you would want to move into the blast to stop from being knocked over.
|
| |
|
KITT the Cylon |
Posted on 12:21 am on Feb. 26, 2004 |
<<design a mech with an active, intelligent center of gravity.>> -- noahrei Posted on 3:15 pm on Feb. 25, 2004
I like the sound of that. Integrate some "evasive" maneuvers into the balancing software. Would you want to fight back against the momentum of the hit? Or would you want to reposition?
|
| |
|
tomexe |
Posted on 10:31 pm on Feb. 25, 2004 |
Quote: from kaempfer on 6:44 pm on Feb. 25, 2004
I don't think putting explosive armour on a mech leg is the best idea...
Would all depend on the basic hull armor of the mech in question. There are vehicles that cannot carry reactive armor because their base armor isn't strong enough. The Marines LAVs are one of them. And of course the Armored Hummvee.
The Bradleys in Iraq right now though are usually not wearing their tiles. They work so often with dismounted infantry that they cant risk detonating tiles and injuring their dismounts.
|
| |
|
kaempfer |
Posted on 9:44 pm on Feb. 25, 2004 |
| I don't think putting explosive armour on a mech leg is the best idea...
|
| |
|
Caesar02 |
Posted on 9:11 pm on Feb. 25, 2004 |
Nice linkage.
I still prefer active defense systems over passive ones, even if reactive armor does reside in the grey area between the two. I think the ideal system for a mech would be an anti-projectile gasdynamic laser system, a la http://www.defensereview.com/352003/TIS1.pdf .
That was posted on another thread a long time ago, but I dont know if many people read it. Anyway, its basically a really powerful, really lightweight laser that could easily be used to vaporize incoming projectiles. An active defense would be particularly useful for a mech due to its greater height as compared to other land vehicles- it could detect and counter threats much more quickly and effectivly from an anti-missile system mounted on the top of the mech.
An active defense would have a whole lot of advantages. For one, it would be much lighter than reactive armor or solid armor plates. Second of all, it could potentially defeat most large projectiles like missiles and tank rounds. That would mean that no damage is taken at all when one of these rounds is fired at the mech, instead of the common defense of sacrificing a chunk of armor and praying the same spot isn't hit again.
Of course, some plate armor protection would still be required, but the weight would still be reduced to the point where speed and maneuverability would be dramatically increased.
|
| |
|
ChrisDickerson |
Posted on 7:00 pm on Feb. 25, 2004 |
| Aye, it does.. Thank you..
|
| |
|
DizzyDroid |
Posted on 3:44 pm on Feb. 25, 2004 |
I found a website that outlines the reactive armor pretty well. There is even a portion on the next generation in this system that will observe an incoming round and actually launch its own projectile to detonate the round before it gets to the vehicle. There are several pages to the article, just FYI. Hope this helps.
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/reactive-armor.htm
(Edited by DizzyDroid at 12:47 pm on Feb. 25, 2004)
|
| |
|
noahrei |
Posted on 3:15 pm on Feb. 25, 2004 |
With all the people talkking about howvulnerable a mech is if you take its legs, maybe that system could be used there. Although balance is still going to be an issue, you will be knocked down but you will still be able to get back up and operate.
Also a possible countermeasure for the torso area. Some tall buildings use a heavy weight sled at the to to stabilise them in winds and earthquakes. Maybe it would be possible to design a mech with an active, intelligent center of gravity. Take a hit + counter the weight = stay on your feet (+/- a knee).
|
| |
|
DizzyDroid |
Posted on 1:26 pm on Feb. 25, 2004 |
| The information I had was from an uncle who used to drive them and I think I saw a piece on the Bradley on the Discovery channel. I could look it up and see what I come up with. I'll get back to you on that.
|
| |
|
Earle Bishop |
Posted on 9:21 am on Feb. 25, 2004 |
I feel old now. I remember when it was still 'elite.'
*snif*
Ky, do you, by chance, have a link to the BFV info you referenced?
|
| |
|
DizzyDroid |
Posted on 8:47 am on Feb. 25, 2004 |
| I am a big MT fan. Here is the sad part, through college and even before in high school I was(what I thought) a HUGE gamer. However, I never heard of l337 until I read MT. Makes me wonder how HUGE of a gamer I really was. Kind of sad really.
|
| |
|
geneofols |
Posted on 8:33 am on Feb. 25, 2004 |
Quote: from DizzyDroid on 8:26 am on Feb. 25, 2004
Wow, thank you, that was unexpected. I can say something stupid if you want.
No, that's quite alright. In fact, we've had our fill of stupid n00bs recently. They could all learn a thing or two--well, several things, actually--from you.
Nice signature. Megatokyo fan? Or just general l33t?
|
| |
|
DizzyDroid |
Posted on 8:26 am on Feb. 25, 2004 |
| Wow, thank you, that was unexpected. I can say something stupid if you want. From what I read, the plates for the BFV are pretty large and have about and eighth of an inch of explosive inside the metal shielding.
|
| |
|
kaempfer |
Posted on 8:07 am on Feb. 25, 2004 |
| Yeah, if there's a military version, it will probably just be some fairly light composite or ceramic armour.
|
| |
|
Caesar02 |
Posted on 11:07 pm on Feb. 24, 2004 |
Like Chris said, that was an exceptional post for a newbie.
Anywho, I think that weight might be an issue, but I suppose that argument would be countered by the greatly increased surviveability for the mech.
I guess the only real argument I have against it is that reactive armor is the kind of thing that you put on frontline fighting vehicles, and I just dont see mechs doing that sort of thing.
|
| |
|
ChrisDickerson |
Posted on 10:07 pm on Feb. 24, 2004 |
I'm impressed. A newbie that does not just start gabbling about garbage. You are one of the few.. Welcome.
This topic was actually breached in a couple of different locations, and yes, it is a current thought we are holding.. You will find the topic about stick-on armor for Humvees in the Addition Non-MPS Information area. There are others, but none come readily to mind.
The fact that you picked up on the weight and balance issue flat out amazes me. The question would depend on how much armor and where it was actually used. Any major weight loss in a single area would have to be compensated for, either internally or by dropping off something that is external in the opposite portion of the mech's structure.
In short, yes, it is an option we are looking into exploring, once we have need of it.
|
| |
|
DizzyDroid |
Posted on 8:45 pm on Feb. 24, 2004 |
Forgive me if this has been covered already.
I was reading about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and was interested about the reactive armor it can employ. Basically, and this is a simplified explanation, it has large plates filled with an explosive covering the vehicle. When a projectile hits the plate, it is detonated outside the vehicle lessening the damage. Would this be a possible system to be employed by future military versions? I was not sure if the center of gravity would be an issue. The BFV is pretty low to the ground and would not be apt to tip as easily as a result of an explosion. Is this a viable possibility?
|
| |
Post reply to
