02GF74
|
 posted on 13/1/09 at 03:13 PM |
|
|
thinking outside the box
If you were designing vehicle armour, you wouldn't make it full of holes or would you?
|
|
|
|
|
londonsean69
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 03:16 PM |
|
|
Makes perfect sense to me.
Still, if were weren't fighting Bush's war for oil we wouldn't need it so much.
Sean
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 03:21 PM |
|
|
so what happens when the bullets smaller than the hole...
the ‘enemy will just make long thin rounds now 
|
|
|
dinosaurjuice
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 03:22 PM |
|
|
i like the sound of the stainless steel theyve made further down the page...
|
|
|
nib1980
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 03:22 PM |
|
|
I hate that phrase think out side the box!
Why not just get a new box!
|
|
|
jabbahutt
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 03:25 PM |
|
|
maybe it works along the same physics as a projectile hitting an angled surface.
Apparently when you see cops etc shooting at a driver in a car the angled surface of the windscreen is enough to deflect even the most powerful round
so it misses the driver.
Cant see though how they take into accoun the what if factor of something going stright through one of the holes? unless there is more than one layer
with the holes offset to create a mesh effect.
Interesting though, makes you think
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 03:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
so what happens when the bullets smaller than the hole...
the ‘enemy will just make long thin rounds now
I think long and thin weaponry is what this is designed for Mr Whippy. Its what is currently used by modernised countries to penetrate armour as
explosive rounds have low effectiveness against thick armour.
"dont think of them as holes, think of them as edges". A smaller bullet will be more likely to come into contact with an edge and be
deflected. Large explosive rounds wouldnt be deflected in this way anyway and here the rest of the plate would act to dissipate the explosion.
Craig
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 03:28 PM |
|
|
aren’t most armoured vehicles in Iraq etc just blown up with land mines?!
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 03:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
aren’t most armoured vehicles in Iraq etc just blown up with land mines?!
Nope, common misconception produced by the media (as per)! The v.lightly armoured scouting vehicles we use do (we shouldnt really be using them).
Tanks, however, are often only detracked/immobilised. Being killed in a modern tank by an explosive such as an RPG would be VERY unlikely/unlucky.
Craig
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 03:39 PM |
|
|
Sure tanks don't seem to be destroyed much, especially when the enemy doesn’t have any left but that’s not what people are getting killed in,
hummer things and troop carriers etc are the problem can’t see that mesh doing anything productive for them folk
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 04:26 PM |
|
|
Isn't it along the lines of exploding armour for tanks. Sounds bizarre until you think about it....
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 04:37 PM |
|
|
Makes sense to me - toilet paper never tears where the perforations are!
Stu
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 05:03 PM |
|
|
if the lay the steel on its side there are no direct ways through it (unless you're stood up very high)
principle learned in the WW2 for tank construction, metal plate at an angle is much thicker than vertical.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 05:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by whitestu
Makes sense to me - toilet paper never tears where the perforations are!
ooooh, looks who is thinking outside the roll!
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 05:24 PM |
|
|
Interesting stuff 
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
