Talk:Spaced armour

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

more vehicles with spaced armour

didn't the matilda have spaced armour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perforated armour

The title Perforated armour redirects to this page, but the subject is not addressed. The Chobham armour page draws a distinction between the two but does not explain. If there's a subject-matter expert around, please add a summary and point us to some good references. Thanks. (The title Perforated armor, by the way, points to the Vehicle armour page, so that should be resolved as well.) 71.197.166.72 (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected Perforated armour and Perforated armor to Slat armor, which is more appropriate. (Hohum ^@) 15:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article?

This whole article is merely an unsourced restatement of content that is in the vehicle armor article anyway and should be deleted. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-tank rifles & Schurzen

Anti-tank rifles generally fire solid shot (at least Soviet ones did) not HEAT. I reverted. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify: schurzen are one type of spaced armor. There are many other types. Thus, the fact that schurzen were developed as a countermeasure for AT rifles does NOT contradict the fact that spaced armor of some types can be effective against HEAT in some circumstances. Spaced armor can also enhance the effect of HEAT if the standoff is wrong, but, that's a whole nuther paragraph that doesn't currently exist in the article. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor is reverting this without bothering to engage in discussion here. While the source used is not the best possible, it does at least refer to proper sources itself. Amazing that the only sourced part of the article is the one being fought over. (Hohum ^@) 15:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a published reference:

Hughes, Matthew (2000), The Panther Tank, Staplehurst: Spellmount, p. 30, ISBN 978-1-86227-072-5, These skirts were made of mild steel plates 5mm (0.1 9in) thick and were designed to protect the tank from rounds fired at close range by Russian anti-tank rifles. ... Although not designed for this purpose, the Schurzen provided useful protection against hollow charge (HEAT)

(Hohum ^@) 16:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the following source has a detailed explanation of how Russian AT rifles prompted Schurzen design and employment. Zaloga, Steven (2016), Bazooka vs Panzer : Battle of the Bulge 1944, London: Osprey Publishing, ISBN 978-1-4728-1251-3 link (Hohum ^@) 16:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same user keeps removing sourced information and isn't participating in talk page discussion despite referral to WP:BRD. Twinkle advisory left on their talk page. (Hohum ^@) 18:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Against HEAT

"However, the use of add-on spaced armour skirts on armored vehicles may have the opposite effect and actually increase the penetration of some shaped charge warheads. Due to constraints in the length of the projectile/missile, the built-in stand-off on many warheads is less than the optimum distance. In such cases, the skirting effectively increases the distance between the armor and the target, and the warhead detonates closer to its optimum standoff."

That's either nonsense or badly translated.

In what way does spaced armor increase the distance between armor and target?
Stand-off is the distance to activate the warhead; optimum is whatever is most effective. What is "optimum stand-off"?
If the missile has not yet reached optimum distance, how can it help that the distance is even shorter?
Is the effect limited to the very short distance between spaced armor and conventional armor?

Please comment.----217.248.19.118 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the thin piece of skirt armour does not actually prevent the shaped charge from forming its penetrating jet - after all, this jet is designed such that it would form even if the projectile impacts directly. This jet projects out from the charge and has optimal penetrative properties a certain distance away from the original charge. So if the main armour happens to be now positioned at this optimal position instead of right next to the charge, the skirt could result in worse protection than even no skirt at all, let alone just a simply thicker piece of main armour. Fangz (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]