![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
im purty sure I go tit worng. let me know if the signs are wrong, the movement of current always confuses me too, I knwo that should be electrn flow so I htin its okay.Wolfmankurd 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The text contains the following sentence: "Though it was once quite common for a dozen or so infantrymen to ride on the outside of a tank's hull, this is not done with ERA plated vehicles—for obvious reasons."
The alleged link between external ridership and ERA is unconvincing. It is certainly not 'obvious'. Sitting on an ERA plate when it explodes is indeed a hazard to life. However, it is hardly relevant since sitting on the impact zone of an anti-tank missile is also lethal.
What do others think? Bobblewik (talk) 18:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From memory, T54 and T55 used to be very similar. In my (albeit somewhat outdated) experience, the greatest difference between T54 and T55 was that the gun in T54 had only vertical gyro stabilization while in T55 it was stabilized both vertically and laterally. One unintended consequence of the lateral stabilzation was that, if one forgot to switch it off when going back on the road, the turret (and the gun) could end up pointing sideways thus collecting telegraph poles or anything else in that direction.
Can someone find a picture or diagram of this?
This? File:Stabilser on t55.gif Wolfmankurd 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently saw a Discovery Channel program that featured Electric reactive armor technology. I think the program was called "Weapons of the 21st Century", or something like that.
In the program, they tested slabs of Electric reactive armor mounted like side skirts on an English Warrior armored vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_Tracked_Armoured_Vehicles
On the side, they placed an RPG rocket facing directly into the reactive armor.
They detonated RPG rounds 3 times into the armor, and the armor didn't appear damaged, even though the narrator remarked that the armor slabs only had "dents."
If this is so, then the diagram in the article here somewhat appears different since the RPG didn't even penetrate or make a hole.
Im not gonna change anything in the article here, but it really made me think about its function. Jak722 22:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Added several references to the Electric Armor Section. Since multiple terms might be in use, I think I'll also add a (also known as) comment to that effect. Mgmirkin 06:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
References I added: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/08/54641 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,539143,00.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/19/nmod19.xml http://itvibe.com/news/2627/ http://www.armedforces-int.com/categories/electric-armour/new-age-electric-armour-tough-enough-to-face-modern-threats.asp http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/reactive-armor.htm http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/passive-armor.htm Will assume these are uncontroversial (several by Wired and respectable news outlets, several by armed forces/technology watchdog sites, I assume). Mgmirkin 06:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Have also redirected common alternate terms (electric armor, electromagnetic armor, electric reactive armor, electromagnetic reactive armor) here, as well as alternate spellings of alternate terms (armor and armour). Hope that's all relatively non-controversial. If not, feel free to controvert it & note why. Mgmirkin 06:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which... Is it technically electric armour or armor? Currently the article uses the British spelling with an OUR, but I'm wondering if this should use the American spelling with only the OR suffix? Petty question, but probably valid. How does one know which takes precedent? Don't want to start a row over British vs. American English. Doesn't matter to me. Just not sure which is more correct or more prevalent. How does one decide? Mgmirkin 06:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or isn't it kind of weird that the article is 'Reactive armour' but almost every other instance of the article, 'armour' is spelt 'armor'? Shouldn't the English spelling with the 'u' be used? --Remy Suen 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I read about an aircraft carrier, that utilizes this kind of armor. I don't know it's lemma, but it was an article in the english wikipedia. 92.227.179.176 (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Distroyer1 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC) I have a friend who works in a factory that armors american trucks and jeeps for iraq. they are using electronic reactive armor for over 3 years
Generally the UK uses Electric Armor (EA) and the US uses Electro Magnetic Armor (EMA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevun (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This site: [[1]] has a short video about electric reactive armour.Agre22 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)agre22
OK, so it's 2011 - did Electric Reactive Armour actually happen ? We have had lots of Snatch Landrovers blown up in Afghanistan, and replaced with something beefier, IIRC. I haven't heard Electric RA mentioned in the last couple of years. I'm tempted to call bullshit on Electric RA and delete the section !
I don't think Wikipedia should be speculating on future developments which may or may not happen. It seems odd that this section has 7 citations whereas the rest of the article that is established technology only has 2 ! "Methinks the lady doth protest too much".
U.S. Military Uses the Force (Wired News) 2002 publication.
'Star Trek' shields to protect supertanks (The Guardian) 2002 publication.
'Electric armour' vaporises anti-tank grenades and shells link dead - now [2]
MoD Develops 'Electric Armour' error - it/web blog removed
New Age Electric Armor - Tough enough to face modern threats link dead - now (March 2010) [3]
not electric ! removed
Advanced Add-on Armor for Light Vehicles 2004
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
For some reason my web connection will only allow me to post a small section - sorry! I'm not adding these links because I don't think blue-sky research is encyclopedic.
One should bear in mind that stuff that works will remain classified, and unclassified documents will only contain stuff that doesn't work. There will also be a certain amount of mis-information to baffle the enemy (eg "eat carrots to improve night vision - radar? what radar?")
Some projects will always be used to attract more research funding - they will rarely be abandoned, even when clearly hopeless.
I believe Richard Feynman also used the example of a nuclear aircraft as a boondoggle project that would (obviously to a technical person) always remain in the research phase, and never actually work. See Nuclear aircraft and Convair X-6 !
Googling [Electric armour site:dstl.gov.uk] turns up some interesting stuff - in Annual Reports and Accounts , and a Powerpoint presentation ! The images of the test match the LiveLeaks video
Just to keep up with the UK MoD, the Yanks also trumpeted a successful trial in 2005
Then the Brits bought the company and re-trumpeted the success as their own.
However it remained to be developed as of 19th May 2008 Designed for the requirements of tomorrow delivered today
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)--195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
How much energy is needed?
The Powerpoint says
7.62mm sniper round = 4000 Joules of energy (would move a man at 1mph !)
RPG7 round has 347% of the energy areal density of a 120mm APFSDS
Scaling the areas (120x120)/(7.62x7.62) = 248x
4000J * 248 * 347% = 3440000 J
So, 3 MegaJoules.
The biggest capacitors I know are for Car Audio.
eg http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/314432.pdf
The biggest weigh a kilogram, and store < 10 Joules in almost a litre of volume.
I really have little faith that technology will bring the energy density down by 1000x.
It might be best to move the 'Electric Armour' section from the main topic to its discussion page.
Feel free !
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The metal jet in a shaped-charge warhead moves extremely rapidly, but it remains a metallic fluid at all times - no plasma is ever formed in the metallic jet itself! This is the only way in which it can remain dense enough to penetrate armor. If it were heated to the temperature required to form even a weak plasma, it would try to expand on its own, thus disrupting the shape of the jet and reducing the penetration depth. See the "HEAT" wiki page for a good discussion of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Reactive armour → Reactive armor – The entire article uses the spelling without the U, and was that way in the original version of the article as well. —Torchiest talkedits 14:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Wait, the back plate traveling backward is supposed to help mitigate the explosion? How is this acheived? By installing it with spacers and having it explode against the hull? Granted even a few inches would help, but I always thought it was fixed directly to the armor, and the back plate stayed stationary. AnnaGoFast (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The opening paragraph suggests that "Essentially all anti-tank munitions work by piercing the armour"; I'd strongly suggest that's not true in particular for High-explosive squash head rounds which don't pierce armour at all. Jellyfish dave (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
From what I see in the article and in some web sources with suspiciously similar text, SLERA is presented like it's really a different type of ERA. But are there really any working systems and reliable sources to claim that it's totally real and has its use? I've only found some mentions in media, nothing verifiable. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it is, but I feel as if we need a Military Expert to revise this article. BeeboMan (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)