Electronic Forcefield on MBTs

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-06 05:50pm

What do we make of this?

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020820-86081662.htm

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-06 05:53pm

Sounds plausible. Not a forcefield, though. Just a pair of insulated conductor plates, through which the penetrator inadvertently forms a circuit and gets zapped by high current.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-06 05:56pm

Interesting that the British seem to have pioneered most advances in MBT armor over the past several years - first Chobalm, then Dorchester, and now this. I certainly hope the US will adopt quite soon.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-05-06 06:23pm

Axis Kast wrote:Interesting that the British seem to have pioneered most advances in MBT armor over the past several years - first Chobalm, then Dorchester, and now this. I certainly hope the US will adopt quite soon.

To give the US credit, they did pioneer some important Tank technologies. The first and foremost is the ability to fire accurately while moving. The second is a protection system designed to keep the crew alive if the tank it hit in a critical point.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-06 06:35pm

I think this topic was actually posted a few months ago...

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-05-06 08:09pm

Just a step closer to energy-based reactive armour. Heh, heh. Mecha here we come? Well, maybe not, but still, if someone could figure out a way to expand this system, we're getting awfully close. The next step is to improve our small motor and servo motor tech and tie it in with the leg components of one of the heavier personal combat armours.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-06 08:36pm

Axis Kast wrote:Interesting that the British seem to have pioneered most advances in MBT armor over the past several years - first Chobalm, then Dorchester, and now this. I certainly hope the US will adopt quite soon.

Not to question British tank expertise, but I'd bet that Chobham and Dorchester armors were joint ventures on some level.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-05-06 08:40pm

Cool. Would this work to defend against other types of weapons as well, or just RPGs?

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2003-05-06 09:06pm

Howedar wrote: Not to question British tank expertise, but I'd bet that Chobham and Dorchester armors were joint ventures on some level.

I don't believe so. Because Chobham has always been attributed in US sources to Britain. If the technologies behind the M1s armour were a joint venture with the United States, that fact would have been trumpeted pretty loudly right from the very start.

Remember the context of the M1's introduction:

1) The M1 was vested with laying to rest the ghost of the failed MBT-70 project, which cost the Army and the US tank braintrust much prestige and a shitload of cash. If Chobham really was a joint US/UK project, wouldn't US participation be highlighted to Congress as proof that America was still at the bleeding edge of armour design?

2) The alternative to the M1 was to buy the Leopard 2. It comes down to an American tank versus a German tank, and the US still attributes the wonder armour to Britain alone, instead of a face-saving joint effort?

3) The M1 was always intended to eventually take the Rheinmetall 120mm cannon. That's a major component of foreign manufacture in an American tank , and yet the armour is still attributed to Britain instead of a face-saving joint effort?

Even if Britain had made major breakthroughs on its own before combining resources with the US, the USA would assume control of the joint project and it would very definately be a US-UK project. Wouldn't be called Chobham, for a start. No offence intended, this is simply the way things work.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-06 09:43pm

By all means, it was primarily British. I'm sorry if it sounded any different.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-06 10:08pm

This isn't politics. More science and engineering so I've moved it to SLAM.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-06 10:36pm

Darth Wong wrote:Sounds plausible. Not a forcefield, though. Just a pair of insulated conductor plates, through which the penetrator inadvertently forms a circuit and gets zapped by high current.

Could this principle be used in other applications; for example, as an anti-intrusion system in buildings?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-07 03:20am

I'd say it'd only be useful against shaped-charge (HEAT) anti-tank weapons. The RPG is a pretty low-power system so I doubt it'd have the same level of effectiveness as say a 125mm triple-charge HEAT round.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-07 04:01am

It will only ever defeat small to medium shaped charges. The blast from a larger charge will just blow the panels apart. It also of course won't do shit against a kinetic penatraitor, the fanwhore Aurum's head remains stuck up his ass.

On tank armor, there's nothing to suggest the US worked on Chobham. The US did however develop armor to defeat long rod penatraitor, which early Chobham tanks where extremely venerable to.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-05-07 06:56am

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Sounds plausible. Not a forcefield, though. Just a pair of insulated conductor plates, through which the penetrator inadvertently forms a circuit and gets zapped by high current.
Could this principle be used in other applications; for example, as an anti-intrusion system in buildings?

No, it'd just be like an armoured building. If you want to electrocute intruders, there are better ways to do it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-07 08:35am

NecronLord wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Sounds plausible. Not a forcefield, though. Just a pair of insulated conductor plates, through which the penetrator inadvertently forms a circuit and gets zapped by high current.
Could this principle be used in other applications; for example, as an anti-intrusion system in buildings?
No, it'd just be like an armoured building. If you want to electrocute intruders, there are better ways to do it.

The Tazer Active Mine System for instance.

This tech was announced a few months ago though, given the way in which our tanks deal with RPGs already, this is only making doubly sure they won't be as much as a problem anymore.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-08 12:29am

Sea Skimmer wrote:On tank armor, there's nothing to suggest the US worked on Chobham. The US did however develop armor to defeat long rod penatraitor, which early Chobham tanks where extremely venerable to.

Ahhhhhhh, okay.