Prev: Re: [OT]Not-Stupid question about sloped armour Next: Re: FT: Carriers & Fighter Capacity

Re: [OT]Stupid question about sloped armour

From: Edward Lipsett <translation@i...>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 16:06:15 +0900
Subject: Re: [OT]Stupid question about sloped armour

If the only benefit were the extra thickness provided by the sloped
cross-section, then ceramic armor wouldn't have much to offer over a
lump of
steel, would it?
If there is a hole punched in the ceramic, a Bad Thing happens. If the
ceramic is hard enough to turn a potential punch into a bounce, with the
help of sloping, a Bad Thing may not happen.

On the third hand, I have been on neither end of a shell aimed at a
tank, so
I may be wrong.

on 02.5.1 3:50 PM, Roger Books at books@jumpspace.net wrote:
> 
> It must be the glancing that makes it worthwhile

--
What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of
liberty
and learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest
support.
- James Madison, "On the Library of Congress"
-- 
Edward Lipsett
Intercom, Ltd.
Fukuoka, Japan
Tel: 092-712-9120
Fax: 092-712-9220
translation@intercomltd.com
http://www.intercomltd.com


Prev: Re: [OT]Not-Stupid question about sloped armour Next: Re: FT: Carriers & Fighter Capacity