Re: [OT]Stupid question about sloped armour

Quoting Edward Lipsett <translation@intercomltd.com>:

> 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?

Ceramic armour fragments. You can embed a metal mesh in the ceramic to
retain 
the fragments - because ceramic fractures along fractal surfaces,
retaining the 
large fragments will effectively lock in the smaller fragments. This is
the 
basis behind "Chobham" armour, I believe.

So a lot of the shell's energy is spent in making cracks. Now obviously,
this 
isn't good long-term (probably don't want to get hit again in the same
place), 
but in the short-term, the energy is absorbed.

Steel armour bends (which absorbs energy), but bends enough to transmit
energy 
to the interior surface, which is flaked off at high speed into the tank

interior...[1] this is because metal deforms and then delaminates fairly
easily 
along crystal boundaries.

{Annoyingly we discover ceramic composite armour doesn't seem to be
covered in 
the rules for Robot Wars. Mind you, the powerplant we've been looking at
using 
isn't in there either...}

[1] Why isn't the tank interior coated with something to retard these?

________________________________________________________________________
_______
      Katie Lauren Lucas, Consultant Software Engineer, Parasol
Solutions
katie@fysh.org katie.lucas@parasolsolutions.com
http://www.parasolsolutions.com