Talk:Vehicle armour

message: Spaced armor also defeats HESH rounds which can kill operators inside crew compartments without spall liners. AshRandom (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Only Good Against HEAT?

message: The article seems to refer to Chobham armour and composite armour as being the same thing:
"Composite (aka Chobham)"
I believe this to be incorrect, Chobham uses metals so it is not a true composite. More importantly Chobham is made from specific materials, which has a different sense to composite which would cover any combination of non-metal materials.
:It's certainly true "Chobham" and "composite" shouldn't be equated; and your last remark is certainly true: "composite armour" is the more inclusive term. However, though those tanks most commonly associated with Chobham armour, the Challenger 2 and the M1 Abrams, today certainly use additional heavy metal armour modules, this wasn't always the case. "Chobham", in its original (and I would say "correct" :o) sense refers to the ceramic modules. And all operational AFV's have some metal element as part of their armour package.
--MWAK 06:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chobham

message: Which is it? IMHO "Armor" runs off the tongue better. --Theredstarswl 08:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either should be fine (American or British). It just has to be consistent throughout the article per WP:MOS. heqs 11:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about beyond the article? At the moment some Wiki pages are English(British :P) spelling, others American. For example armor directs to armour and reactive armor to reactive armour while slat armour directs to slat armor (ok, it actually directs to cage armor, but you get the point. Pissedpat (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki policy is pretty clear on international spelling issues. US or British English are both fine as long as the spelling is consistent throughout the article. The original author decides. Whatever spelling was used by the creating editor should remain.Dino246 (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But if its an American subject then US spelling probably should be used, and "English" English for European subjects. I didnt see any official policy on being consistent throughout the article so why not just reflect the international nature of Wikipedia and each subject? And "armor" looks like a typo to me anyway, especially in context of being developed at Chobham Commons, England. I'm not British, I just borrow their language lol...Webwat (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an official policy of being consistent in an article.  Technical and scientific subjects cross borders.  Steel behaves the same in Europe and the US and in Japan.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armor vs Armour? 

message: > Electrically charged armour is a recent development in the UK by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. A vehicle is fitted with two thin shells, separated by insulating material. The outer shell holds an enormous electrical charge, while the inner shell is a ground. If an incoming HEAT jet penetrates the outer shell and forms a bridge between the shells, the electrical energy discharges through the jet <
Some shaped charge warheads use glass material for the cone insert, not the usual copper, so they are not conducting and thus nullify electromagnetic armour. It is not worth the money developing this tech if it is so easily defeated. 81.0.68.145 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non sequitour! 

message: It would be nice to meniton there what was the typical composition of alloys used for (tank) armour construction for ww1, ww2 and soviet T-60. It meas typical composition of metal armour before some composites, boron ceramic and such hi-tech materials were invented.
Was it just Hi carbon steel, or hi alloy (chromium, nikel... ?) What was the typical mechanical properties such as tensil strength of typical armour plate? German tanks has forged panzer plates welded together but soviet tanks has molten turret. What was the difference between these different armours?
If someone say that "this warhead penetrate 1000mm of steel armour" what people should think? It means steel plate of tensill strenght 500MPa 1000MPa or 2000MPa?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProkopHapala (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armour alloys 

message: The "Sloped Armour" section says:
"it encloses less volume with less material"
Shouldn't this be "it encloses more volume with less material" ? Darkman101 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Maybe "it encloses more area with less material".Dino246 (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloped Armour - check ? 

message: The explanation for how cage armour functions does not match the explanation in the main "Slat Armour" article. Edit?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.42.239.84 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slat Armour  

message: Then why the Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter was made a example for having no cockpit armour when compared to WW2 western aircraft designs of the same period like the P-40? FWIW, someone really needs to do something about this ridiculous claim in the section. Thoughts? Anyone. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft armour is not common???

message: At the moment, under Steel, the article just says "cast steel" - can we be more specific than that please. Is it a maraging steel, What alloying elements does it contain apart from carbon ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What steel composition/grade/spec