would armor represented in the picture be useful? objects always try to find the path of least resistance so how about we heat-treat the inner layers to be harder and leave the outer layers soft, this way the projectile should be deflected upwards and away from the tank.
>take regular armor
>make it 66% weaker
>thinks this will achieve something
>>30491195
Or just have the current strand of reactive armor we currently use? For what purpose would this be used for? Most tanks already use slanted/angled builds just for this purpose of deflecting incoming rounds.
>>30491195
>2 armor and 1% chance to deflect
vs
>10 armor and 0% chance to deflect
Can we have reactive armor for infantry usage?
>>30491269
???
>>30491306
Vidya game/rpg thing.
Think 4 armor or 10 percent chance to deflect would be more accurate.
why dont we just make the armor on the outside harder than it is now?
>>30491222
yeah actually heat treatment wouldn't be the right way to make this kind of armor because you just have weaker armor for the same weight, how about using something softer but also lighter like aluminum on top then?
>>30491195
Or you could just make it a bunch of layers of steel, ceramics, NERA, plastics, and DU and stop everything
oh wait we already did that
>>30491386
this armor would only be a part of the massive array of modern armor types, maybe as the innermost armor.
>>30491195
Armor that is too hard is useless, that's why russian tanks shattered against german AP rounds
>>30491441
how is this related to the topic or are you just rambling.
>>30491195
Look up Face Hardened Armor. It's literally the exact opposite of your idea. It was used by the Brits during WWII instead of RHA. The much harder impact face of the armor made it more likely to shatter shells, while the softer back side reduced spalling from shell impact.
>>30491432
>>30491362
nobody gives a shit dude
it' an inferior way of doing tank armor, end of discussion
you might as well stop this inane "oh, but what if we do X instead!?"-bullshit right now and save us 100+ posts of you ignoring every single anon telling you why you're wrong
>>30491663
>your idea is inferior because i say so and i can't be wrong
why the fuck is this the response i get from /k/ always, reason with me or fuck off from my thread.
>>30491693
you've been given reasons why it's a shitty "idea"
you choosing to actively ignore them changes nothing about this
>>30491716
>you've been given reasons why it's a shitty "idea"
where?
>>30491724
ie, where that anon mentioned that different hardness levels of the same material is useless with modern ammo, the brits used face harded armor ect. But why not find the best performing hardness and make it uniform? Otherwise youd have a bunch of useless steel just sitting there weighing more than just using the small amount that is effective.
There I paraphrased roughly what youve been told already. . .
>>30493304
i already acknowledged the problem with softer steel weighting the same as hardened steel and suggested materials that also weigh less and aren't only softer, like aluminum.
also, this whole thing is a lot different from ww2 british scenario, we are talking kinetic penetrator rods, they do not shatter, no they need to be deflected, or literally exploded, those things can penetrate hundreds of millimeters of hardened steel.
what i'm suggesting here is a setup that is meant to deflect the penetrator rods while not doing it as harshly you could say, with this armor the idea is that the turn the penetrators make when they are deflected is not as hard as it is with just straight up steel so that the force gets divided on a larger area or something idk, that's why it's here but you retards can't manage to grasp the core concept.
Because once you use up your mass and volume for inferior material you do not get what a uniform or specialized lamination of same thickness would get. Only reason to use your idea is if you cannot make enough of the high grade material for armor. The alternative; Face Hardened Armor is obsolete with current materials technologies. Now armor is a laminate often with reactive armor on top to defeat certain types of AP rounds. Layers of DU and other materials to defeat penetrators.
Your idea has been left behind by current tech. When it was viable it was the reverse.Softer on the outside would assist in penetration is my understanding.
>>30493438
If you're trying to make the armor as steep as in the op, then the weight and size of this tank would be immense.
You would more that likely save wieght by just making the armor more steep and thicker.
>>30491195
Heat treatment wouldn't work that well, anything coming at an angle suitable for deflection would already be deflected (or absorbed with essentially no spalling) without issue.
Direct hits we already have reactive armour (pic related it's the brick shaped things if you're not familiar) which will take pretty much anything that can be held by a person or put on a tank well enough to protect the people inside.
>>30493438
>we are talking kinetic penetrator rods, they do not shatter, no they need to be deflected, or literally exploded, those things can penetrate hundreds of millimeters of hardened steel.
Which reactive armor already does, and has done for decades.
>what i'm suggesting here is a setup that is meant to deflect the penetrator rods while not doing it as harshly you could say
A penetrator rod is not going to be deflected. standard US ones are going at 1.7 km/s when they hit the tank, and anyone who would have the ability to fire such a round normally would be a member of a large army, so they'd know how to keep rounds roughly on target.
The only possible way to deflect a penetrator round would be to more or less get the round to hit right on line with the deflector panel (which wouldn't be a lethal hit anyway). It's better to avoid the hit or rely on reactive panels to try and slow the thing down a bit so it doesn't kill everyone.
Penetrators literally rely on how fast they're going m8. It's either a good hit or a miss, you're not going to deflect it.
>>30493861
>The only possible way to deflect a penetrator round would be to more or less get the round to hit right on line with the deflector panel (which wouldn't be a lethal hit anyway).
Are video games not real life? Can I not just shoot right in between the "basket" (unfamiliar with the terminology, sorry) and the main section of the tank?
>>30493677
the steepness in the picture was just meant to give a direction and is in no way meant to be the final angle.
>>30493534
>>30491362
>>30493861
heat treatment as a way to make different hardness zones was a bad idea, sorry, please stop speaking about it, it has already been addressed.
>>30493861
i am aware that reactive armor and composite armor exists, my idea wasn't meant to be a standalone idea but a part of the whole thing.
also, of course penetrators can be deflected, my idea is there simply to possibly decrease the angle required for deflection.
op here i guess i didn't quite explain what the idea was with this thing, so here's a picture explaining the idea behind this armor.
please understand that i am totally okay with this being just a stupid idea but i am interested in the reasons why this would not work.
>>30494479
Angled armor is a concept to destabilize APFSDS's and is used, but does not involve/require/relate-to a gradient of hardness in the material.
>>30491195
We can use it on our gliders!
>>30494892
indeed, but i do wonder if adding hardness gradient would have any effect.
>>30495572
How would this deflect more reliably than a plate with a homogenous makeup, including hardness? Seems to me that the softer material would be a hindrance and may even help the ap rod do its job, preventing the rod from bouncing up, guiding it even.
>>30494340
>of course penetrators can be deflected
For all practical purposes they cannot. They simply have too much energy focused onto too small an area. Going straight through is the path of least resistance unless you have a steel plate angled only barely off horizontal- which is obviously impractical for an armored vehicle.
Your idea is basically stupid because the amount of steel needed to stop a modern sabot round is impractically heavy, regardless of hardness. That's why designers had to start using composite and ERA combinations to begin with. Both APFSDS and HEAT will penetrate multiple feet of steel.
>>30495683
for maybe the third time in this same thread i will say that this armor was never meant to be standalone
>>30495661
look at the picture
>>30494479
the idea is that the softer metals offer a path of least recistance therefore directing the penetrator away from the armor, and because the softer layers would be made from lighter stuff like aluminum it would not reduce the strength of the armor.
>>30495730
No anon, a path of least resistance isn't softer steel or what have you, it would be the fucking air. Go get a board angle it steeply, then press an inch of play dough to the outside. Shoot some arrows at it and they will either stick or at the best scenario run underneath, ruining much of the armor.
>>30495775
after the penetrator has penetrated ordinary steel armor the least resistance thingy stops being a thing and the penetrator can just keep on going, at the start the armor might bulge a bit towards air changing the rods angle a bit, but with differing armor hardness the least resistance thingy can continue even after the rod has gone a few cm into the plate.
>>30495825
That idea is fucking dumb dude.
How bout this, instead of steel or aluminum we coat the outside of the glacis with 6 inches of rubber.
A round hitable this and bounces right off, back at the point of origin.
