Printable View
It takes a lot less effort to make a fastener fail than it takes a welded seam to fail. Then when a welded seam fails the plates open up, they don't become high velocity projectiles rattling around inside the crew compartment.Quote:
Originally Posted by VladTepes
While the concussion injuries may be significant, a projectile through a vital organ is potentially far more serious or more likely fatal.
yeah Im sure they are building these with the same materials, specs and construction type as those WWII vehicles.....:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
I don't care what space aged materials they are using to armour the vehicle. Ballistics remain the same. I don't care that the WWII tank was riveted with cast iron rivets and grade 8 bolts and the Mercedes is assembeld with carbon ceramics and kevlar.Quote:
Originally Posted by uninformed
If the grade 8 bolts, or titanium bolts or whatever bolts or rivets they are held together with, fail, they will fail producing a projectile travelling at high velocity.
So be it a kevlar, carbon ceramic, or titanium projectile it will kill the same as if it were a cast iron rivet head.
BTW: why do you think the Perenties in Afghanistan have rag tyres (cross ply) instead of steel belted tyres? Answer because the kevlar or steel belts become projectiles instead of disintegrating when hit by IED
Windscreens on the bushmasters are bolted on, boxes on the side, remote weapons station on the top, windows on the side. not one soldier has been killed while inside them. injuries are mainly from concussion. most vehicles are fitted with spall lining inside, over there. The humvees have some boilt on armour, i cant coment on that....
geck
Bolting may be O.K. depending on what is at the other side of the bolt. If it's a nut on the inside then that has a potential to become a projectile. However if the bolt is threaded into a structural part of the body then the only potential projectile is on the outside.Quote:
Originally Posted by geckos
The toolboxes and fuel tanks on the outside are sacrificial, the bolts etc are unlikely to penetrate inside.
On the G-Wagen LAPV-7.X the body behind the armour (particularly the doors) does not look anything other than the standard frames. Once again if the external bolts have nuts etc on the inside they may be a risk.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you want light (or heavy) armour protection of a troop carrier, then the vehicle should be built like that from scratch, not just some add on stuff to a regular unarmoured vehicle, particularly if the armour is bolt on bits.
Fail
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedki...m/grant_02.jpg
Pass
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedki...-mk-iii-01.png
Pass
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...010/06/325.jpg
Fail
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...012/11/596.jpg
I think that is HawkeiQuote:
Originally Posted by THE BOOGER
This concept features Mog chassis & diffs underneath G engines & bodywork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
Mercedes-Benz Daimler at Eurosatory 2010 Actros 4151 AK 8x8 recovery truck FGA 14.5 chassis LAPV 6.X*-*Army Recognition
think about this: steel winch cable when under tension will store that energy and if the cable fails it releases that energy rather quickly.......why does not plasma winch rope do this???? its doing the same thing.....????Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
Yes it does matter what material they use and the specifics of every little design detail...so comparing something from 65 years ago while worth the mention may not prove scientfic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
I'm thinkng 2050, give or take a few years....
Damn, they could throw one in my direction! [thumbsupbig]Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzubob