Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Upgraded TAM

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by WallShadow View Post
    ...Filled water containers/heavy plastic bags or plastic water bottles nestled between the detonation plate and the hull or turret armor...
    I have often wondered (and asked here) what would be the AV of rucks, equipment, water cans, etc, strapped to the sides or rear of vehicles, or in the bustle rack of an armored vehicle. Surely these would disrupt a HEAT jet (ruining the item in the process, of course).
    I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

    Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by WallShadow View Post
      If the idea of stand-off armor is to pre-detonate the HEAT warhead outside of its optimal detonation distance, what easily-available/manufacturable substance would make the thermal jet even less effective Firebricks (yeah, I know, really heavy). Compressed layers of aluminum foil wrapping fragments of tempered glass (pyrex dishes) Filled water containers/heavy plastic bags or plastic water bottles nestled between the detonation plate and the hull or turret armor Enamelled metal plates (it was tried in WW1 for body armor)

      Yes, I know some of these are being pulled out of left field, but if you are an occupant of that vehicle, you may be stretching your brain as to how to survive some overeager marauder or Pact greenie with an RPG or antitank grenade, especially if you've seen some buddies get fragged in their tank or APC.
      Good question. I know that in WWII, Allied tank crews often piled filled sandbags on their tanks to add an extra layer of protection. The big problem with that, though, was the added weight- especially when the sandbags got wet- could damage the suspension/transmission.

      Extra sections of track have also been a popular form of field expedient, jury-rigged modular armor. I suspect the benefits of said to be negligible, but I reckon over half the payoff of ersatz armor is psychological (i.e. it makes the crew feel safer).

      During the last year of the war, the Soviets used old bedsprings attached to their tanks to pre-detonate Panzerfaust HEAT warheads. In more recent times, various armies have attached sections of chain-link fence to pre-detonate HEAT warheads. This option is relatively lightweight, compared to welded on armor plate, sandbags, jerry cans full of water, etc.

      IIRC, we had a thread devoted to this topic. I think someone also found a picture/account of a T-34-85 with add-on armor made of thick rubber sheets that was used by one of the combatants during the Balkans Wars of the 1990s. I can't imagine that such "armor" was particularly effective.

      -
      Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

      https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
      https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
      https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
      https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
      https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module

      Comment


      • #18
        I thought the goal with the rubber on the T-34 was to mess with thermal imaging by masking the outline of the vehicle.

        For protection against HEAT, you're going to want an air gap. The goal is to detonate the warhead away from the hull and have a gap for the molten copper jet to start to disperse before hitting anything solid. The AT4 was known for being able to punch through sandbags and sand-filled crates when used as a bunkerbuster, so I don't think sand (or water) will be effective enough to justify the added weight. If you could afford the volume for it, you'd want a setup with the hull, air gap, sheet metal, air gap, hillbilly armor to maximize the number of medium changes the warhead would go through. The problem with that is now you have an awkwardly wide vehicle, so (as always), compromises need to be made between effectiveness and efficiency.
        Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Dark View Post
          I thought the goal with the rubber on the T-34 was to mess with thermal imaging by masking the outline of the vehicle.

          For protection against HEAT, you're going to want an air gap. The goal is to detonate the warhead away from the hull and have a gap for the molten copper jet to start to disperse before hitting anything solid. The AT4 was known for being able to punch through sandbags and sand-filled crates when used as a bunkerbuster, so I don't think sand (or water) will be effective enough to justify the added weight. If you could afford the volume for it, you'd want a setup with the hull, air gap, sheet metal, air gap, hillbilly armor to maximize the number of medium changes the warhead would go through. The problem with that is now you have an awkwardly wide vehicle, so (as always), compromises need to be made between effectiveness and efficiency.
          My goal was to disperse/deflect the stream before it hit the organic armor integral to the vehicle. I could see where a HEAT warhead could blast through sandbags, but the sandbags are intended to further reduce the jet's force after the spaced sheet steel panels pre-detonate the shaped charge and before it even gets close to steel. It's an additive factor, not the actual vehicle armor between the outside and the crew.
          "Let's roll." Todd Beamer, aboard United Flight 93 over western Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001.

          Comment

          Working...
          X