To: Brad from Tennessee
But active protection won’t protect from, say, a 37mm antitank gun of 1940, with solid steel shot.
13 posted on
03/02/2017 3:50:26 PM PST by
buwaya
To: buwaya
Anti-tank mines would continue to be a problem.
Guess someone needs to get on that force field thingy or a hovertank like Dana Sterling used in the Southern Cross era of Robotech or better both. I’d to think of the power requirements.
15 posted on
03/02/2017 3:55:25 PM PST by
wally_bert
(I didn't get where I am today by selling ice cream tasting of bookends, pumice stone & West Germany)
To: buwaya
But active protection wont protect from, say, a 37mm antitank gun of 1940, with solid steel shot. True. I'm sure the recently reported "metal foam" technology will be evaluated as part of this program.
51 posted on
03/02/2017 5:24:08 PM PST by
Charles Martel
(Progressives are the crab grass in the lawn of life.)
To: buwaya
But active protection wont protect from, say, a 37mm antitank gun of 1940, with solid steel shot. No more than *Blazer* and other add-on reactive HEAT-defeating armor proved effective against short repeated bursts of 25mm-30mm HEAT rounds from light auto cannons, which cleared the way for follow-on bursts of SABOT, or a main gun round from an accompanying Big Brother.
57 posted on
03/02/2017 8:24:16 PM PST by
archy
(Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Except bears, they'll kill you a little, and eat you.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson