Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: buwaya
But active protection won’t 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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: buwaya
But active protection won’t 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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson