NationStates Jolt Archive

This is definitely cool. If it's effective against modern anti-tank weapons such as those fielded by the US or Great Britan, then a lot of that heavy armor will become redundant, and instead lighter, more mobile (and cheaper) vehicles can be used.

LAV rush, anyone? :D

Berrik

Link to original: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/19/boffins_invent_grenade_vaporising_electric/

Boffins invent grenade vaporising ‘electric force field’
By John Leyden
Published Monday 19th August 2002 10:29 GMT
Boffins at Britain's Ministry of Defence have invented an electric 'force field' designed to protect armoured vehicles against anti-tank grenades.

The 'electrical armour' is designed to vaporise copper projectiles released from grenades on impact before they are able to penetrate a tank's inner hull, the Daily Telegraph reports. The idea is to make tanks less vulnerable to anti-tank launchers, such the RPG-7, which is commonly and cheaply available in the world's trouble spots, such as Afghanistan.

When armaments like RPG-7 grenades hit a tank, a "shaped-charge" warhead blasts a jet of hot copper into a target at around 1,000mph - capable of slicing through a foot of conventional solid steel armour.

The new electric armour is based on a highly charged capacitor connected to two separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. The outer (armour-plated) plate is earthed while the insulated inner plate is live.

When the crew of a tank feel they are under danger, they switch on current to the inner plate, using the tank's internal power supply.

If the tank is unfortunate enough to be hit by a grenade, the jet of copper produced will penetrate both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate completing a circuit, which results in the discharge of the capacitor and the vaporisation of most of the copper.

The Telegraph reports that despite the high charge generated by the system, the "electrical load on the battery is no more than that caused by starting the engine on a cold morning".

It sounds bizarre, but the paper reports that in a recent demonstration an armoured personnel carrier protected by the system withstood repeated attacks by rocket grenades that would normally have destroyed it many times over.

Boffins hope to develop the armour further and fit it in Britain's next generation of tanks and armoured personnel carrier. The Pentagon is also reportedly showing a keen interest in work on the technology. ®

Hellbump

I seriously thought that soccer moms invaded the British military and started their assault on video games.

I personally plan to use this stuff to start a new arms race in II. If just an APC engine can stop shoulder-fired weapons, imagine what a system that has a QINR or a fusion reactor to draw on could do?

I CALL GODMOD!!11!!ONE!

oh wait...

Modern anti-tank weapons used by British and American militaries are not the same as cheap and widely available RPG-7's found through out the Middle East. This defense system isn't as effective against the "bazookas" that modern armies use, but why should it be? I mean, why the hell would you start a war with a modern country that poses a real threat to your nation's security with their crazy-ass "communist" dictator and their nuclear weapons?

I personally plan to use this stuff to start a new arms race in II. If just an APC engine can stop shoulder-fired weapons, imagine what a system that has a QINR or a fusion reactor to draw on could do?
Uh...same thing...? Changing the power source doesn't change the system numb-nuts. That's like saying "If I can turn on 3 TVs, all the lights, and 2 computers, plus all the utilities (like refridgerator and what-not) when my house gets power from a coal power plant, imagine what would happen if our electric company switch to nuclear power...

You might need extra plates to take care of a more powerful HEAT warhead, but I think it could be used against tank HEAT ammunition. It'll be useless against KE rounds no matter what, though. I think this is mainly useful for light vehicles that can't carry enough armor to protect themselves from KE weapons.
I personally plan to use this stuff to start a new arms race in II.It's been known for quite a while (That article is older than NationStates)...There's probably someone using it.

You might need extra plates to take care of a more powerful HEAT warhead, but I think it could be used against tank HEAT ammunition. It'll be useless against KE rounds no matter what, though. I think this is mainly useful for light vehicles that can't carry enough armor to protect themselves from KE weapons.
It's been known for quite a while...There's probably someone using it.
Eh...this is kind of frustrating. I'm not so sure you guys are fully understanding the system. It doesn't matter how many plates you have as long as the outside of your vehicle is completely covered in the plates. One of these plates stacked on top of another is a waste of money. What happens is (as the article states) the copper projectile completes a circuit, causing a massive electrical discharge, exploding the projectile before it hits the vehicle. The vehicle's metal will be damaged slightly, but not penetrated. You still need somewhat thick armor to defend from the explosions, and you are vulnerable to any projectile that is not as long as the distance between the two plates (the inner and outer that make up the shield), as a shorter projectile would not complete the circuit so your armor still needs to stop bullets and such. You also need to realize that if the projectile isn't a conductor, your shield won't work. I do think however that the most important thing to realize is that all your enemy needs is a few EMPs to render your entire army essentially defenseless.

It doesn't matter how many plates you have as long as the outside of your vehicle is completely covered in the plates. One of these plates stacked on top of another is a waste of money. What happens is (as the article states) the copper projectile completes a circuit, causing a massive electrical discharge, exploding the projectile before it hits the vehicle.The article says the copper is vaporized by the armor after the warhead has normally detonated.
The vehicle's metal will be damaged slightly, but not penetrated."If the tank is unfortunate enough to be hit by a grenade, the jet of copper produced will penetrate both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate completing a circuit, which results in the discharge of the capacitor and the vaporisation of most of the copper."
A more powerful HEAT round will have more copper, perhaps requiring more plates to vaporize it all.
You still need somewhat thick armor to defend from the explosionsIn a HEAT warhead, the copper does most of the damage...But yea, the armor will have to withstand the explosions.
and you are vulnerable to any projectile that is not as long as the distance between the two plates (the inner and outer that make up the shield), as a shorter projectile would not complete the circuit so your armor still needs to stop bullets and such.A HEAT warhead works by shooting out molten metal.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bullets2.htm
You also need to realize that if the projectile isn't a conductor, your shield won't work.Yep.
I do think however that the most important thing to realize is that all your enemy needs is a few EMPs to render your entire army essentially defenseless.Any more than ordinary? Tanks already heavily rely on electronics.

First off, the plates are most likely only a few mms apart, being what amounts to a capacitor. If it is charged up enough(and we're talking using superconducting plates at this point, so its kinda moot) you could put anything in and disintegrate it. Its possible that after one hit, a pair of plates will be rendered useless as some residue might remain connecting them as a circuit, so technically having a stack of them could make some sense. Finally, if an enemy uses EMP, they may have rendered all of their fancy RPGs useless.

Finally, if an enemy uses EMP, they may have rendered all of their fancy RPGs useless.An RPG would be unaffected, but ATGMs and modern tanks would be useless.

The article says the copper is vaporized by the armor after the warhead has normally detonated.
"If the tank is unfortunate enough to be hit by a grenade, the jet of copper produced will penetrate both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate completing a circuit, which results in the discharge of the capacitor and the vaporisation of most of the copper."
From what I understand, there are essentially 2 layers. One layer is the two plates they discuss in this article, then inside that is an layer of armor, not necessarily thick armor however. I mean, if the projectile penetrated, how is that a defense?
A more powerful HEAT round will have more copper, perhaps requiring more plates to vaporize it all.
In a HEAT warhead, the copper does most of the damage...But yea, the armor will have to withstand the explosions.
A HEAT warhead works by shooting out molten metal.
Not more plates...you might need a higher charge on the plates you do have (which would be significantly easier to arrange), but I think that extra plates would be excessively redundant, more expensive, and massively heavier.[/quote]
Any more than ordinary? Tanks already heavily rely on electronics.
Situation A: Heavily metal armored tank without this new defense system. EMP fired, all the electronics are shut down. What do you lose? Well, a ton of things. You're guns will still work, and you can probably get the engine going and you could still drive (although the turret may or may not operate). You don't have anything real fancy however. It'd be like driving a WWII tank, but with thicker armor and more powerful guns.

Situation B: Same thing, except you cut back on the regular armor to put in some of these shields without gaining a ton of weight. EMP fires, now you're driving a WWII with more powerful guns, but probably just about the same amount of armor.

I personally plan to use this stuff to start a new arms race in II. If just an APC engine can stop shoulder-fired weapons, imagine what a system that has a QINR or a fusion reactor to draw on could do?


Thats a good idea, lets throw a nuclear reactor chamber into an area where it is constantly shot at by people with really really big guns.

BTW: whats the big deal, we have had reactive armor for years. okay, this system uses electricity instead of explosives to defeat shaped charge rounds.

Finally, if an enemy uses EMP, they may have rendered all of their fancy RPGs useless.
There is nothing fancy about the RPGs that we're discussing here. We're talking about janky old Soviet shit. RPG = Rocket Proppelled Grenade.

http://www.goldenbrigade.org/images/rpg7.gif <-- like that...
You pull the trigger, the propellant is ignited, the grenade takes off on a really janky course (which makes these things pointless to try accurately aiming) and it's a hit or miss sort of deal. There's nothing electronic about it.


This article doesn't say anything about how this defense system would work against real modern anti-tank weapons like this: http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large/AT4-johnson2004-02-03.jpg

Oh, and it's pretty much slim to none chances that an American or British tank will get hit by a weapon like in the second image. I don't even know why we have those any more.

From what I understand, there are essentially 2 layers. One layer is the two plates they discuss in this article, then inside that is an layer of armor, not necessarily thick armor however. I mean, if the projectile penetrated, how is that a defense?Oh, the inner armor will be okay. I meant this special armor is penetrated.
Not more plates...you might need a higher charge on the plates you do have (which would be significantly easier to arrange), but I think that extra plates would be excessively redundant, more expensive, and massively heavier.Maybe, but I think either would work.
You're guns will still work, and you can probably get the engine going and you could still drive (although the turret may or may not operate).The M1A2's HEAT ammunition uses electrically initiated fuzes. The Challenger 2 uses an all-electric gun control and stabilization system. I'm not sure just how much modern tank guns rely on electricity, but it appears to be rather heavily if not totally. As for engines...I don't know, but again, I think there'd be a lot of trouble without electricity.
Situation B: Same thing, except you cut back on the regular armor to put in some of these shields without gaining a ton of weight. EMP fires, now you're driving a WWII with more powerful guns, but probably just about the same amount of armor.Your lighter weight (if you can still move) lets you move faster, though.

Well, I'm sure that almost every system in a tank runs off electricity, but I seriously doubt the government would be satisfied to lose a tank and a tank crew because of a dead battery (even if not caused by EMP). There are manual overrides on almost everything, but things like electric force fields absolutely can not work without electricity.

By the way, you don't have lighter weight. You took some weight off via normal armor and replaced that weight with this fancy electric stuff, and even if you did weigh a little bit less, you're still not outrunning and RPG.

I seriously thought that soccer moms invaded the British military and started their assault on video games.

Oddly enough, that's the same thing I thought: why would you need force fields to stop Dungeons and Dragon's players. Usually, all you need to do is tell them they need a 40 Will Save, and they lock up.;)

You took some weight off via normal armor and replaced that weight with this fancy electric stuff, and even if you did weigh a little bit less, you're still not outrunning and RPG.I was thinking more of moving faster than a tank's turret can follow you. An RPG can be prevented from even detonating with bar armor.

I'm leaving now, but I'll check in sometime later.

The one in the second picture has an electric starter, and its really based on the same concept as the first one, the warhead is just better designed.

If you really replaced the original armor with this(makes no sense since its reactive armor.....)you could lose weight because it isn't nearly as thick.

I was thinking more of moving faster than a tank's turret can follow you. An RPG can be prevented from even detonating with bar armor.
uh, christ, pay attention dude.

1) The article says the armor is used to protect tanks from RPG-7s.

2) If you sacrifice some regular steel to put in this force field without gaining weight, you've got a better defense against RPGs.

3) If you lose this force feild, you're now even more prone to an RPG attack then you were before you changed out the steel for the electric (due to thicker armor).

What am I missing? Aren't you connecting these dots? If RPGs aren't a threat to tanks (which they are...) then the force field armor we're talking about is just a neat tech toy. If RPGs are a threat to tanks (by the way, they are), then the force field helps out significantly, unless it is shut down, then the situation is worse. If you sacrificed steel for force field, you've got thinner armor, easier to penetrate. If you didn't sacrifice the steel, you've got the same amount of armor, but you're even heavier and now moving slower, so you'll still be easy to take out (because moving slower means more opportunities to get hit and more time for RPGers to aim [whatever aiming involves...])

The one in the second picture has an electric starter, and its really based on the same concept as the first one, the warhead is just better designed.

If you really replaced the original armor with this(makes no sense since its reactive armor.....)you could lose weight because it isn't nearly as thick.
I know what the two images are. The first image is not electronic, but it is what this armor defends against. The second one is electronic, is used by the US military (I've no idea why they bother with anti-tank weapons), and can not be found in the hands of Afghans or Iraqis. The second one is also not mentioned in the article.

pay attention dude.I am. ;)
1) The article says the armor is used to protect tanks from RPG-7s.You mentioned weapons other than RPG-7s.
2) If you sacrifice some regular steel to put in this force field without gaining weight, you've got a better defense against RPGs.Better than what?
3) If you lose this force feild, you're now even more prone to an RPG attack then you were before you changed out the steel for the electric (due to thicker armor).I know that.
Aren't you connecting these dots?Yep.
If RPGs are a threat to tanks (by the way, they are)Yep.
If you sacrificed steel for force field, you've got thinner armor, easier to penetrate.Yep.
If you didn't sacrifice the steel, you've got the same amount of armor, but you're even heavier and now moving slower, so you'll still be easy to take out (because moving slower means more opportunities to get hit and more time for RPGers to aim [whatever aiming involves...])Yep.

Okay, now I'm leaving.

I honestly don't think you get it.

I was pointing out that the article doesn't mention the fancy weapons that the US uses. It was something different from the discussion I was having with you.

A tank with this force field is clearly better than a tank without it, so long as the force field stays operational. I don't think there is anything confusing about this, but I'm sad to hear that you ask "better than what?"

"Not if you don't use it as a replacement." --please read all the way through before you comment. I explained how, no matter what situation, the situation gets worse.

If you didn't have it to start with at all, then the situation doesn't get worse, but I'm not talking about this scenario. I'm talking about two other scenarios.

Scenario 1, you replaced some steel with this forcefield to maintain same weight. Force field shuts down, you travel at same speed, but weak armor. You can't outrun an RPG, and at this point, you could be easily penetrated. Situation is clearly worse.

Scenario 2, you don't replace the steel, but you add the force field on top of it. If the force field becomes inoperative, you've got extra weight, but regular armor. You're travelling slower (due to extra weight), making you an easier target and prone to more attacks. This situation may not be as bad as the first one, but due to the extra weight, this scenario is not as good as just going in without the force field at all.

I could build a simple EMP device myself with minimal knowledge of the science involved. Its little more than a fancy radio transmitter.

Anyway, the US has a better solution already in practice that defends against ALL armor penetrating weapons except ones with very high mass (DU in most cases.) Its also fail safe, and you dont need to turn it on.

They solution is simply having the armor explode to make the AT warhead function like a conventional high explosive, which does little damage to a good tank.

Also, this doesnt make much sense against what is currently the standard tank-killing weapon of the US airforce: a 30 mm Gattling Gun.

However, RPG-7s are common and in widespread use, so, i guess this might be a lighter option than US reactive armor, if less effective.

US uses 30mm guns for their anti-tank, but the US enemies use RPG-7s. Why defend against the guns if the US if your tank isn't going to be hit by much else aside from RPG-7s?

Well, i do commend you guys on making a usable force field. Last time US scientists got payed to do this they made something that could stop bullets in mid flight but required assloads of power to run and was too heavy for any practical application.

Well, i do commend you guys on making a usable force field. Last time US scientists got payed to do this they made something that could stop bullets in mid flight but required assloads of power to run and was too heavy for any practical application.

Can I get a link to that, please? I wasn't aware anything else like this had ever been made.

edit: While the modern tech system obviously runs on a capacitor and can't handle large rounds, I'm willing to bet that a postmodern/supermodern ver of this could even stop railgun slugs if enough power was put into it.

Can I get a link to that, please? I wasn't aware anything else like this had ever been made.

I really dont remember where i got that, and it wasnt the internet. But i guess you could probably check the high-energy and extremely high energy research centers of the USAF. They are usually the ones who waste money like this.

Not that the Russians were innocent of this. They tried to forward both space war and tactical lasers long before they were feasible.

A tank with this force field is clearly better than a tank without it, so long as the force field stays operational.Would you rather put that weight into a system that will allow the weapon to penetrate part (and only part) of the way, or one that will usually prevent it from even detonating, and, when it does, make it detonate a fair distance away from the armor (significantly reducing penetration)?
I don't think there is anything confusing about this, but I'm sad to hear that you ask "better than what?"You quoted an idea of mine, posted an alternative of yours, and but didn't say whether yours would be better than my idea or the original tank.
"Not if you don't use it as a replacement." --please read all the way through before you comment. I explained how, no matter what situation, the situation gets worse.Please re-read my post.
If you didn't have it to start with at all, then the situation doesn't get worseYes, it does. Your tank loses tremendous amounts of functionality.
Scenario 1, you replaced some steel with this forcefield to maintain same weight. Force field shuts down, you travel at same speed, but weak armor. You can't outrun an RPG, and at this point, you could be easily penetrated. Situation is clearly worse.

Scenario 2, you don't replace the steel, but you add the force field on top of it. If the force field becomes inoperative, you've got extra weight, but regular armor. You're travelling slower (due to extra weight), making you an easier target and prone to more attacks. This situation may not be as bad as the first one, but due to the extra weight, this scenario is not as good as just going in without the force field at all.Yep.
They solution is simply having the armor explode to make the AT warhead function like a conventional high explosive, which does little damage to a good tank.I don't think the USA uses ERA.
US uses 30mm guns for their anti-tankNo, it doesn't.
but the US enemies use RPG-7sNot exclusively.
While the modern tech system obviously runs on a capacitor and can't handle large roundsModern tandem explosive RPGs have a diameter of 105mm, but the single explosive warheads are 93mm. The launching tube is the small part of an RPG (40mm).

You're all going off on a bit of a tangent now; forgetting the topic at hand.
The thing is, when did you last see a functioning EMP? I'm no expert on the theoretics of the device (I know a bit, just nothing fancy), but wouldn't the requirements for building and running one be a bit beyond a terrorist?

When was the last time you heared political nutcases going on about physics and magnetics? Why the hell do you think they use bombs? If they could build/maintain/use an EMP, chances are, they would have brought something big down with it by now, such as the stock markets. They don't have one. Stop thinking up scenarios for one, because there are only a handful of country's in the world that have em... Unless they detonated a sizable nuke, which defeat the object as there is nothing letf to hit the EMP with.

And another thing, why the hell are you suddenly matching up UK tech versus US weaponry? What, is there some war about to break out between us? Is there something you people aren't telling me? Last I checked, our citizens are getting beheaded and left by the roadside because we jumped into this war with monkey boy and co. (Bush and his administration to the uninformed) So I sure as hell don't see how this is going to escalate into a war. Unless we started being petty and retaliated for all the times the US bombed OUR forces by 'accident'.

So there you go. Terrorists don't have EMP's. UK and US are still buddies. Get over it.

The thing is, when did you last see a functioning EMP? I'm no expert on the theoretics of the device (I know a bit, just nothing fancy), but wouldn't the requirements for building and running one be a bit beyond a terrorist?We're not talking about terrorists.
Unless they detonated a sizable nuke, which defeat the object as there is nothing letf to hit the EMP with.A nuclear weapon detonated high in the atmosphere will knock out electronics significantly farther around than it inflicts damage.
And another thing, why the hell are you suddenly matching up UK tech versus US weaponry?We're not really.

I seriously thought that soccer moms invaded the British military and started their assault on video games.

That's just what I was thinking.

That's just what I was thinking.
Yeah, me too.

Or that this is some bizzare sci-fi. But it looks like it has some merit to it

Nianacio, we're not on the same page, so before I get pissed off, I'm going to leave this thread saying that you don't understand what I'm saying and I guess I don't understand what you're saying either.

Nianacio, we're not on the same page, so before I get pissed off, I'm going to leave this thread saying that you don't understand what I'm saying and I guess I don't understand what you're saying either.It seemed to me that I understood...But bye.

It seemed to me that I understood...But bye.
Nope.

Nope.Maybe I was blissfully ignorant, but I noticed no information loss.

Necro-bump since someone wants to see this and can't find it.

I really dont remember where i got that, and it wasnt the internet. But i guess you could probably check the high-energy and extremely high energy research centers of the USAF. They are usually the ones who waste money like this.

Not that the Russians were innocent of this. They tried to forward both space war and tactical lasers long before they were feasible.

Are you thinking of the jet with (sorry) a frickin laser on it's forehead?

It was able to detonate missiles in mid-flight, but the laser was too big and clumsy to be practical (at this time.)