Comment How armor/ warheads work (Score 2, Informative) 389
There seem to be a few misconceptions about how tanks fare on the battlefield and how HEAT warheads work.
First off, a HEAT round detonates several feet away from the surface of a tank. The detonation shoots a stream of molten metal, which impacts the tank and attempts to cut through. Reactive armor helps to defeat this by disrupting the stream of molten metal so that it more or less splatters harmlessly against the tank. The idea is not to MELT or BURN through armor, but to cut it. The jet is moving at immense speeds (Driven by explosives). The bigger the warhead, ie, a TOW vs a LAW, the longer and more powerful the jet is.
Anyway, reactive armor is mainly designed to defeat smaller arms and missiles. It has no effect against Sabot rounds. I've seen a couple of comments about how one would have to know what kind of weapons the enemy has. This is not true. Basically, reactive armor sits on top of standard armor. It's usually fairly lightweight, though bulky.
Electrical reactive armor has the benefit of being easier to replace and make, as well as being a bit less dangerous for the crews to service. The reactive system will fail after one hit, but only in the location of the hit. Even if the tank were to be hit in the same spot twice, there is still a lot of armor to cut through. Reactive armor is basically a cheap, light layer of extra protection from HEAT-type rounds.
As far as the effectiveness of the tank on the modern battlefield, one has only to point to the Gulf War. Regardless of the "Air hype", tanks were responsible for most of the enemy vehicle kills. Tanks will remain a part of the battlefield for quite some time, although they are working on some tanks with fewer crew and lower profiles which also incorporate some stealth technology. Finally, tanks are much cheaper and easier to maintain than aircraft, as well as packing incredible firepower. In many cases, ballistic weapons are superior to guided missiles, as well as beaing a lot less expensive. Regardless of it's "low-tech" design, a Sabot round is by far the most cost-effective anti-armor firepower in use today.
Certainly tanks alone will be easy prey for aircraft, but most nations have a bewildering array of Surface to Air Missiles, which make aircraft a lot less effective. Tanks might get better, and incorporate new technology, but I doubt you will see the demise of the tank anytime in the near future.
For more info, check out: http://www.tank-net.org/
First off, a HEAT round detonates several feet away from the surface of a tank. The detonation shoots a stream of molten metal, which impacts the tank and attempts to cut through. Reactive armor helps to defeat this by disrupting the stream of molten metal so that it more or less splatters harmlessly against the tank. The idea is not to MELT or BURN through armor, but to cut it. The jet is moving at immense speeds (Driven by explosives). The bigger the warhead, ie, a TOW vs a LAW, the longer and more powerful the jet is.
Anyway, reactive armor is mainly designed to defeat smaller arms and missiles. It has no effect against Sabot rounds. I've seen a couple of comments about how one would have to know what kind of weapons the enemy has. This is not true. Basically, reactive armor sits on top of standard armor. It's usually fairly lightweight, though bulky.
Electrical reactive armor has the benefit of being easier to replace and make, as well as being a bit less dangerous for the crews to service. The reactive system will fail after one hit, but only in the location of the hit. Even if the tank were to be hit in the same spot twice, there is still a lot of armor to cut through. Reactive armor is basically a cheap, light layer of extra protection from HEAT-type rounds.
As far as the effectiveness of the tank on the modern battlefield, one has only to point to the Gulf War. Regardless of the "Air hype", tanks were responsible for most of the enemy vehicle kills. Tanks will remain a part of the battlefield for quite some time, although they are working on some tanks with fewer crew and lower profiles which also incorporate some stealth technology. Finally, tanks are much cheaper and easier to maintain than aircraft, as well as packing incredible firepower. In many cases, ballistic weapons are superior to guided missiles, as well as beaing a lot less expensive. Regardless of it's "low-tech" design, a Sabot round is by far the most cost-effective anti-armor firepower in use today.
Certainly tanks alone will be easy prey for aircraft, but most nations have a bewildering array of Surface to Air Missiles, which make aircraft a lot less effective. Tanks might get better, and incorporate new technology, but I doubt you will see the demise of the tank anytime in the near future.
For more info, check out: http://www.tank-net.org/
