Slashdot Mirror
Electric Armor Tested For Light Armored Vehicles
joncrie writes "The Telegraph is reporting that British MoD scientists are now testing a new electric armor to protect light armored vehicles against RPGs.
The new electric armour is made up of a highly-charged capacitor that is connected to two separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. When an RPG warhead fires its jet of molten copper, it penetrates both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection and thousands of amps of electricity vaporises most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull. The initial development was mentioned previously."
The heavily armoured divisions of the US and British armies had little to fear of the iraqi armed forces RPGs, the most "devastating" weapon in their limited arsenal.
However once the initial resistance was swiftly dealt with, the all new threat came from roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and mines. This will make some difference, but most terrorists will strike at the troops outside of their vehicles anyway.
"Alternatively, what if 2-3 shots are fired simultaneously at different locations in an attempt to overload the electrical system?"
Then it takes 9 shots to take out 3 tanks, instead of one per tank. Meanwhile, the tesla-tank can return fire.
Don'tcha think you're trying a bit hard to find the gotcha in it?
"Derp de derp."
Anyway, nobody ever promised this would make tanks absolutely invulnerable to RPGs. If it significantly reduces damage (and casualties) and gives the tank a better chance to return fire, it's a success.
If they make the outer armour thick enough to stop small arms fire, then they're adding significant weight to the vehicle. Particularly the HMMWVs and such. If you add 2,000lbs of armour, you're facing other, structural, problems with the vehicles.
:(
If you use 1/4 of your carrying capacity for armour, then that means that your convoys are going need 25% more vehicles.
Which means 25% more targets and (at least) 25% more breakdowns.
Which is exactly what you do not want in the "long-lasting, low-grade, hostile civilian population," scenario you mentioned.
The big problem with that idea is threefold. First, when the breach occurs it's going to require a non-trivial amount of time for the system to begin applying current, heating the pellets, and congealing together.
This leads to our second problem: a frigging bomb just went off next to (or within) the plating. The hull, and pellets contained therein, are no longer on their original plane. The pellets that were in the positions now left empty (the hole), are going to be either vaporized or massively displaced. More specifically, many weapons detonate after penetration. The result being an outward blast that creates a bulge in the hull, and distorts the original shape of the hull into a roughly conical form.
Which leads to the third problem: the metal will need to be in place before it cools and solidifies. In our hypothetical scenario, we have a large gap in the hull, a temporarily displaced sea, and ragged edges of now-melting liquid metal. If the pellets could move into place, melt together, then solidify within a tenth of a second or less, the idea might work. And longer than that, and water pressure will act like a machine gun and a grindstone at the same time, moving with enough force to rip away anything that isn't extremely solid and secure.
Ultimately, while an interesting idea it just won't work. If anything it might well weaken the ship, both on the long term and in case of attack. Sorry.