The Gun Thread

Not that I can think of.

Some really expensive tank and explosive armor does a good job at stopping things but modern tandem warheads go through those

I direct you to the Dorchester armour on the Challenger II. Which has never been knocked out by enemy fire.

Yes but plenty of tank armors haven't been penetrated in combat but I can't think of any that have stopped everything period, lab testing included.

Well, short of having a plating resist everything ever, I can settle for hearing about plating that got close to doing that.

Pretty interesting stuff, that Dorchester armor. Definitely never heard of it before.

I want to say the Abram's frontal glacius, but I'm not sure.

No matter how tough any one piece of armor somewhere out there there is a bit of kit that will defeat it.

What you get is usually ranges and grades of protection.

MBT's have some of the toughest armor out there period. But if sources are accurate RPG-29's and some roadside bombs have taken out or done notable damage to both the C2 and Abrams tanks.

That isn't accounting for future weapons systems with various improvements or new systems.

Personal body armor becomes a mixed bag because there are non-insert body armors and body armors that can insert hard plates. The plates often have a seperate rating from the body armor but often at the cost of weight.

The SAPI system has the ESAPI plates which are rated to stop at least one .30-6 AP round with either a steel or tungsten penetrator.

There are metal armor inserts made out of AR 500 grade steel, problem is even the thinner plates are quite hefty with the exchange being very high level of protection. Interceptor has been shown to be very durable as well taking at least two AP ammo hits in indivdual tests.

It really depends on the armor and what you are beign shot at with.

If they can't penetrate it with one thing, they'll just hit you with something that will.

Even huge immobile bunkers that don't have to worry about moving their "armour" around have to rely on secrecy and/or active countermeasures as their primary defences because there are weapons designed to penetrate them.

Anything more mobile than that has less of a chance of survival against a suitably determined (and well-armed) opponent.

edited 15th Jan '14 6:27:51 PM by Wolf1066

As far the Challenger II and Abrams goes, keep in mind they have never really gone up against an opponent with means of combating armored warfare to begin with. Iraq had a great number of obsolete and ineffective weapon systems. WWIII against the Soviets would likely have been a different monster entirely.

Very true. The US has yet to face the Russian military itself in any conflict much less any seriously modern enemy.

The last time the US fought against equipment that was relatively comparable to it's own tech was Vietnam. The Russians supplied a lot of up to date and not so out of date weapons to the NVA. The enemy AA nets and SA missiles for example.

Never mind the vast numbers of assorted fire arms they supplied both the NVA and VC.

There was a lot of Russian equipment in Vietnam at the time.

Anyone know of any big lists of Firearms for the NVA and VC?

And Battleships. And Dreadnoughts. And Super Dreadnoughts. And naval armament treaties.

But yeah, this brings up another point, of armor being effective against things it is likely to encounter. Modern body armor doesn't even stop all of the types of ammo used by ground forces back before kevlar existed, but most of the heavier rounds were and are far less commonly encountered on the battlefield (exceptional stories like a Quad-Fifty Anti-Air mount being used as a Counter Sniper weapon are exceptional because such matchups were so rare). I'd be curious to see if an Abrams or a Challenger II could shrug off a solid hit from a 5" naval gun. I sincerely believe that one would not survive a solid hit or a near miss from a Harpoon or Tomahawk.

There's always a bigger gun, but overkill is usually discouraged when there are more appropriate targets available for said weapon (during major naval battles, battleships probably did not spend much of their time trying to doomhammer hapless cruisers and frigates if enemy battleships were within range). Plus, the bigger bangs are usually more expensive and harder to deploy (I bet it's hard to fit a Harpoon launcher on top of an Abrams' chassis)

Then again, sometimes you're flying circles in the air carrying a Hellfire or a 105mm, and the only target within range is one guy who's just really asking for it.

edited 15th Jan '14 8:06:30 PM by AFP

All that said, the battleship USS Nevada did famously shrug off two nuclear bomb blasts after WWII.

Doomhammer is my new favorite verb

I was trying to find a word that succinctly expressed such a matchup, and I think Curbstomp is overused.

While it did survive the second test it did not evade damage. It was horribly irridiated in the process.

The Super Dreadnought survived being gunnery practice for some BB's they had to use a aerial torpedo to the stern to sink it.

Tough bastard.

Speaking of excessive fire power. I point you to a big gun. Atomic Annie.

MBT's have some of the toughest armor out there period. But if sources are accurate RPG-29's and some roadside bombs have taken out or done notable damage to both the C2 and Abrams tanks.

Roadside bombs don't actually need to be super-powerful to harm even modern MBTs, really. The whole "roadside" thing means they'll be down low when they detonate, or even underneath the tank if employed as an improvised AT mine, where the armor is much thinner.

But getting back to the question that kicked off this subthread, there's no such thing as totally impenetrable armor, just stuff you might not be able to punch through at any given time if you don't have sufficient resources readily available ("available" at the tactical level, as in not having it immediately on hand, or the strategic one, as in not yet having developed something that could penetrate the armor in question).

You armour-up to suit the most likely threat. If you're concerned about some random punk with a handgun, Level III body armour should see you right most the time - but you're going to be fucked if you encounter someone with a decent rifle.

The back and forth of armor vs weapons is likely as old as warfare itself. It is likely to continue for as long as their is conflict and past that.

I am curious when the next gen of body armors is going to show up and what the fire arms reply to it will be.

Wasn't it the North Hollywood Shootout where the two guys had body armor on, which proved impervious to bullets... until the cops brought out some rifles?

Fun fact, soft armor provides slightly better than no protection against rifle rounds. Much too fast, with a very narrow cross section. Pistol slugs might be heavier, but move at a much lower velocity and thus don't hit nearly as hard. All this is why modern body armor includes pockets for armor plate inserts of various materials.

Amusingly enough, I understand many armor vehicles do the opposite, having armor plating on the outside and a soft armor lining inside to prevent spalling due to the force of impact (fast moving object strikes tank, impact force causes bits and pieces of interior to break up and fly around, much to the distress of the soft squishy people inside).

Are the plates on body armour under the softer armour?

The North Hollywood guys were not shot by rifles, as I recall. Or rather one was shot in the foot with rifles but that doesn't relate to armor. One was shot, but by pistol rounds. The fatal shot was self-inflicted.

Outside of blue-on-blue. One Challenger blew the turret off another and there's a couple of cases of A-10s strafing friendly armour.

Don't know if the Challenger on Challenger incident really counts because the round hit an open hatch and ignited ammo inside the turret. Not exactly your classic round vs armor

The two hollywood shooters had adhoc non-conventional modified body armor as well as regular body armor. They were not truly completely covered but had some pretty good coverage.

He took multiple gun shot injuries but the fatal ones were to his legs. He bled out because they heavily shredded his legs with fire from those rifles.

I saw something that apparently matched up with an account from a LA SWAT officer who said he tagged him in the chest with a double tap but it didn't go through. The vest has damage in the right spot and if he had a insert it likely saved his ass. The SWAT guys were likely using soft nosed or hollow point rounds.

You'd think if they got the call about armoured suspects they'd have loaded up with FMJs or something else with a chance of going through.

All they may have heard was get your butts out there most ricky tick.