Shock

Yeah... Maybe because it sometimes is easier to replace a trooper than to change the design of an entire armoured car fleet? Well, I've been in the army. This is a sensible subject to discuss... it all depends on the time it was conceived, the expected mission profile, the guns the armoured car expects to face...

After all, in these days, the only really effective shield/protection, is not being detected by anyone.

I remember that I received an email some months ago, that was supposely a true story about a letter two cops received from the US Air Force. The letter was a good humoured one talking about the cops identifications, names, clothes details, and even teeth defects. It was possible because the cops were parked next to the Air Force base where some F-16 (I guess) were carrying exercises. Because the weapons system of the fighter detected a radar signal, the guns armed automatically, the recognition system was activated and a high resolution photo was taken, before the pilot was able to override the weapons system that was about to fire a missile in the car.

I really don't think any armoured wall in a transport would protect troopers inside against a sidewinder or so...

Hi ronseto,

Interesting question this.

I know there is a whole lot of difference between the weight of a 'Troop Carrier' and a 'Battle Tank', and from memory it does seem that troop carriers are more likely to be damaged by a nearby explosion, as apposed to a anti-tank bomb which hits it directly?

By 'Troop Carrier' I do not mean 'Hummers', or Jeep.

Seen in slow-mo, what feels and looks like it is very solid, can look little better the Jello?

Take care

Shock, Hell in ship building after a sideways launch its costumary to put a ship into drydock to access the damage.

For example, a 5# item may need a foundation that weighs 15# to retain it from the effects of shock.

and

I would have thought that shock would have been a basic criteria all along.

No functionality is. if you design around shock, you performance level would drop.

As far as designed around shock, reactive armour is one, or they redesigned and refitted alot of humvees and trucks to better withstand shock through IED's.

Each conflict is different, since the IED's were prevelent, they retooled to protect.

But the equipment still have to be mobile and perform.

But the equipment still have to be mobile and perform.

One good example is the armor plating on a battleship. shock was probably the last thing on the designers mind. He was probably more concerned with the weight (sinking the ship) and effect on speed.

In most cases I would think the concern would be generated by empirical knowledge. unless of course the problem was sticking out like a sore thumb.

There are trade offs with everything.......remember HMS Sheffield)

It was made out of aluminium...why?.... for speed.

Because of the aluminium construction, one exocet missile took it out. If that was a IOWA class battleship, that never would have happened. But the rest of the group did its job.

If you build everything to be shock resistances what you would have is the Maginot Line .

And we all now, how successful that was.

And for every defense, they come up with a way to penetrate it.

Its unfortunate, but in war there are going to be losses. One would be a fool not to realize that.

p911

Submarines were primary on my mind and underwater explosions in particular due to the incompressibility of water. I realize an explosion in air isn't the same as one under water and should be easier to defend against.

Interesting, I thought that submarines were manly distroyed from the displacement of water (From a depth charge) from beneath them from an explosion that basicly breaks thier keel.

Depending upon the type of torpedo, either a direct contact warhead or proximity (rapid displacement of water) will severely / sink any ship. US Mk 48 ADCAPs work on a principle of proximity detonation. Torpedo explodes under a ship/sub and the rapid acceleration upward will break the back of the ship. The torpedoes dropped by helos / planes are usually contact type. Either can be programmed to explode on contact / proximity.

Shock resistance is certainly taken into account on tanks and warships. I worked for a short time on power supply systems used on Royal Navy warships and submarines. All were designed to be fitted on shock mounts. All had dual independent ac supplies.

The most notable feature was the complete absence of circuit breakers. Circuit breakers may trip under high shock loads and vibration. They only used fuses and all fuse holders used locking screws to hold them in under high Gs. All equipment was type tested on a vibration rig.

Similar care is taken in tanks. It is well known that HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) rounds do not need to penetrate conventional amour to be lethal to the crew. They are designed to break off layers of amour inside or break loose equipment that will then ricochet around the interior killing the crew. A turret or hull mounted radio that breaks loose under fire will become a lethal projectile. The military are well aware of these considerations. It is possible that lessons have been forgotten as "value engineering" has been brought into military hardware as it is increasingly commercialised.

Your comments brought back some memories, when I was working on the American subs, we used the term "sound isolation damper" and "shock mount" interchangeably. I don't know if I picked that up off of a drawing or it was a general mistake.

The most vivid memory it brought back was in the mid fifties when I was a young "Tin can sailor" We were advised that we were going to do a "Structural integrity test" prior to entering the shipyard. Not a lot of people got to experience this particular test because of what we sailors considered obvious.

World war 2 destroyers had about 1/2" hull plating, the one that I was on was one of the earlier ones a "2100" (2100 tons), Fletcher class for you old salts, that class was getting up in age and some of the ships were springing leaks. NDE wasn't much in those days so someone decided that we would go through this structural test.

As an aside Destroyers had four boilers you could get 28 knots with two boilers, in order to get the remaining 7 or 8 knots you needed all four boilers, I guess that speaks to propeller design. At any rate we were in company with a couple of Destroyers at some point all of the Destroyers got up to full speed on two boilers. Two of the Destroyers were running opposite to each other (east to west, west to east) the subject of the test, us, we were running north to south full bore. The two destroyers were dropping depth charges for us to run over. We heard that the charges were set at 30 to 50 feet. Not damn well deep enough what ever they were set to. We made full use of all the damage control parties.

Hi otha,

Just to say you write an interesting post! Well written.

Take care.

It is designed into vehicles. What the designer looks at the is maximum blast overpressure wave hitting the vehicle from an explosion. The weld criteria for armour plating, optical system, equipment mounts and personnel area are all designed to withstand a certain blast overpressure.

The design criteria can be overwhelmed by a determined enemy, causing extraordinary damage to the vehicle or concussive effects to the occupants.

While most anti-armour weapons are designed to penetrate the armour; there are weapons that simply use blast effect. IED's are the latest example. The U.S. and Isreali Army have certain high explosive shells for self-propelled artillery that are specifically designed to provide a highly concentrated directional blast specifically to be used as a defensive measure against enemy armoured incursions. When called upon, artillery not normally used in an anti-tank role can over-pressurize the optical system of enemy tanks. This shatters their optical an infrared sights, rendering the tank unusable.

The Military and their Industrial Complex watched as Israel dealt with fighting in neighorhoods and the vechiles they used. But sent men off without even armour on Hummers or even body armour. They do not make and money unless the Military orders it so they do not design it till them.

We can only be angery at the incompetetence.

They do not make and money unless the Military orders it so they do not design it till them.

Crying out loud its not up to the designers. The designers design around military specifications.

The military can not determine how each war will be fought.

Wars are not sold off the shelf where you can pick out the types of battles....I would like this war to consist mainly of air battles....or I like this war to consist of a combination of ground troops and ICBM's... because thats what we've built our defence around.

look at post #5

Whatever your defense is, these insurgences are going to attack your weakness. Its the ability to recognize your weakness and compensate is the strength.

And not bankrupt a country to try to anticipate how it is going to be fought.

But the show of incompetence is, if not reacted quickly enough or poor and incompetent planning.

p911