Challenger 2 reactive armor?

This is from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/c/co/composite_armour.htm

Chobham's precise mechanism for defeating HEAT was something of a mystery until the 1980s. High speed photography showed that the ceramic material shatters as the HEAT round penetrates, blowing up to a huge volume which then expands back out the hole and pushes the metal jet of the HEAT with it.

So I guess there is no explosive which as I suspected. There is just not the space for such a defence

FNG[/url]

 

Well, i'm telling you all that this was told by an army guy (don't know what rank) I don't have any readable source about it. And they don't actually say the ERA has to be in a birck-like form or tiles.

About the car FNG:

''ERA tiles are used as add-on armour to the most vulnerable portions of an armoured vehicle or tank, typically the front of the hull and the front and sides of the turret. They require fairly heavy armour on the vehicle itself, since the exploding ERA would otherwise damage the vehicle and injure or kill the personnel inside. Usually, ERA is not mounted on the sides or rear of a vehicle, since the underlying armour is not as heavy on those parts.''

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encycl ... armour.htm

So imaging what happens to a car of it is hit by something and the ERA goes off

 

Yeah, but that does not say that it is due to the actual blast of the explosion (which seems to be all directed outwards), so FNG's theory that it is due to the high forces involved seems pretty valid to me.

 

The blast generates high forces, so ofcourse its due to high forces CAUSED by the explosion.

 

They can strap reactive armour to the sides of bradleys. How thin is that armour?

 

It is pretty well armored, the ERA is placed on a thick steel plate of armor, a car that can withstand the blast is a joke :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/armor ... ndex_7.htm

Although a Chally 1. Also not between but extra on top.

 

Is 'passive armour' what we used to call 'armour plate' in the good old days?

 

No it is armour that doesn't want to fight.

Seriously I believe any armour which has no explosive compnent is passive, this includes compsites with no explosives inside.

 

just a quick thought, it maybe that after Challenger 1 where the Brits used bolt on reactive armour, they decided to incorporate it in the newer 2nd generation.

 

I think thats the case GP, the CHallenger 2 turret is a whole new design.