Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
The main RHA types in American use are MIL-A-46100 and MIL-A-12560 - brand new vehicles are still constructed with them. That it's still commonly employed in light vehicles should be sufficient to dispell any suggestions that it somehow restricts movement; at least moreso than most other alternatives. For all sorts of reasons, it usually isn't desirable to put the much more advanced composite armor (although new is a very relative term) into lighter combat vehicles.
There are a few related technology myths to note when it comes to the question of newer vs. older (I'm cribbing shamelessly from another site):
- Newer technologies are always superior to older technologies in every aspect.
- Older technologies are made obsolete by newer technologies, and they eventually become useless.
- No implementation of an older technology, no matter how clever or refined, will ever equal any implementation of a newer technology.
None of these myths are true. In our case, Aluminum armor is newer than RHA, but its drawbacks mean that it's unsuited for more military applications.
|
Interesting. I was, then, under the false impression that RHA was not used nearly as much as it actually is. Though I did not base this on the three myths you brought up, or at least I would hope not as I tend to avoid those ideas... especially since I am in the field of Physics.
I based this on the availability of Composite, and maybe even Chobham, armors, but now that I think about it, the price of their creation as full armor for a vehicle would be restrictive to say the least.