A question about Chobham/Composite Armor

[Grimace]

Don't get too much of a headache thinking about a new rule. The area affected as "compromised" would be substantially smaller than a like area of reactive armor.

So the effect of "compromising" the armor wouldn't be any greater than the compromising nature of a round impacting regular armor. It simply weakens the area. So if you could somehow manage to hit the exact same area with another round.... yes, you could do probably significantly better damage. The chances of doing that, though, are pretty small.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Grimace

It simply weakens the area. So if you could somehow manage to hit the exact same area with another round.... yes, you could do probably significantly better damage. The chances of doing that, though, are pretty small.

You would actually have to hit the same area at a similar angle (when dealing with foot thick armor) so the chances get even smaller.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Grimace

Don't get too much of a headache thinking about a new rule.

No problem -- I took some Vicodin and Skelaxin.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes I would agree that one would have to hit the place where a hit occurred and the practically the same angle to do real additional damage.

Now what one has to remember is that many of the AFVs have been used for repeated target practice over and over again in 1996, 1997 and 1998 with what ever other engagements they had been in since then with additional damage for additional hits.

I am sure as tank go through more and more engagement the odds increase they will have areas of their armor that aren't as strong as it used to be. It is why some units have turned some of their armor into immobile pillboxes with sandbags, building material, and good old mother earth add more protection leaving only the turret expose for the purpose of being able to engage attackers of their defense.

[Legbreaker]

While there was the oportunity, previously struck plates would be swapped out with those from damaged and destroyed vehicles. As the war dragged on, less and less of these replacement parts are likely to be available.

This could be handled by Wear Factor of the vehicle.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

While there was the oportunity, previously struck plates would be swapped out with those from damaged and destroyed vehicles. As the war dragged on, less and less of these replacement parts are likely to be available.

This could be handled by Wear Factor of the vehicle.

At 24th ID when the neighboring armor unit (5/13 Armor IIRC) got their M-1s, there was a policy about the armor. If, for example in a training accident, the armor was gouged to the point that a red layer was showing, the tank was immediately taken 3rd Echelon maintenance, and unit maintenance was not allowed to fix it. That's an example of how classified Chobham was at the beginning.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

This could be handled by Wear Factor of the vehicle.

Made-up-on-spot rule:

Whenever a "1" is rolled to-hit against an armored vehicle using a KE round, there is a chance that the round has hit a spot previously hit by another round, reducing the armor protection. Roll d% against the target vehicle's wear value. If the roll is under the wear value, the armor protects at half value (round up). If the wear value is rolled exactly, the armor provides only 1/10 value (round up).

Not particularly realistic (too likely), but simple to use.

[Legbreaker]

I haven't looked in a while, but I seem to remember V1 allows 10 penetrations before that location is no longer protected.
I could also be just remembering vests and helmets...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

While there was the oportunity, previously struck plates would be swapped out with those from damaged and destroyed vehicles. As the war dragged on, less and less of these replacement parts are likely to be available.

This could be handled by Wear Factor of the vehicle.

As is typical of my group's propensity for making our T2K rules more and more complicated we ended up having multiple wear values on our vehicle sheets. Engine and drive train, optics and electronics, weapon systems, etc. We never did include a separate wear value for armour but having read this thread I'm thinking perhaps we should have.