Talk:Slat armor

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Comments[edit]

From the Shaped_charge article: "The use of skirts today may increase the penetration of some warheads. Due to constraints in the length of the projectile/missile, the built in stand-off on many warheads is not the optimum distance. The skirting effectively increases the distance between the armour and the target, providing the warhead with a more optimum standoff and greater penetration if the optimum stand-off is not drastically exceeded. Skirting should not be confused with bar/slat/chain armour which is used to damage the fuzing system of RPG-7 projectiles. The armour works by deforming the inner and outer ogives and shorting the firing circuit between the rocket's piezoelectric nose probe and rear fuze assembly. If the nose probe strikes the armour, the warhead will function as normal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.176.139 (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cope cages"[edit]

Restructured the part to make it clear it at this point is pure speculation what the cages are intended to do, and that there are least two main interpretations with no information available from Russian sources. BP OMowe (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overciting[edit]

There is almost certainly no need to WP:OVERCITE in the cope cages section. One good RS is enough per fact, the rest are just pointless. I suggest removing additional citations where they are supporting the same information, and/or WP:CITEBUNDLE the rest. (Hohum ^@) 16:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've formatted the citations into WP:CITEBUNDLE groups as an acceptable compromise. I'd disagree with the notion that each statement only requires one RS, because there will always be at least one person who will raise concerns and insist that additional scrutiny and verifiability is needed when covering neologisms, particularly pejorative ones. The inclusion of multiple citations from multiple different well-established publications appear to be the only way to quell these concerns and prevent needless edit-warring. The current situation we have is the outcome of the consensus from a multiple week-long discussion over at Talk:T-90#Cope Cage style steel add on cage armour, for context. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source for more cope cages[edit]

Merkava tanks this time:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/16/israel-tanks-installed-cope-cages-drone-bomb-defence/

©Geni (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]