Editing Talk:Tactical/CHOBHAM

Am I the only one who who thinks Chobham armor is to small to fit in a simple pouch/pad? If I recall, Chobham is basically thick armor filled with ultra-hard ceramic plates that shatter, absorb kinetic energy (even from tank sized APFSDS), and make te trajectory of rounds ragged, as opposed to how they would be smooth when penetrating metal. It basically makes any projectile that penetrates become harmlessly embedded in the armor, but unless we are talking about Mass Effect type weapons firing bullets the size of a grain of sand, the armor would be useless. If Bungie meant depleted uranium, as used in the updated versions of the first Chobham tank, the M1 Abrams, then the depleted uranium mesh would be an effective barrier. The Abrams' DU mesh was added more recently to supplement the Chobham armor already used, but is only on the front because DU is 1.7 times heavier than lead. DU mesh is the only logical conclusion of what this armor really is. TJbrena 12:54, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Am I the only one who who thinks Chobham armor is to small to fit in a simple pouch/pad? If I recall, Chobham is basically thick armor filled with ultra-hard ceramic plates that shatter, absorb kinetic energy (even from tank sized APFSDS), and make te trajectory of rounds ragged, as opposed to how they would be smooth when penetrating metal. It basically makes any projectile that penetrates become harmlessly embedded in the armor, but unless we are talking about Mass Effect type weapons firing bullets the size of a grain of sand, the armor would be useless. If Bungie meant depleted uranium, as used in the updated versions of the first Chobham tank, the M1 Abrams, then the depleted uranium mesh would be an effective barrier. The Abrams' DU mesh was added more recently to supplement the Chobham armor already used, but is only on the front because DU is 1.7 times heavier than lead. DU mesh is the only logical conclusion of what this armor really is. TJbrena 12:54, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
-:I'm not sure what you mean: If the tiles are too small, then just add a few more. The name might just be a reference to [[wikipedia:Chobham Common|where Chobham armour is made]].--[[User talk:The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari|The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari]] 14:26, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
-No, Chobham would refer to the armor, not the place. It is armor, but are we to believe that armor has been made there for upwards of five centuries? If it were referring to the place, then why not call CQB the Essen helmet? Bungie uses terminology based on the object, not place of manufacture. Chobham armor is also used in the USA and at least a few Abrams have used American Chobham armor. The name is derived from where the armor was first created, not where it is made. I concede that the name refers to Chobham Common, where the armor was conceived, but that is now the name of the armor itself. Dragonskin armor is like a cruder version of Chobham designed to be used by infantry (but was never adopted by the US military because it's component pieces didn't hold together well enough under stress), but this piece lacks the necessary size to make the Chobham hold to it's proper arangement. The only thing that would fit in a flat pouch and significantly improve the protective qualities of MJOLNIR armor would be depleted uranium. It would be able to reduce the kinetic energy imparted by bullets and stop pistol rounds whilst also weakening anything up to say, a Battle Rifle burst. Anything else and it would be useless becuase of it's size. TJbrena 12:27, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
-:It's 500 years from today so while the name is the same there have probably been a few improvements made over the years. That being said, I do agree with you, its one of a few things in the Halo cannon that seem a bit out of place for the time. [[User talk:Kaphraxus|Kaphraxus]] 11:53, January 5, 2011 (EST)
-::I agree, though we have seen before that Bungie likes to make mention of already-existing technology. Designing an armour that simply looks like Chobham would still raise questions, so I'll say this: Perhaps the design was deemed good enough to be kept in production for centuries. The crossbow is still being manufactured after over 500 years with little change.-- [[User talk:Forerunner|Forerunner]] 12:09, 5 January 2011 (EST)