text:
Belur Math

Belur Math is the headquarters of the Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission, founded by Swami Vivekananda, the chief disciple of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. It is located in Belur, West Bengal, India on the west bank of Hooghly River. Belur Math was established in January 1897, by Swami Vivekananda who was the disciple of Sri Ramakrishna. Swami Vivekananda returned back to India from Colombo with a small group of disciples and started work on the two one at Belur, and the others at Mayavati, Almora, Himalayas called the Advaita Ashrama. The temple is the heart of the Ramakrishna movement. It is notable for its architecture that fuses Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, and Christian art and motifs as a symbol of unity of all religions. In 2003, Belur Math railway station was also inaugurated which is dedicated to Belur Math Temple.

History
In the beginning of 1897, Swami Vivekananda arrived at Baranagar, Calcutta with his small group of Western disciples. Two monasteries were founded by him, one at Belur, which became the headquarters of Ramakrishna Mission and the other at Mayavati on the Himalayas, in Champawat District, Uttrakhand, called the Advaita Ashrama. These monasteries were meant to receive and train young men who would eventually become sannyasis (religious ascetic) of the Ramakrishna Mission, and to give them a training for their work. The same year the philanthropic activity was started and relief of the famine was carried out.

Swami Vivekananda's days as a parivrajaka (wandering monk) before his visit to Parliament of Religions, took him through many parts of India, and he visited several architectural monuments like the Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri palaces, Diwan–I–Khas, palaces of Rajasthan, ancient temples of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and other places. During his tour in America and Europe, he came across buildings of architectural importance of Modern, Medieval, Gothic and Renaissance styles. It is reported that Vivekananda incorporated these ideas in the design of the Belur Math temple.

Swami Vijnanananda, a brother-monk of Swami Vivekananda and one of the monastic disciples of Ramakrishna, who was, in his pre-monastic life, a civil engineer, designed the temple according to the ideas of Vivekananda and Swami Shivananda, the then President of Belur Math laid the foundation stone on 13 March 1929. The massive construction was handled by Martin Burn & Co. The mission proclaims the Belur Math as, "A Symphony in Architecture". The Math can be reached by direct EMU train services from Howrah, ferry and by road.

Campus

The 40 acre campus of the Belur Math on the banks of the Hooghly includes temples dedicated to Ramakrishna, Sarada Devi and Swami Vivekananda, in which their relics are enshrined, and the main monastery of the Ramakrishna Order. The campus also houses a Museum containing articles connected with the history of Ramakrishna Math and Mission. Several educational institutions affiliated with the Ramakrishna Mission are situated in the vast campus adjacent to Belur Math, including Ramakrishna Mission Shilpamandira. The Belur Math is considered one of the prime tourist spots near Kolkata and place of pilgrimage by devotees. The ex-president APJ Abdul Kalam regarded Belur Math as a "place of heritage and national importance."

Sri Ramakrishna Temple

The design of the temple was envisioned by Swami Vivekananda and the architect was Swami Vijnanananda, a direct monastic disciple of Ramakrishna. Sri Ramakrishna Temple was consecrated on 14 January, the Makar Sankranti Day in 1938.

The Ramakrishna temple at the Belur Math is designed to "celebrate the diversity of Indian Religions" and resembles a temple, a mosque, a church if seen from different positions. The architectural style and symbolism from a number of religions have been incorporated into the design of the temple at Belur Math, to convey the "universal faith" in which the movement believes. The temple is considered a prime example of the importance of "material dimension" of religion.

The main entrance of the temple, has a facade influenced by Buddhist styles in the Buddhist stupa at Sanchi & the main entrance of the Ajanta Caves. The structure which rises over the entrance is modelled on the Hindu temples of South India with their lofty towers. The windows and balconies inside the temple draw upon the Rajput (Hindu) and Mughal (Islamic) style of north India. The central dome is derived from the Renaissance architecture of the Duomo of the Florence Cathedral. The ground plan is in the shape of Christian cross.

The height of the temple is 112.5 ft and covers a total area of 32900 sqft. The temple mainly is built of chunar stone and some portion in the front is of cement. The high entrance of the temple is like a South Indian Gopuram and the pillars on both sides represent Buddhistic architectural style. The three umbrella-like domes on the top built in Rajput-Moghul styles give an idea of thatched roofs of the village Kamarpukur.

The circular portion of the entrance is an intermingling of Ajanta style with Hindu architecture and within it, placing the emblem of the Order, is a representation of beauty and solemnity. Just above seen is a replica of a Shiva lingam. The natmandira, the spacious congregational hall attached to the sanctum, resembles a church, especially of St Peter's Church in Rome. The pillars in a line on its both sides are according to Doric or Greek style. The beam above is held by decorative brackets similar to the Meenakshi Temple at Madurai in Tamil Nadu. The elaborate designs on the pillars resemble the Orissa style.

The hanging balconies above the natmandir and the windows show the effect of Moghul architecture used in the Fatehpur Sikri. The broad parikrama path for doing circumambulatory rounds on all sides of the garbhamandira (sanctum sanctorum) are built like Buddhist chaityas and Christian Churches. The lattice work statues of Navagraha figures are etched on semi-circular top of outside the temple. The golden kalasha is placed on the top of the temple and has a full-bloomed lotus below. The architecture of the big dome and of the other domes show a shade of Islamic, Rajput, Bengal terracotta and Lingaraja Temple styles. The entrance doors on both east and west of the temple having pillars on both sides are like the elegant gateways of the Manmandir in Gwalior Fort. Ganesha and Hanuman images, representing success and power, are carved above them.

The statue
A full size statue of Sri Ramakrishna is seated on a hundred petalled lotus over a damaru shaped marble pedestal wherein the Sacred relics of Sri Ramakrishna are preserved. The swans on the front represents Paramatman. The statue of Sri Ramakrishna was made by the famous sculptor late Gopeswar Pal of Kolkata and the decorations of the temple were conceived by artist late Sri Nandalal Bose. The canopy above the deity and all the doors and windows are made of selected teakwood imported from Myanmar.

Swami Vivekananda Temple
The Swami Vivekananda Temple stands on the spot where Swami Vivekananda's mortal remains were cremated in 1902. Consecrated on 28 January 1924, the temple has in its upper storey an alabaster OM (in Bengali characters). Beside the temple stands a bel (bilva) tree in the place of the original bel tree under which Swami Vivekananda used to sit and near which, according to his wish, his body was cremated. On 4 July 1902 at Belur Math, he taught Vedanta philosophy to some pupils in the morning. He had a walk with Swami Premananda, a brother-disciple, and gave him instructions concerning the future of the Ramakrishna Math. He left his body (died) in the evening after a session of prayer at Belur Math. He was 39. Vivekananda had fulfilled his own prophecy of not living to be forty-years old.

Holy Mother's temple
The Holy Mother's temple is dedicated to Sarada Devi, the spiritual consort of Ramakrishna. The holy mother's temple is right at the entrance of Belur Math. The temple is over the area where her mortal remains were consigned to flames. The temple of the Holy Mother was consecrated on 21st July 1920.

Swami Brahmananda's temple
Another temple dedicated to Swami Brahmananda—a direct disciple of Ramakrishna and the first president of the Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission—is situated near Holy Mother's temple. The temple was built on the place where Swami Brahmananda was cremated. Swami Shivananda dedicated this temple on 7 February 1924.

Ramakrishna Museum
The famed, two-storey Ramakrishna Museum hosts artifacts used by Ramakrishna, Sarada Devi, Swami Vivekananda, and some of his disciples. These include the long coat worn by Vivekananda in the West, Sister Nivedita's table, and an organ of Mrs Sevier's. The museum chronicles the contemporary growth of the movement, and the Bengalese.

The museum has a realistic recreation of the Panchavati – the clutch of five sacred trees of the Dakshineswar Kali Temple where Ramakrishna practised sadhana (spiritual disciplines). The black stone bowl from which Ramakrishna took payasam (a sweet Indian dish) during his final days, while suffering from throat cancer, and the pillow he had used, in the house in Calcutta where he spent his last few months, are on display. Ramakrishna's room in the house, where he distributed ochre clothes to 12 disciples anointing Vivekananda (then Narendranath) as their leader, has also been shown with a model of Ramakrishna bestowing grace on his disciples, and the footwear used by Ramakrishna has been put on the model. The room at Dakshineswar where Ramakrishna lived has been recreated with display of clothes and other objects used by him, the tanpura used by Vivekananda to sing to his master, and the copies of two charcoal drawings sketched by Ramakrishna are on display.

Sarada Devi's pilgrimage to Chennai, Madurai and Bangalore has also been exhibited, along with items used by her then, in 1911. The museum showcases a huge replica of Swami Vivekananda in the front of the Chicago Art Institute, where the famous Parliament of the World's Religions was held in September 1893. Alongside the same display, is a letter by Jamsetji Tata, Swami Vivekananda's co-passenger on the trip, that reveals an important and well-known work of Tata's, which was inspired by Swamiji: the founding of the Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore.

The wooden staircase and the lotus woodwork of Victoria Public Hall in Chennai, where Vivekananda gave inspiring speeches to a large congregation, have been brought over. A few displays away from this is a show on Miss Josephine MacLeod, who met Swamji in the U.S. in 1895 and served India for 40 years thereafter. She played an important role in the Ramakrishna movement. At this enclosure is a crystal image of Swamiji that was done by Paris jeweler René Lalique.

Activities
The Belur Math conducts medical service, education, work for women, rural uplift and work among the labouring and backward classes, relief, spiritual and cultural activities. The center also celebrates annual birthdays of Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Sarada Devi and other monastic disciples of Ramakrishna. The annual celebrations of Kumari Puja and Durga Puja are one of the main attractions. The tradition of Kumari puja was started by Vivekananda in 1901.

Visiting
Belur Math has been re-opened for visitors and devotees from 18 August 2021.

Timings : Morning: 6.30 to 11.30 am | Afternoon: 3.30 to 5.45 pm(October to March) 4:00 to 6:00 pm(April to September)

It was temporarily closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, from 22 April to 17 August 2021, and earlier from 24 March 2020 to 9 February 2021, with a brief opening during the phased unlock process from 15 June to 2 August 2020, and from 10 February to 21 April 2021.

Presidents

 * Swami Brahmananda 1897–1922
 * Swami Shivananda 1922–1934
 * Swami Akhandananda 1934–1937
 * Swami Vijnanananda 1937–1938
 * Swami Shuddhananda 1938–1938
 * Swami Virajananda 1938–1950
 * Swami Shankarananda 1951–1962
 * Swami Vishuddhananda 1962–1962
 * Swami Madhavananda 1962–1965
 * Swami Vireshwarananda 1965–1985
 * Swami Gambhirananda 1985–1988
 * Swami Bhuteshananda 1988–1998
 * Swami Ranganathananda 1998–2005
 * Swami Gahanananda 2005–2007
 * Swami Atmasthananda 2007–2017
 * Swami Smaranananda 2017–2024
 * Swami Gautamananda 2024-

title: Belur Math


text:
Indemnity and Oblivion Act

The Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660 was an Act of the Parliament of England (12 Cha. 2. c. 11), the long title of which is "An Act of Free and Generall Pardon, Indempnity, and Oblivion". This act was a general pardon for everyone who had committed crimes during the English Civil War and subsequent Commonwealth period, with the exception of certain crimes such as murder (without a licence granted by King or Parliament), piracy, buggery, rape and witchcraft, and people named in the act such as those involved in the regicide of Charles I. It also said that no action was to be taken against those involved at any later time, and that the Interregnum was to be legally forgotten.

History
The Indemnity and Oblivion Act fulfilled the suggestion given in the Declaration of Breda that reprisals against the establishment which had developed during the English Interregnum would be restricted to those who had officiated in the regicide of King Charles I.

The passage of the Indemnity and Oblivion Act through the Convention Parliament was secured by Lord Clarendon, the first minister of King Charles II, and it became law on 29 August 1660 during the first year of the English Restoration.

The lands of the Crown and the established Church were automatically restored, but lands of Royalists and other dissenters confiscated and sold during the Civil War and interregnum were left for private negotiation or litigation, meaning that the government would not help the Loyalists in regaining their property. Disappointed Royalists commented that the Act meant "indemnity for [Charles'] enemies and oblivion for his friends". Historians, on the other hand, have generally praised the King and Clarendon for the generosity and clemency of the Act, in an age not normally noted for mercy. Twenty years later, during the Popish Plot, Charles tried unsuccessfully to stand against the relentless demand for the execution of Catholic priests, and reminded the public sharply of how many of them had previously benefited from his reluctance to shed blood.

The act is often viewed from the perspective of those who were not pardoned and thus condemned to death. However, the debate in Parliament continued almost every day for over two months and names were added and taken off the list of those who were not to be pardoned. Initially, there were only seven on the list:  Thomas Harrison, William Say, John Jones Maesygarnedd, Thomas Scot, John Lisle, Cornelius Holland, and John Barkstead. On 7 June, the Commons, mindful of the Declaration of Breda, stated they as the Commons could add to the list others who would not be covered by the general pardon. They immediately added John Cooke, Andrew Broughton, Edward Dendy, and the "Two Persons who were upon the Scaffold in a Disguise" (i.e. the executioners). On 8 June, the Commons voted "That the Number of Twenty, and no more, (other than those that are already excepted, or sat as Judges upon the late King's Majesty) shall be excepted out of the Act of general Pardon and Oblivion, for and in respect only of such Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, (not extending to Life) as shall be thought fit to be inflicted on them by another Act, intended to be hereafter passed for that purpose".

One of the people to benefit directly from the Act was John Milton, who was released from prison.

Overview of sections
Sections: • Preamble: The causes and ends of this pardon and indemnity.

• Preamble: The general pardon.

• II. Abettors of such Treasons and other Crimes pardoned,

• III. All Appeals, Personal Actions, and Suits, &c. by reason of any Trespass, &c. pardoned.

• VI. The like by reason of any Commission by the late or present King, or by Colour of any Ordinance of one or both Houses of Parliament, or the late Protector, &c.

• V. All appeals, personal actions and suits, pardoned.

• VI. Wardships and mean profits unreceived.

• VII. All things not excepted shall be pardoned by the general words of this act, as well as if particularly named.

• VIII. This pardon &c. to be expounded in all courts most beneficial for the subject.

• IX. The penalty of any officer, &c. that shall go about to disquiet or trouble any person pardoned by this act.

• X. Exceptions out of this pardon. All murders not comprised in the first clause of this pardon excepted. Piracy excepted. Buggery. Rape and the wilful taking away any maid excepted. Double marriages excepted Witchcraft excepted 1 Jas. 1. c. 2. Accounts of certain treasures and receivers. 13 Cha. 2. St. 1. c. 3.

• XI. Proviso for the heirs, &c. of lands of accountants excepted.

• XII. Fees and salaries, &c. not to be accounted for.

• XIII. Military payments not to be accounted for.

• XIV. No person to be called to an account after 14 June 1662.

• XV. Discharges and quietus est given in the exchequer. Accounts of the revenues of churches in Wales. Bribery, subornation, forging, debentures, &c. witnesses.

• XVI. Imbezilling and purloining the King's goods.

• XVII. Issues, fines, amerciaments received by sheriffs

• XVIII. Jesuits, seminaries and Romish priests excepted. 27 Eliz. 1. c. 2.

• XIX. Writs of capias utiagatum may be directed against any person. The party outlawed may sue out a scire facias against the plaintiff.

• XX. Persons outlawed upon capias ad satisfaciendum, &c.

• XXI. Information and proceedings concerning highways &c. excepted. 25 Cha. 2. c. 5. s. 19.

• XXII. Obligation and recognizance not forfeited.

• XXIII. All acts of hostility, injuries &c. between the King and his parliament to be put in perpetual oblivion.

• XXIV. The penalty upon any person that shall within three years use any words of reproach or disgrace, tending to revive the memory of the late differences.

• XXV. Persons plotting or designing the Irish rebellion excepted. 16 Cha. 1. c. 33.

• XXVI. Every person pardoned may plead the general issue.

• XXVII. Thefts and felonies since 4 March 1659. excepted.

• XXVIII. This act not to extend to goods to be restored upon the act for repeal of two act for sequestrations.

• XXIX. Goods, &c. sequestered and actually paid into any publick treasury.

• XXX. Persons who have received privately for his Majesty supply, to account.

• XXXI. Monies received upon decimation not pardoned

• XXXII. Persons that have had directions or instructions for his Majesty, and have betrayed their trust, or his councils excepted.

• XXXIII. Duties of excise, and from farmers thereof, excepted.

• XXXIV. Persons excepted by name.

• XXXV. Persons that appeared and rendered themselves.

• XXXVIII. The lands and goods of the persons rendering themselves not excepted.

• XXXIX. Persons excepted for their penalties not extending to life. 13 Cha. 2. St. 1. c. 15.

• XL. Sir Arthur Hasilrig.

• XLI. Persons made incapable of any office.

• XLII. Sir Henry Vane, John Lambert excepted.

• XLIII. Penalty of certain persons, if they shall after the first of Sept. 1660. accept any office.

• XLIV. Persons that gave sentence upon any illegal high courts of justice.

• XLV. Persons intrusted by ordinance 1649. about tithes, shall be accountable.

• XLVI. Bonds taken in his Majesty's name before May 1642 for securities of any his Majesty's receivers, not pardoned. &c.

• XLVII. Payments upon proportions of 150000l customs.

• XLVIII. Arrears of excise upon beer and ale.

• XLIX. Monies due for free quarter.

• L. Purchasers bona fide of lands, other than the King's &c to enjoy their purchases.

• LI. Fabrick lands, church goods and utensils

Timeline for the English legislation

 * 9 May 1660: Pardon and Oblivion, First reading.
 * 12 May 1660: Pardon and Oblivion, Second reading.
 * 17 May 1660: Bill of Pardon and Oblivion, to go to committee.
 * 11 July 1660 Pardon and Oblivion, That the Title of this Bill be, "An Act of free and general Pardon, Indemnity, and Oblivion" Passed and was sent to the House of Lords.
 * 20 July 1660: Proceedings of Regicide, Ordered, That the Instrument for proclaiming the High Court of Justice for judging of the late King's Majesty, together with the Journal of their Proceedings, be sent to the Lords, to be by them made use of.
 * 7 August 1660: Lords reminded of Bills, including "The Act of General Pardon, Indemnity, and Oblivion".
 * 11 August 1660: Pardon and Oblivion, back from House of Lords with Provisoes, Alterations, and Additions. Passed to committee.
 * 13 August 1660: passed amendments and the Bill was sent to the House of Lords.
 * 16 August 1660: Lords desired a conference concerning the Act of Indemnity.
 * 28 August 1660: Pardon and Oblivion, the House agreed to the final amendments to which a joint house conference had agreed and ordered that the Bill of "General Pardon, Indemnity, and Oblivion" be sent to the Lords, as it was now amended. The reply came back from the House of Lords that his Majesty would "be pleased to come To-morrow Morning, to pass the Bill, as is desired".
 * 29 August 1660: Bills passed. One of which was "An Act of Free and General Pardon, Indemnity, and Oblivion".

The Act was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948.

Irish Act
An Irish act by the same name "An Act of Free and General Pardon, Indemnity, and Oblivion [for Ireland]" was sent to the Duke of Ormonde on 16 August 1664 by Sir Paul Davys, the Irish Secretary of State.

In popular culture
The Act forms the basis for Robert Harris's 2022 novel Act of Oblivion .

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Indemnity and Oblivion Act


text:
Kappa Delta Phi

Kappa Delta Phi (ΚΔΦ), also known as KDPhi, is a social fraternity that was founded on April 14, 1900, at the Bridgewater State Normal School, now known as Bridgewater State University. The fraternity currently boasts 14 active chapters. A sorority, Kappa Delta Phi National Affiliated Sorority or NAS, was formed in 1971, and remains closely affiliated with the fraternity.

Mission statement
The purpose of this fraternity shall be to bring together males of good character who are studying in institutions of higher education and who manifest a keen interest in higher education; to promote the highest ideals and educational practices; to promote a spirit of good citizenship and to seek change in our institution only through duly constituted authority; to actively support the fight against discrimination on the basis of race, color, or creed; and to strengthen and preserve the bonds of brotherhood which link men together working toward a common cause.

Founding fathers

 * Cyrus M. Benson
 * Cyrus M. Benson was born in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, on May 21, 1878. In his career at Bridgewater, he was running back and captain of the football team. He was also secretary and treasurer of section C, of his graduating class and a member of the glee club as well as one time Vice-President of Kappa Delta Phi. He graduated from Bridgewater in 1900. One of his jobs was manager of Norfolk hosiery and underwear Mills Company, in New York. Cyrus M Benson died in Boston MA in July 1949.

 * Louis D. Cook
 * Louis DeLaitre Cook was born in Ellsworth, Maine, on June 22, 1879. While attending Bridgewater, he was a substitute for the football team. After graduating from Bridgewater in 1901, he became principal of a grammar school in New Bedford, Massachusetts.

 * Edward L. Curran
 * Edward Lawrence Curran was born on February 14, 1879, in East Bridgewater, Massachusetts. While attending Bridgewater, he was the manager of the baseball team and left tackle on the football team. He was also the Vice-President of Bridgewater’s athletic association and class historian of section C for his graduating class. Also as a member of Kappa Delta Phi, he served as Vice-President. After graduating from Bridgewater in 1901, he went on to earn his Ph.D. Soon after this he became superintendent of Boston Newboy’s Club. Also during his post graduate career, he taught at the School of Sciences at Fordham University as well as being the sales manager at American Oil Company in Boston. Later on in his career he moved to New York City where he became a registrar at the Woolworth Building. After living in New York for his last few years of work, he moved back to Boston where he retired. Edward Curran died on January 5, 1957. He was laid to rest in the St. Thomas Aquinas Cemetery, which is located in Bridgewater.

 * Sumner W. Cushing
 * Sumner Webster Cushing was born in Ridge Hills (South Hingham), Massachusetts. During his time at Bridgewater, he was a member of the Normal Club as well as the team manager for the football team. He also was president of section B of his graduating class. As a member of Kappa Delta Phi, he served as vice-president and also served on the executive committee. Upon graduating from Bridgewater in 1902, he went on to Harvard and Brown A.M. After receiving his masters he became an instructor at the Normal School in Salem, Massachusetts (now Salem State College), where he went on to become the head of the geography department and taught for eleven years. Sumner Cushing died on February 28, 1920. He was buried in Harmony Grove, Salem.

 * Joseph A. Cushman
 * Joseph Augustine Cushman was born on January 31, 1881 in Bridgewater. He was the captain and catcher for the baseball team along with fullback and manager for the football team. He graduated in 1901 from Bridgewater. He was the assistant curator at the Museum of Natural History in Boston as well as a geologist for the U.S government. Joseph Cushman died on April 16, 1949 and is buried in Great Hills Cemetery, Boston.

 * Herman Gammons
 * Herman Gammons was born on May 14, 1880 in Bridgewater. He played 4 years of baseball as a first baseman, as well as a member of the glee club. He was the 1st Vice-President and Secretary of Kappa Delta Phi along with president of section C in his graduating class. After graduating from Bridgewater in 1901, he went on to Harvard where he attained his masters in teaching. After Harvard he became a high school principal in Ashby. Later in his career he became principal for a high school in Lewiston, Maine. In his free time he enjoyed fishing and woodcrafts. On June 21, 1971, Herman Gammons died at Nobel Hospital in Westfield. He was cremated in Springfield, and his ashes were buried in Lake Grove Cemetery, Holliston, Massachusetts. He was the last of the fraternity's founding fathers to die.

 * Arthur L. Gould
 * Arthur Linwood Gould was born in Rockland, Massachusetts, on December 19, 1879. During his college career, he served on the Executive Board and was Vice-President of Kappa Delta Phi. He was a pitcher on the baseball team as well as quarterback and left end for the football team. Also, he was president of section A of his graduating class. He graduated from Bridgewater in 1900. He became assistant superintendent of public schools of Boston and eventually became superintendent. He also at one time was principal at the Renfrew School in Adams, Massachusetts, as well as the sub master at the Martin School in Rockland. Arthur Gould died on October 17, 1956 and was laid to rest in a family plot, in the St. Patrick Cemetery located in his hometown of Rockland.

 * William R. Kramer
 * William Robert Kramer was born in Clinton, Massachusetts, on October 6, 1879. As a member of Kappa Delta Phi, he served as Vice-President. He was Business Manager of the yearbook as well as Vice-President of the athletic association. In 1900, he graduated from Bridgewater. He was sub master at the Hugh O’Brien School in Roxbury, Massachusetts, as well as schoolmaster of Boston Public Schools. William Kramer died on September 15, 1940 and was laid to rest at the Woodlawn Cemetery, in a family plot, located in Clinton.

 * Nahum Leonard
 * Nahum Leonard was born on December 11, 1876, in Bridgewater. While he attended Bridgewater, he was a member of the Normal Club. He was also at one time the president of the athletic association and chairman on the social committee for the normal club. As a member of Kappa Delta Phi, he served on the Executive Committee, Advisory Council and as Vice-President. After graduating from Bridgewater in 1902, he went on to be principal of Sanderson Academy in Ashfield, Massachusetts. He was superintendent of Schools in North Andover, Massachusetts, when he died on September 11, 1927, and was laid to rest in the Mt. Prospect Cemetery, which is located in Bridgewater. He is known as the "father", or the "honorable big big brother" of the fraternity.

 * Alfred K. Lowe
 * Alfred Kingsbury Lowe was born on October 28, 1877, in Worcester, Massachusetts. He served on the Executive Committee and as Vice-President of Kappa Delta Phi. His year of graduation from Bridgewater was 1900. He was the principal of the Renfrew School in Adams, Massachusetts. Alfred Lowe died on March 6, 1930, and is buried in West Boylston, Massachusetts.

 * Leon E. Maglathlin
 * Leon Edward Maglathlin was born on April 8, 1880, in Duxbury, Massachusetts. During his time at Bridgewater, he was captain of the baseball team and played 4 years of football as the quarterback. He was also the editor of the 1900 Normal School Offering (year book). He was the first president and Vice-President of Kappa Delta Phi. After graduating from Bridgewater in 1900, he went on to Harvard. He became a mill manager in Springfield, Massachusetts. Leon Maglathlin was buried in Kingston, Massachusetts.

 * Louis T. Morse
 * Louis Theodore Morse was born on July 9, 1874, in Boston. He was the first treasurer of Kappa Delta Phi. After graduating from Bridgewater in 1900, he moved to New York City and eventually ended up in West Somerville, Massachusetts. Louis Morse died on January 30, 1920, and is buried in the Shawsheen Cemetery in Bedford, Massachusetts.

 * William E. Smith
 * William Everett Smith was born on July 26, 1876, in Marblehead, Massachusetts. While a member of Kappa Delta Phi, he served on the Executive Committee and as President. He was Assistant Business Manager to the yearbook and a member of the Normal Club serving as treasurer of the literary committee. He also was one time president of the tennis club and Athletic Association as well as the glee club. He graduated from Bridgewater in 1902. During his career he was head master at English High School in Boston. William Smith died on January 23, 1943 and is buried in the Waterside Cemetery in Marblehead.

 * Henry M. Vaughan
 * Henry Melbourne Vaughan was born in Berwick, Nova Scotia, on March 27, 1874. While attending Bridgewater, he played on the tennis team. He graduated from Bridgewater in 1900. He was a teacher in Auburn, Rhode Island, and Millbury, Massachusetts. Henry Vaughan died on May 30, 1939, and is buried in the Pocasset Cemetery in Cranston, Rhode Island.

Timeline
Milestones from the national website include:

 * April 14, 1900
 * Kappa Delta Phi is founded at the Bridgewater Normal School in room #60 of the Normal School Building.
 * 1901
 * Official badge is adopted
 * 1902
 * Nahum Leonard is named "Father of the Fraternity"
 * 1904
 * Fraternity Grip is adopted
 * 1906
 * First Convention is held at Young's Hotel, Boston, Massachusetts
 * 1909
 * Black and gold colors are adopted
 * 1911
 * Scholarship Cup is adopted
 * 1914
 * General Fraternity is established with 36 active members
 * 1929
 * Kappa Delta Phi becomes National Fraternity
 * 1930
 * President's Cup is adopted
 * 1940
 * Coat of Arms is adopted
 * 1947
 * Official Key is adopted
 * 1949
 * National Relations Award is adopted
 * 1959
 * Philanthropy Award is adopted
 * 1962
 * Display Award adopted
 * 1966
 * National Emblem, the crow, adopted
 * 1967
 * National Flower, the yellow rose, adopted
 * 1968
 * National Fraternity reorganized
 * 1969
 * New National Constitution adopted
 * Edward F. Webber Scholarship Award adopted
 * Nahum Leonard Scholarship adopted
 * Senior Scholarship adopted
 * The Golden Key published

1971

 * Sorority founded in Bangor, Maine, at Husson University with the help of the Lambda chapter

 * 1978

 * Summer Workshops for Chapters established

 * 1983
 * Distinguished Service Award Scholarship adopted
 * 1985
 * Outstanding Chapter Award adopted
 * Outstanding Leadership Award adopted
 * 1986
 * National Rushing and Pledging Manual established
 * 1989
 * National Alumni Association is incorporated
 * 1990
 * Kappa Delta Phi joins the North American Interfraternity Conference
 * 1993
 * Alpha Stone is dedicated
 * Paul G. Collette Award for Excellence is adopted

title: Kappa Delta Phi


text:
Peter II of Alexandria

Patriarch Peter II of Alexandria (Πέτρος Β΄ Αλεξανδρείας; died 27 February 381) was the 21st Patriarch of Alexandria from AD 373 to AD 381. He was a disciple of Athanasius of Alexandria who designated him as his successor before his death in 373.

The Arians opposed his appointment and shortly after his consecration, the prefect Palladius, acting on orders from Emperor Valens drove him from the city and installed Lucius, an adherent of Arianism as bishop. Pope Damasus I, hearing of this new persecution, sent a deacon with a letter of communion and consolation for Peter; the messenger was arrested, treated as a criminal, savagely beaten, and sent to the mines of Phenne.

Peter remained for some time in concealment, and then found refuge at Rome, where Damasus received him and gave him support against the Arians. While there, he participated in a council to condemn Apollinarism. Peter returned to Alexandria in the spring of 378, where Lucius yielded out of fear of the populace.

Peter was a staunch defender of Nicene theology, a position endorsed by Theodosius I, who cites Peter of Alexandria in his Edict of Thessalonica. The Emperor called Peter a man of apostolic holiness. Peter died around 380 and was succeeded by his brother Timothy.

title: Peter II of Alexandria


text: User talk:80.182.109.14

title: User talk:80.182.109.14


text:
Nigerian Open

The Nigerian Open was a golf tournament in Nigeria, played between 1969 and 1999. It was generally played at the Ikoyi Club in Ikoyi, Lagos. From 1997 to 1999 it was played at the IBB International Golf & Country Club in Abuja. It was an fixture on the Safari Circuit until 1993, and also a Challenge Tour event between 1990 and 1993.

In 1981, England's Peter Tupling set the record low 72 hole score in professional tournament golf, when he won the title with a 29 under par total of 255. Notable past champions include major winners Vijay Singh and Sandy Lyle and former Ryder Cup player Gordon J. Brand.

title: Nigerian Open


text:
Timothy I of Alexandria

Pope Timothy I of Alexandria, 22nd Pope of Alexandria & Patriarch of the See of St. Mark, died about July 20, 384.

He presided over the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople called by Emperor Theodosius.

title: Timothy I of Alexandria


text:
Para red

Para red (paranitraniline red, Pigment Red 1, C.I. 12070) is a dye. Chemically, it is similar to Sudan I. It was discovered in 1880 by von Gallois and Ullrich and was the first azo dye. It dyes cellulose fabrics a brilliant red color, but is not very fast. The dye can be washed away easily from cellulose fabrics if not dyed correctly. Acidic and basic stages both occur during the standard formation of Para Red, and acidic or basic byproducts may be present in the final product.

Synthesis
Para red is prepared by diazotization of para-nitroaniline at ice-cold temperatures, followed by coupling with β-naphthol:
 * [[Image:Synthesis_Para_Red.svg|500px|left|Synthesis of Para Red]]

Regulation
Para red is not approved for use in food in any jurisdiction. In 2005, Old El Paso dinner kits were found to be contaminated with the dye and removed from supermarket shelves.

title: Para red


text:
Talk:BHÉV

Full length
The full length of the HÉV lines is questionable.

 * This source mentions 176 km,
 * the article in the German Wikipedia also mentions 176 km,
 * this source gives 174 km,
 * the approximate estimates here add up to 120 km,
 * If I add the length of the four lines, based on the BKV website (including the 4.3 km extra length of one branch between Cinkota and Csömör, on the Gödöllő line) then they make 97.9 km.

Adam78 16:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lemma
"HÉV" as an acronym for "helyi érdekü vasut" only means "local (interest) railway". In Hungary, there are several and were many such railways. Calling the article on Budapest HÉV, short BHÉV, simply "HÉV", is like calling an article on London Underground simply Underground, an article on Paris Métro only Métro etc. The logo with the H is no legitimation, see the use of U-logos in Lonon, Berlin and anywhere.--Ulamm (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "B" is meaningless. If you want to move this ariticle, it should be to Budapest HÉV which is a redirect. Sw2nd (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "B" stands for Budapest, as you can see clicking hu:BHÉV.
 * I do not object against Budapest HÉV, but HÉV was inacceptable.--Ulamm (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is my point. This redirects to "Budapesti Helyiérdekű Vasút". Sw2nd (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may also choose "Budapesti Helyiérdekű Vasút" as Lemma of the English article.
 * hu:Budapesti Helyiérdekű Vasút begins with the clause “A Budapesti Helyiérdekű Vasút (BHÉV) Budapest agglomerációjában közlekedő vasút."
 * The other article, hu:Helyiérdekű vasút shows also a map of BHÉV, but farther below it shows 4 photos of places outside of Budapest aggomeration, one even of Hungary. You can follow the links in the descriptions to the railways represented.--Ulamm (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pesterzsébet (converted to tramway and radically reduced)
This HÉV line was never converted to tram operation. Instead, until the sixties, both tram and HÉV lines existed there. Since ridership and service levels have been declining for decades, the HÉV was closed without any replacement, only leaving the tram lines. The tram lines themselves were also reduced later when the apartment buildings between Határ út and Nagysándor József utca were built, however the tram never took over HÉV tracks in that place...

--49.194.40.33 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BKV hev symbol.svg

Tagged with
So I've tagged this article with More citations needed, as, well, there's only one inline citation. There's definitely sources, considering the Hungarian version of the article has 206 and is a featured article there. Pinging Epicgenius since he brought this article up on the Wikipedia Discord.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 02:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping @LilianaUwU. In my view, the English-language version of this article needs significant improvement, in addition to the complete lack of citations. For instance, there is no history section at all - not even a generic history section, let alone the history of each line. The article completely fails to mention other info, such as the route variants of each of the BHÉV lines. The Hungarian-language version of the article has a lot more information that may actually be useful here, but sadly I do not speak Hungarian. Hopefully, someone else may be able to translate that information. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:BHÉV


text:
User talk:Bokchoi Cowboy

Welcome!
Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you created the page Romy, which isn't really a valid topic for an encyclopedia: people have to be notable before they get an entry in Wikipedia, though he may be well-known on that message forum. I am going to list it on Votes for deletion, but if you as the creator agree that it should be deleted, I can delete it for you right away -- if this is about you, maybe you could move it to your user page?

Here are some pages you might want to visit:
 * Simplified Ruleset: A simple overview of the guidelines of the Wikipedia community.
 * How to edit a page: Everything you ever really wanted to know about formatting and markup, but were afraid to ask.
 * Manual of style: Now that you know how to edit a page, how should you write in it?
 * What Wikipedia is not: ...and what shouldn't you write in it?
 * Sandbox: Here's the place to do editing tests without worrying about messing anything up.
 * Glossary: Words specific to Wikipedia and wiki culture (for example, the tendency to stick "wiki" in front of everything!) and frequently used abbreviations that you might encounter.
 * FAQ: Questions and answers about various topics, including technical aspects, copyright, and a general overview of the project.
 * Help desk: Got a question not answered in any of the help materials, or just can't find it (understandable, even for someone who's been around a while)? Ask it here!
 * Village pump: Want to see what's going on around Wikipedia? Here's where people are talking.
 * Community Portal: Just about anything else you as a Wikipedia editor might want to find is linked from here.

Finally, if you haven't already, feel free to sign your name to the New user log and add yourself to the various listings of Wikipedians! Also, remember to sign your name on Talk pages (but not articles) with ~ to leave your signature and a timestamp. Thanks for your contributions so far, and happy editing! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bokchoi Cowboy


text: User talk:66.162.182.141

title: User talk:66.162.182.141


text: User talk:68.187.160.141

title: User talk:68.187.160.141


text: Category:422 deaths

title: Category:422 deaths


text:
Talk:Chobham armour

The common feature of 'Chobham' is NERA sandwiches - not ceramic laminates
It is well known to experts that the major compenent of 'Chobham' style armor is NERA panels. This is the reason why 'Chobham' has a high mass efficiency vs. HEAT projectiles. The article is misleading becuase it instead focuses entirely on speculation abour ceramic sandwiches, some of which is a result of a misinformation campaign.

There is a very good discussion here: https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.129.204 (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The blog might have a point in that the term "Chobham" was initially applied to an early sandwich type project. The conclusion that later projects and production types did not use ceramic armour, is not justified by the documents discussed and is speculation on the side of the author :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a source that demonstrates that Challenger I or II or the various Abrams variants contain ceramic elements ? As far as I can tell the best that can be done is catalogue various speculations. The extensive use of NERA is well established, as is the DU element in later Abrams variants.

 * Many books state this, as cited in the article.--MWAK (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

There are actual diagrams here of the early Abrams array- again it is largely NERA, in some areas there is a steel-'something'-steel sandwich. The 'something' may well be ceramic, or a glass, or even something else (steel of very high hardness, glass fibre reinforced resin etc.). https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2017/01/early-m1-abrams-composite-armor.html

 * Interesting. Several points are note-worthy. The documents do not claim this is NERA. This is an interpretation of the blog-writer. The possibility is disregarded that several types of ceramic armour are applied in a single array. The bracket system emphasizes that such armours are modular. Different configurations might be chosen depending on the tactical situation. Such illustrations are also highly time-dependent, as through the years different types come available.--MWAK (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * It very clearly is NERA. Ceramic plates would not use that configuration, as the air gaps would reduce performance. Also it is not possible to gain entry to that cavity and place anything else in there. If there is ceramic in that array, it is likely the middle payer of the backing plate sandwich. 2001:8003:265E:2D00:8042:2B3F:1477:1A3F (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been digging for information on this for ages, and I believe you are 100% correct. The armor shown in the unclassified documents are very clearly a type of spaced sandwich armor. The layout of these plates would be detrimental if ceramics were used, but are perfect for NERA. The fact that the armor is more effective against HEAT warheads than kinetic penetrators further reinforces this idea, as ceramics are decent at stopping both, but NERA is much better against HEAT warheads. Multiple sandwiched ceramic layers simply doesn’t make sense. The description of ceramic armor throwing fragments into the jet, and the irregular path made through the ceramic being responsible for degrading the HEAT warheads penetration is simply nonsense. The debris formed during penetration flows out around the jet or penetrator, it doesn’t fly into it because it’s being pushed out by other debris. The path punched through the armor is larger than the diameter of the jet or projectile, so the “Irregular shaped path” doesn’t matter at all. That’s assuming the path would even be all that different since the incredibly high speeds make the materials act much different than you’d expect. Simply put, there’s no way the armor is mostly ceramics based. The physics simply don’t work with the information we do have Deathdragon228 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Well, ceramic armour is very expensive and the British had a great many projects exploring the possibility of applying much cheaper spaced armour configurations. What was announced in the seventies as Chobham armour mainly pertained to ceramic amour, though.

 * Crack deflection is real and described in many scientific articles. Obviously some debris is thrown out. This very fact however, implies that the jet loses kinetic energy and medial pressure is applied to it. Of course these effects only become dominant in the end, when the jet is defeated. But that is the relevant phase :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There is more useful information here, giving the models known to have ceramic elements:

'Leopard 2 since 1988, K2, Type 10, PT-91M produced for Malaysia. Also it is possible that some of the later Leclerc models incorporate ceramic layers in their armour arrays, given that some of the German research was carried out by the Franco-German ISL.

In addition to that tank armour arrays with ceramics were developed in Sweden, Switzerland and the United States, but apparently not fielded.

* In case of the Leopard 2, declassified documents from the UK (where the Leopard 2A4 was offered as part of the Chieftain replacement program) state that the West-German officials revealed the fact that the "bulging plate armor" of the earlier models had been replaced with ceramics on the 1987/88 model. Also a German company that produces ballistic ceramics cited the Leopard 2(A6) as a reference for the use of its products.

* Regarding the K2 Black Panther, the company Samyang Composite Technology which manufactures the composite armor of the K2 MBT, the K21 IFV and various wheeled vehicles, claims that it developed a steel, aluminium and ceramic array for the K1A1, K2 and the Altay (the latter in cooperation with the Turkish industry) * As for the Type 10 tank, Col. Yasutaka Matsubara from the JGSDF included the following graphic in a presentation:

https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/47570-mbts-vs-peer-armament/page/2/#comment-1611857 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:265E:2D00:614A:E51D:1A44:8057 (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Rampant speculation
This article is full of opinion and random hypotheses which aren't sourced. Wikipedia is not a place to speculate on things. Chris Cunningham 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah, you are communicating. Good ;o). Now to business: the accusation of original research is a very serious one and should not be lightly made. Are you very sure you have the expertise to correctly identify any "opinion and random hypotheses"? Obviously the article needs inline references — putting them in is simply a very time-consuming process, the main reason they aren't there — but most of the content is very basic. Could it be that you have concluded, after reading popular accounts that the composition of Chobham Armour is "classified", that the entire principle of ceramic armour is some great undisclosed mystery? This is far from true, I assure you. I will start adding references — obviously I've been waiting for this — but there will remain a narrative gap between the very technical papers and the implicit knowledge they assume any reader to possess already.--MWAK 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, yes. The lack on inline citations is exacerbated by the use of phrase like "it is probable that". It's also quite chatty; that "bit of a mystery" thing should be removed, because how a hairdryer works is a "bit of a mystery" as well. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * In that case we will increase the level of formality — and of course the process of adding citations is far from complete :o). I'm not sure what you mean with "chatty" exactly. As far as I can see there are no sentences without informative content present and the account is quite bone-dry as it is; but perhaps you're an engineer or physicist and correctly perceive that a more quantitative approach would be able to perfectly describe in a single formula what a thousand words fail to express. Should you want to add a quantitative analysis, this would of course be most welcome; nevertheless it should be remembered that most readers would be unable to understand it and need a purely qualitative treatment also.--MWAK 13:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, put it this way: what does the phrase "the exact nature of the protection offered is sometimes presented as a bit of a mystery" add to the article? It's obviously not from a source ("The BBC reports that Iranian weapons researchers have declared the level of protect offered by Chobham armour to be 'a bit of a mystery'"), and it is also obviously not going to be much of a mystery after one reads the rest of the paragraph (which somewhat demystifies it), so it would seem that the clause is both irrelevant and unwanted. Removing it increases the sourced:unsourced ratio in the article.
 * The second problem (which is really the key one) is that things are constantly phrased as "could be" rather than "is". How something could be composed isn't what we should be discussing. Take this: "To minimise the effects of this the tiles could be made as small as possible, but then the ratio between the area covered by tiles and that covered by the matrix would become more unfavourable, also because the matrix elements cannot be reduced accordingly as they have a minimal practical thickness of about an inch. An equilibrium is usually found at a diameter of about ten centimetres." Why the build-up? Just say that the tiles are produced at 10cm because this is the best compromise. This speculative, arrive-at-a-conclusion phrasing is okay for key points in the article, but it's used all over the place. It's possible that the whole "protective qualities" section could be merged into the construction one after this is corrected because of all the duplication it causes through being separate. Chris Cunningham 14:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * There are several issues at stake here. Firstly we are not capable of giving a detailed sourced description of the properties of the actual Ceramic Composite Systems used in the respective MBTs of the world's armies, simply because most of the relevant sources have not been made public as yet. What we can do however is to give a sourced presentation of the present state of the art of ceramic armour in general, while abstaining from the claim that this state of the art is really applied in any actual western tank. Therefore we can only describe such systems as "typical" — given the known state of the art of present ceramic armour technology as reflected by the technical literature — and possibly applied.

 * Secondly, you are mistaken to call "arrive-at-a-conclusion phrasing" speculative. Speculation is the suggestion of facts; what the text does is to give the known design principles and then logically infere from them the conclusions (of course within a certain assumed factual context). This is far from redundant as neither the principles nor their deductions will be obvious to the average reader. If the text merely stated that tiles are 10 cm wide, the reader wil not be given the insight why this must be so. Why not a continuous ceramic layer covering an entire turret side? This was in fact the original intention for the MBT-70. And when the reader is told why — to prevent extensive damage by a single hit — he still would need to be told why in that case tiles shouldn't be made as small as possible. Might be obvious to you and me — but not to most. Of course we could condense the phrasing: "The typical tile size of 10 cm is a compromise between limitation of impact damage and optimising the tile-matrix framework ratio given a minimal one inch framework bar width". This is shorter and we both immediately understand what is meant. However, this is because we already are acquainted with the subject. To the reader it would probably be a bit of a mystery ;o).--MWAK 16:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * While I appreciate that this is a fascinating subject, this sort of thing is why WP:SYN was developed. Composite armour has its own article, and as this is an article for a specific type of composite armour it should refrain from using sources which don't actually refer to said armour to advance an argument. On the tile size thing, I'm coming round to your suggestion that it just needs to be made more concise. Chris Cunningham 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, though the lead section as yet imperfectly reflects this, "Chobham armour" has of course become a generic term for "ceramic vehicle armour" in general. Should we limit ourselves to its strictest meaning, not even the M1 or Challenger 2 can be said to be fitted with Chobham armour in the narrow sense. Composite armour is a much wider concept so merging the two articles seems undesirable. Should we create a new article "Ceramic vehicle armour" we would be forced to begin this with "Ceramic vehicle armour, commonly known as Chobham armour..." — but if "Chobham armour" is the common name, it should in principle be the article title.

 * As the concept is general, I tried to give a general treatment of ceramic armour technology. I fail to understand what special argument I could be advancing by this. Obviously this would be different if Chobham armour were such a complete mystery that it would not even be certain that it was ceramic armour — for then the emphasis on this armour type would be biased. However, again the lead section is as yet incorrect: we have good official, public and published information on the basic properties of Chobham armour in the narrow sense.--MWAK 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The intro edits are good. I'm going to de-tag this and see what else I can do to help out. Thanks for working so diligently on this. Chris Cunningham 08:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * This whole article is a big ball of hot air you have no idea of the armour as it’s a government secret as well as not even knowing who utilised it first and what country you can write as many papers on it as you want Doesn't mean you no what your on about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:66CB:3201:9B2:141C:709E:451C (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, the fact that the Americans used it first — your main objection, I believe, is generally known and well sourced. Of course, it depends on definition. "Chobham" is here used as a more generic designation. As the article makes clear, the Americans applied armour of a different composition and structure than the ceramics fitted on the Challenger 1. --MWAK (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Arguable and non-verified content
I've read the article several times, but there is much information without citation/verification.

 * The whole article is giving no real hint of the composition of Chobham armour, it is only talking about generall ceramic matrices armour ("Chobham-style armour"). Therefore the article includes a list of ceramics (boron carbide, silicon carbide, aluminium oxide (sapphire or "alumina"), aluminium nitride, titanium boride), but no really quotations which ceramics are used.
 * The article claims that the MBT-70 was protected by silicon carbide. No citation is given. The armour of the MBT-70 is according to serveral other sources, the English Wikipedia article and the German equivalent described as spaced armour (Schottpanzerung (1st generation) in German).
 * The development section includes serveral sentences/phrases which aren't part of the development of Chobham armour and therefore aren't relevant.
 * The usage of Chobham armour in the Leopard 2 is generally denialed in this article. In fact most sources claim that the Leopard 2 uses a special kind of composite armour including Chobham-style ceramic matrices. Encyclopedia Britannica and the German Wikipedia article (based on books written by W. Spielberger, Frank Lobitz, etc.) claim that the Leopard 2 uses a Chobham-style armour. Christopher F. Foss claims in the book "Panzer und andere Kampffahrzeuge von 1916 bis heute" (Illustrated encyclopedia of the world's tanks and other fighting vehicles) from 1977 that [...] at the end of 1976 it came out that the in Great Britain developed Chobham armour was used. The early prototypes  used the same type of armour as the Leopard 1A3/1A4, but some prototypes, the Leopard 2AV and the production models all have the slab-sided appearance, which is according to the article typical for Chobham/Chobham-style armour (Instead of rounded forms, the turrets of tanks using Chobham armour typically have a slab-sided appearance).
 * The M1 Abrams is according to this article using Chobham armour, although it is told to be a modificated version which includes a DU layer.
 * Ceramic polystyrene foam is mentioned in the text. Polystyrene is not a ceramic foam, it is a kind of plastic. Foamed polystyrene (sometimes known as Styrofoam or Styropor) doesn't have the same potency as a layer of unfoamed polystyrene
 * The article includes several (obvious) false claims about the usage of perforated armour. The Leopard 2 would use a armour system mainly relying on perforated steel plates. How can the Leopard 2 with such a type of armour be having a higher protection level agianst chemical energy than against kinetic energy? Why do other sources (mentioned above) claim the opposite? And why should "Armored Cav — a guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment", a book about the American tanks, be considered a reliable when it comes to German tanks? Not to forget that the first series produced Leopard 2 already had the slab-sided turret.
 * Furthermore the article mentions "[...] the very large procurement, maintenance and replacement costs of those ceramic armour systems not based on the cheap but rather ineffective alumina.". I've never heard about anything like that. How to replace the ceramic tiles? They must cut through the outer layers of the armour and the matrix. What kind of maintenance has to be done? They also would have to cut through the outer laysers of the armour/matrix to reach the ceramic tiles.
 * Imo this article should be renamed "Chobham-style armour" or the content should be reduced to the early M1 and Challenger 1/2.
 * The useage of ceramics in aircrafts is not worthy to mention in an article about a type of tank armour.
 * I've heard that Chobham, which itself is not an official name, is also called Burlington (or somehow affiliated with it). Declassified documents shows that this armour was presented to the FRG.

--Tim.vogt (talk) originally posted 11:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC), reposted by --Tim.vogt (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Concerning the LEOII and perforated armour. Maybe the confusion is because modern armour doesn't consist of a single type of armour, but instead consists of multiple types of armour, each type designed to give a certain "effect". One could suggest that an armour system had perforated armour on the outerside (primarely to defeat Ke rods, and offer some defense against HEAT) backed by composite or chobham armour on the inner side to primarely defeat HEAT and stopping weakened (by the outer armour) Ke penetrators.
 * So it would be a "both". Jomsviking (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 * User Tim.vogt had withdrawn his contribution. Though it raised a lot of valid points and pointed out many possible misconceptions, I feel it is best to respect his decision, so I will again remove it for the time being. Maybe your reaction will motivate him to reinsert it or an improved version. Certainly you are correct in suggesting that modern armour packages might use a combination of armour types. It would be more typical to have the ceramic armour on the outside, though, just as with the later M1 systems.--MWAK (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I didn't withdraw anything. I added the section twice (due to some connection troubles) and removed the second one, you later removed the other, which was intented to remain. Btw. the outmost armour layer shouldn't consists of a Chobham like matrix structure, else it would be damaged (not penetrated, but it would lose stability), when hit (even by smaller 30 and 40 mm APFSDS). At least the Challenger 2 has two steel (?) layers bolted on the turret front. --Tim.vogt (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * My apologies. I hadn't noticed this or I would have answered sooner. Whether they should or should not :o), on the M1 the outer layers consist of ceramic armour modules. Indeed this makes these susceptible to damage by rapid-fire cannon.--MWAK (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Jomsviking, I personally believe it is a mere missinterpretation. Mostly "perforated armour" is explained as "layers of steel at different angles". In German the term Schottpanzerung or Mehrschichtschottpanzerung is sometimes used to describe the armour of the Leopard 2. This term doesn't have an adequate English counterpart, but imho "laminated armour" or "(mulit)layered armour" would be matching. Schottpanzerung can itself be subdivided into three generations: the first generation (used in MBT-70 and Marder 1A3) consists of spaced steel plates, while the second (used in the Leopard 1A3/A4 and early Leopard 2 prototypes (PT 1 - 17?)) can already seen as "real" composite armour. Although I personally don't really believe that perforated armour is incorporated in this tank, the current article doesn't point out that the Leopard 2 doesn't only rely on it, but also uses other composite armour. The German sources I've read doesn't mention any perforated elements, but instead high hardened steel, ceramics, plastics and rubber. --Tim.vogt (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Tim, sounds reasonable. Regarding the perforated armour on LeoII, I was told by a (danish) tanker that the (some of) armour on the LEOIIa5DK was "a kind of steel with cavities filled with some kind of foam" I translated that into some type of "perforated armour". Now eventhough many internet sites put extreame credibility into the testemony of soldiers/tank crew, I think they lack the material physic knowledge to have a clue about what they are seeing, but that's just an oppinion (not that I am an expert on the subject, though I know enough to know that I don't really don't know anything about it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomsviking (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Some time ago the Leopard 2A5s of Danemark were upgraded with MEXAS-H applique armour on the hull, i.e. ceramic tiles and a outer steel were bolted on. Maybe he was talking about this? Another explanation might be the usage of tungsten. Tungsten can't be used effectively without a harder bonding structure. According to the German wikipedia tungsten is normally inserted into small holes inside a nickel or steel plate, which later is hardned. The DU-layer in the M1s armour is also using a special structure ("steel encased DU wire mesh").
 * But how does he get information about the Leopard 2 armour? No tank was licence built in Danemark. And afaik the repairs on the tank armour are done by KMW. --Tim.vogt (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * "But how does he get information about the Leopard 2 armour? No tank was licence built in Danemark. And afaik the repairs on the tank armour are done by KMW"
 * Don't know Jomsviking (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

 * The Danish tanker was basically right :o). Probably someone took the trouble of correctly informing him. Always good for morale, I'd say. Schottpanzerung, though its literal meaning is different, is in the literature used as a synonym of "spaced armour". Even the hardest (armour) steel or nickel is considerably softer than any tungsten alloy used.--MWAK (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * That depends on the source and the date. In the 70s and 80s (there were some nice article/books about tanks) the term was used more often for composite armour, nowadays it is more affiliated with spaced armour. --Tim.vogt (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * "Schottpanzerung", Doesn't "Schott" mean something like "Bulk head" ("Skot" in danish)? IF true, Maybe that gives an idea of the "Schottpanzerung" as an armour structure resembling that of the compartemensation of a ship? Maybe a distinction to spaced armour, is merritted by the structure not only given more depth to the armour at constant weight (which is basically the spaced armour idea) but, I imagine, that multiple "bulk heads" (plates of armour) made with different hardnesses can play a role in deflecting or tipping a penetrator within the armour "package"??? (or is that far out?) Jomsviking (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * That's correct, "Schott" can be translated as bulkead. Schottpanzerung could be determined as "armour with an outer and an inner layer consisting of metal". The Leopard 2 armour is built "inside" the tank walls . As I allready mentioned there are claims of several materials/structures being used inside the armour. I.e. layers of steel (high-hardened), tungsten, the English wikipedia claims titanum would be used, ceramic, plastics and rubber. Imho it is probable that the outermost layers of the armour consits of steel (and rubber or plastic), followed by a ceramic matrix (Chobham-style) which is backed by a tungsten layer, followed by another plastic/rubber/steel composition. --Tim.vogt (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Ohh, my wast knowledge of german! ;) Anyway, concerning the tungsten, which I quess is used for defeating Ke penetrators. Why do they place it at the back, I would suspect that you wanted it at the front?Jomsviking (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * As far as I know Tungsten (or DU) itself is not a very good armour material on it's own, since it has a hardness of only some 294 HB (lying in US armor class 1 & 3 for a 1.25 inch thick steel plate [at least in the 90s]). But Tungsten or DU have a very high density, therefore it is used as backing plate in the ceramic matrix, which increases the ceramic tiles efficiency against kinetic energy. I believe that the ceramic matrix is located behind a sequence of (hardened) steel, rubber and/or plastic layers, which should offer at least protection against medium caliber rounds (and maybe even more). But that's just opinion. --Tim.vogt (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, pure uranium is rather soft. Therefore it is used in alloys with titanium or nickel, which alloys are as hard as armour steel. Pure tungsten though is extremely hard in itself (2570 HB) and is used in alloys to make it tougher. Tungsten nor uranium are typically used as backing plates; they are difficult to apply in plate form ("heavy armour" has the form of perpendicular rods) and density is not all that relevant for a backing plate. Their alloys would be so hard that they would reflect too much energy and thus increase damage to the tile in case of an impact. It's true that the ceramic armour could in principle be protected by a thick outer layer of steel but modern 30-40 mm rapid fire cannon are so powerful that you would need about 120-150 mm steel to effect this. As the weight of a 55 ton tank turret armour is equivalent to about only 400 mm RHA frontal protection in the first place, you can't afford to apply a third of that weight in the form of conventional steel as it would comprise the entire special armour concept (which was why the Challenger 1 which still used a cast steel inner turret was replaced by the Challenger 2). That mass can be used about three times as effective in the form of perforated armour. The outside of the modern Western tank turret is basically just a thin-walled container. Nor is the outer wall backed by plastics or rubber; while it is true that this could dampen the impact to protect a ceramic tile attached to it, this is irrelevant because there simply are no such tiles: the armour is modular. In the container removable metal boxes are placed with the matrix plates inside. These boxes do not touch the outer wall.--MWAK (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 * 2570 HB? You must be kidding, this value can't be true. You can take a look at matweb where the hardness of pure Tungsten (249 HB, as hard as a medicore steel) and some commercial alloys can be seen. No alloy of the one I checked had a hardness even close to 1000 HB. Hard materials tend to break or shatter (like ceramics), a property which makes them useless as penetrators (Tungsten and DU are used as penetrators for APFSDS/APDS, while the Soviets did/do use some steel parts). And afair density is a important factor for the usefullness as backing plate (I've read this in imo reliable sources and it makes sense in the physical aspects). If you don't believe it is usefull as backing plate, why/and where would you use it? Ceramics itself are pretty hard and can be used for protection against KE (as proven by MEXAS and AMAP). Why would you use such a high-densitity (heavyweight) material if you can use low-weight ceramics instead? Armour thickness doesn't seem to be an important reason.
 * Regarding the steel (rubber/plastic) composite armour at the front: the Challenger 2 has two rolled steel plates (imo ca. 50 mm) bolted on the turret front. They are pretty easy to see: ; Here is a Challenger 2 without bolted on parts (in front of the Bovington tank museum). From the thickness they might be not as thick as required to fully adsorb the impact energy of modern medium caliber APFSDS, but they are told to be high-hardened (they would cause spall, but this would only hit the base armour), they work as disrupting stage. Regarding the ~ (350 -) 400 mm RHAe frontal, you seem to speak of the M1 Abrams (basic model), which didn't have largely superior KE protection than other contemporary tanks (Leopard 1A4 turret ~ 300 mm, T-72 ~ 305–410 mm, T-64 ~335 - 450 mm) and therefore might not be the best example. But: the Chieftain had 380 mm thick frontal steel armour and a weight of some 55 tonnes.
 * Do you believe that the M1A1 (or the Leopard 2A4) have some 80 cm thick "Chobham armour"-boxes on the turret front or do you support my opinion that other laminated armour is also used? And how to "replace" them (in the case of the Leopard 2 and the M1A1/2 these "boxes" are welded together to the turret/or a "roof" plate was welded upon them)? --Tim.vogt (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Point taken: 2570 is of course its Brinell MPa number, not the HB value. Well, it is still one of the hardest natural elements ;o). Certainly when properly treated. As regards the use of hard materials as penetrators, one should not confuse hardness with brittleness. Tungsten carbide is very hard but was still widely used in AP-rounds, though admittedly shattering was a problem.

 * When the Americans began to add uranium modules, they openly stated the reason for it: ceramics are less effective against KE-penetrators. I.e. less effective per unit of weight. The main reason for this was that the uranium was given the form of what has been described as a "mesh" or as "rods". So it is a perforated armour system, combining solid parts with cavities. The penetrator must therefore either hit a solid part, being of extreme thickness because the weight saved by the cavities can be concentrated there or travel through several cavities subjected to the edge effect, sloped armour, differential hardness, toughness and density, all this causing abrasion, deformation or breakage. Using heavy metal components instead of only steel or titanium offers the advantages of limiting the armour thickness to better fit a pre-existing tank design (so, the thickness is relevant) and increasing the material differentials. And in general, metal systems are of course a lot cheaper than ceramic tiles. So, unless one is locked in some design path dependency as happened to the poor Yankees, these are better avoided.

 * As regards the case of the Challenger 2, you made the very plausible suggestion the frontal turret plates might be disruptor elements. However, such might be useful whether there is a ceramic armour present or not and would also function against large calibre penetrators.

 * When referring to a 400 mm steel equivalence I meant the weight, not the protection level. So a 55 ton tank will have the mass equivalence of 400 mm steel to put on the front of its turret, whatever the system he uses. Dependent on that system the protection levels might vary wildly — precisely the reason to use as least conventional steel as possible.

 * In the case of the M1 it has been disclosed that the armour package is divided in a ceramic tile system in the front and a uranium mesh system more to the back. Given the advantages made in ceramic armour protection against HEAT-threats, the tile matrices are today likely rather thin. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no official source stating that any Leopard 2 model is equipped with ceramic tiles. It's very confusing trying to interpret all this as a "laminated armour". Real laminated armour-ceramic sandwiches were developed in the sixties but proved to be a failure, the very reason Chobham was such a breakthrough. Certainly the heavy metal really doesn't resemble a laminate; it is not applied in "layers" or "plates" but as largely perpendicular components. To weld the boxes (there is a nice picture of them in Char Leclerc: De la guerre froide aux conflits de demain) to the container walls or roof would be impractical; they are secured by means of bolts, clamps etc. To replace them one has merely to weld open the turret roof weld seams, which can be done in the field if necessary.--MWAK (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 * * You say depleted Uranium (DU) is "rather soft" and it would be in special alloys which contain Titanium or Nickel as hard as armour steel. Then why would they use DU (even as perforated elements this would be any senseless, if DU would be only as hard as steel while having a much greater weight)? And your statement that the DU is used ater the ceramic matrix imho supports my opinion: DU and Tungsten aren't very effective on their own. If the DU "mesh" is located behind the ceramics, it might work as "backing plate".
 * * There are several sources claiming that the Leopard 2 uses a Chobham-like armour: the oldest one I found is from 1977. In this Christopher F. Foss (& co-authors) says that at first it was believed that the Leopard 2 used Schottpanzerung (as the first prototypes did), but then "at the end of 1976" it came out (or it was announced, this is troublesome to translate without being biased) that the in Britain developed Chobham armour/system would be used. Furthermore he gives one pretty simple description of Chobham: "This [Chobham armour] is several layers of steel and ceramic plates [tiles], which alternate each other." Then there is the scan/images of original British documents, which shows that the British already demonstrated "Chobham" (i.e. Burlington) armour to a West German comitee as early as 1970. Worth mentioning is also the fact that there was a Anglo-German joint project, the FMBT programme from 1972 to 1977. The article currently contains a sentence, which supports the useage of Chobham/Chobham-like armour in the Leo 2: Instead of rounded forms, the turrets of tanks using Chobham armour typically have a slab-sided appearance. The German wikipedia, itself citing several books, also claims that a Chobham-like armour is used.
 * * The Leclerc MBT is having modular (exchangeable) armour, the Challenger 1 & 2, the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 don't have modular base armour. Their armour is "built-in", changing the turret armour composition would require a new turret.
 * --Tim.vogt (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 * The protection offered by a metal armour component is not only determined by its hardness but also, among other aspects, by its density or mass. Disregarding other advantages, a uranium perforated armour mesh a foot thick would thus provide the same protection as about 80 cm of steel. No weight gain compared to a steel perforated armour per definition — but a lot of space saved. So using this option would obviate the need for very major design changes when improving the protection level against KE-threats. Possible other advantages of heavy metals include increasing the density differentials which improves the chance of the penetrator being deformed or breaking. The backing of a ceramic tile matrix is a very specialised component, optimised to support and cushion the tile in such a way that the damage to the matrix by an impact is minimised. Making the ceramic directly touch the mesh would be far from ideal, to put it mildly. Of course you could put a plastic layer in between but that would still compromise the modularity. In this modularity there is no fundamental difference between the Leclerc and the M1 and Leopard 2. What was different was that the French chose to openly present it as an advantage. And the outer stowage box rim of the Leclerc turret was originally meant to hold an ERA-layer. The pictures you referred to are very illuminating: they show the basic turret as it is: a thin-walled empty container in which the modules can be placed (the Challenger 1, in essence still using the cast Chieftain turret, is a major exception in this respect). Obviously the factory revision is an ideal opportunity to check, maintain or replace the modules. But it can be done in the field also: the Americans in 1991 openly stated that the new uranium mesh modules were inserted by the troops deployed at the Iraqi border in Saudi-Arabia. One should not be deceived by simplistic diagrams of "special armour": they suggest it is a single block with all components tightly jammed in. This would however be hugely impractical and be a major obstacle to easy production, maintenance and replacement. The Soviet system was basically different from Western practice of course.

 * The 1976 incident is a delicate matter. We have to understand it was not a deliberate deception. The Chobham facilities brought forth two major developments: the one was the tile system, the other the use of foam. The Germans adopted the foam, using it in an improved form with a ceramic powder component in combination with armour laminates for the Leopard 1 A3 and A4. Later, when the demanded protection levels against KE-threats increased, this was further developed into a perforated steel armour system. When the Americans made the choice for a ceramic tile system, they began to exert considerable pressure on the Germans to adopt it. Late 1976 the Germans, against their better judgement, still cherished the hope that the Leopard 2 might be chosen as the common American-German tank, so they kept open the option of using ceramic tiles. At the same time they had begun changing their perforated steel system by replacing the foam in the cavities by alumina inserts, a version later rejected because the weight and cost penalty was not justified by the very marginal increase in protection against HEAT-threats. In 1976 the British and Americans disclosed the existence of "Chobham". This put the Germans in a awkward position: as they had earlier stated that their models were protected by spaced armour, this would now give the false impression that the Leopard 2 would be a generation behind and grossly inferior to the M1. Given the fact that at the time there was a real possibility it might indeed be equipped with it, they thus claimed that the Leopard 2 would be protected with Chobham-equivalent armour. This of course had the advantage of them not having to disclose their own perforated armour concept! Eventually the Leopard 2 would not use "Chobham". BTW, though a slab-sided turret is logical for a tank using ceramic tiles, the reverse isn't true: slab sides do not imply Chobham but modularity. The Leclerc is slab-sided too, though this is obscured by the bevelled stowage boxes.--MWAK (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 * The whole article is incorrect Chobham armour was developed by the uk and used first by the uk and it isn’t just the uk and USA that utilise this armour also it has never been penetrated not one single challenger two main battle tank was destroyed in the whole of the Iraq campaign a good source of information would be to look up bovington tank museum the home of British armoured vehicles from WW1 all the way to current theatres — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:66CB:3201:9B2:141C:709E:451C (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, as the article clearly states, it was indeed developed by the UK. But it was the USA that first applied it in production vehicles. The Bovington site, though quite useful as a first introduction to general tank history, is simply not a reliable source on this technical subject. You must adjust yourself to the fact that popular accounts are typically extremely simplified and riddled with error. Luckily, there's Wikipedia ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

precise and formal
In what way is this wrong?- Chobham armour is the composite armour developed in the 1960s ...

All wikipedia needs is that "Chobham armour" is the wp:commonname. To say- is the name informally given to, is wrong unless there is another common name. If there is another name we should use that instead. Bhny (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The "informally" simply informs the reader that it is not an official type designation. It is important to stress this to avoid ambiguity. It is not a matter of stating the obvious as the "common name" might well have coincided with the official one. Also there is the problem that the name might be used in a limited sense, only referring to the British project, or in a more general sense for any type of ceramic armour. This makes it even more desirable to be clear from the onset about its informal nature. Past experience has taught me that all kinds of confusion will result otherwise :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * what is the official name? Bhny (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Good question :o). The generic concept of course does not have a single official counterpart. The British armour seems to have been known as "Burlington" but even that is not a formal factory designation.--MWAK (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Although only a guess, I suspect that at some time it may have had one of these; List of Rainbow Codes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
I have watched some military television content and I noticed that a greater explosive reactive force could be achieved when water seperated the explosive detonation and the target.

I notice there is something called Heavy Water on wikipedia

Would an inclusion of heavy water in your reactive armour provide a greater counteracting force?

I think all this knowledge is in the dambusters project.

Best Regards

Darren Mark Horton

82.29.73.4 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, it depends against what kind of explosion you want to protect. Normally, any protective belt defending against a single explosion is ideally very tough and at the same time very inelastic. Like some ceramics really. Water in general is not ideal. Heavy water is somewhat better but unless you are designing an interplanetary spacecraft and need water as a belt to protect against cosmic radiation anyway, I wouldn't bother. And you can't use heavy water as a normal consumption supply because in the end it wrecks your cell chemistry. You'll get sterile and ultimately you die.

 * For protection against hollow charge explosions, water is pretty good but not good enough to be practical for use on vehicles.

 * But perhaps this is not what you are really asking. If e.g. a depth charge would explode in a heavy water ocean, would this lead to greater or lesser damage to a submarine? I'm not quite sure but I presume the expansion and contraction cycle would be intensified, leading to greater damage.--MWAK (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chobham armour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111208004703/http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/content/article/305 to http://tanknutdave.com/component/content/article/305

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Chobham as spacecraft heatshield tiles?
In a recent interview Elon Musk said he was looking at a new kind of tile for re-entry protection on his space craft, but he said he couldn't talk about it because of ITAR. Which made me wonder if perhaps he was looking at some variant of Chobham armor for use as a heat shield. I know there have been several generations of tank armor since the original Chobham of the 70's - does anyone know if any of the technologies over the years would be appropriate for re-entry heat shields? If this is what he's looking into, I would guess some of the older versions would be more likely to be released as dual use technology than the more recent ones. I don't know enough about the properties of Chobham armor to know if it's even appropriate for use in a heat shield - I'm just making a guess here on the basis of Musk's remark about ITER. Comments? 70.124.38.160 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Well, as a matter of fact, the first Soviet investigations for the application of boron carbide in armour elements, were in the context of space technology. But the ceramic tiles in heat shields are optimised for heat isolation and low weight. They are very light and brittle.--MWAK (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chobham armour


text: User talk:170.35.224.63

title: User talk:170.35.224.63


text:
Category:Capitalism

This category is for articles relating to capitalism, an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor.

title: Category:Capitalism