Talk:Glacis

Military history: Fortifications / Land vehicles

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Military land vehicles task force

Oppose split

I think that this article should remain together. Each section is very short, and I don't think that they warrant having their own separate articles. If more detail is added to them, then maybe splitting them up would be warranted, but not now.--Tabun1015 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took the words right out of my mouth. I agree, that there's really no reason to split it into different sections until the two definitions have enough information to stand alone. Besides, they're highly related topics. Kevin 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing cannonballs?

The article state:

The glacis was originally designed to protect stone fortifications, as vertical walls could easily be smashed down by artillery fire.
The glacis deflected incoming cannonballs by providing a springy, sloping surface which the cannonballs bounced off, landing behind the fragile stone fortifications.

Does anyone have any reference to theese statements? They do not seem sound to me. Imo. the glacis is formed to give the attaker as little shelter as possible. If the defender's fire missed hiting the first line, it would hit in the the next, making the defenders fire as effective as possible.

As for bouncing cannonballs - most siege artillery at the time was mortars with a high trajectory. Imo if flat firing artillery was used, the granade would either dig into the glacis, hit the rampart or pass over it. KjellG (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't mortars used to destroy the defenders themselves, rather than the walls, precisely because of the near impossibility of destroying a fortress' walls at this point in history? JWAbrams (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tank use incorrect

The description of the glacis plate on an AFV is incorrect, at least for UK use. The glacis plate is the sloping TOP (roof) section of the front of the hull deck. The backward-sloping plate below ( the lower) is the bow plate. Ian Dunster (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but do not have any good reference. KjellG (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not entirely true, isn't it?

Sloping it has two powerful advantages: many projectiles will deflect rather than penetrate; those that attempt to will have to travel on a longer diagonal route through any given thickness of armor than if it were perpendicular to their trajectory.

I'm ok with the first. The second advantage however is almost entirely eaten by the added weight of sloped armor. Why is this not mentioned?--217.248.19.21 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any difference to 'talus'? Merge?

See even in this article:

"Glacises, also called taluses..."

The linked article is talus (fortification).

So? Merge? Arminden (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a completely ignored proposal in Oct. 2022 at

Talk:Talus (fortification)#Merger Proposal

Arminden (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]