Talk:Plastic armour

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force

Chobham armour

Does anyone know if this is the precursor of the modern Chobham armour?KTo288 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reactive armor?

This armor seems to be similar to non-explosive Reactive armor. Should there be a 'see also' link at the bottom, to help people who are trying to learn about armor in general? EricWesBrown (Talk) 03:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more like reactive armour than it's like Chobham or spaced armour. There is already a category, it would probably be useful to add a new navbox. I don't see a See also list as the best way to proceed, because that's either just picking single examples (why choose that example?), or else would start to become a poorly formatted navbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Isn't this page slightly POV? As with "...Department of Naval Construction coyly insisted on referring to it as plastic protection", or "...it probably did not hurt that Terrell had shares in the company." It's the overall tone, more than any specific entry that doesn't have a completely encyclopedic tone. --Amendola90 (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]