masticol@paul.rutgers.edu.UUCP (11/04/87)
In article <586@daisy.UUCP> david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) writes: > However, what about non-passive > armor? A gizmo which "sees" the incoming round and reacts, either to > knock it down or to provide a counter-force, in between the bullet and > the armor wearer? The Israelis invented it, the Russians swiped it, and the Americans steadfastly refuse to believe in it. It's called "reactive armor", and it's intended to neutralize conventional antitank rounds. Most armor-piercing missiles and ammunition work by vaporizing a shaped charge of U-238 (used because of its high density, and because there's little demand for it otherwise), which forms a directional plasma jet and pierces armor on impact. Reactive armor consists of chain-mail-like webbing, with each link bearing a tiny box full of high explosive. When an armor-piercing round strikes, the HE explodes and disrupts the plasma jet, rendering the round ineffective. Installation consists of draping it around a tank, or whatever. Not a smart weapon, but very effective - it's rendered a couple of billion dollars' worth of our hyperfancy hi-tec firecrackers worthless. The Warsaw Pact has it installed on their tanks; the U.S. army is still "evaluating."
aoki@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (11/04/87)
Sorry to include the whole thing, but this discussion would be hard to follow otherwise... First, a digression about reactive armor. In article <2039@sabbath.rutgers.edu> masticol@sabbath.rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) writes: >In article <586@daisy.UUCP> david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) writes: > >> However, what about non-passive >> armor? A gizmo which "sees" the incoming round and reacts, either to >> knock it down or to provide a counter-force, in between the bullet and >> the armor wearer? > >The Israelis invented it, the Russians swiped it, and the Americans >steadfastly refuse to believe in it. It's called "reactive armor", and >it's intended to neutralize conventional antitank rounds. Most >armor-piercing missiles and ammunition work by vaporizing a shaped >charge of U-238 (used because of its high density, and because there's >little demand for it otherwise), which forms a directional plasma jet >and pierces armor on impact. I don't know about the U-238. The Phalanx CIWS (the weapon that the Stark's didn't use) uses depleted U-238 for the core of its rounds, but I thought that HEAT rounds usually use something cheaper. Early ones used copper, for example. > Reactive armor consists of >chain-mail-like webbing, with each link bearing a tiny box full of >high explosive. When an armor-piercing round strikes, the HE explodes >and disrupts the plasma jet, rendering the round ineffective. >Installation consists of draping it around a tank, or whatever. > >Not a smart weapon, but very effective - it's rendered a couple of billion >dollars' worth of our hyperfancy hi-tec firecrackers worthless. The >Warsaw Pact has it installed on their tanks; the U.S. army is still >"evaluating." I agree that the Army is being stupid about reactive armor (called "Blazer" by the Israelis). "Worthless" is a bit strong. "Blazer" is useful against light AT weapons but (1) piggyback warheads (as used in the TOW-2A) are supposed to be able to scrub off the reactive armor, (2) you can't put reactive armor everywhere on a tank (the designs for reactive armor that I've seen involve rigid boxes of explosives bolted to the vehicle - there was a Time magazine in, oh, '82 which had a great cover picture of an Israeli M60 with these things stuck on all over the place) which means that you can still kill a tank with older weapons if you hit it where the boxes ain't, and (3) there are plenty of AFVs that they probably won't bother fitting with this stuff - old tanks, APCs, etc. that they count as ATGM-fodder anyway. But back to the original discussion.... The main reason why Blazer is not a panacea against either AT weapons or (if used as some kind of personal protection) against bullets is the fact that the blast isn't strong enough to ward off an armor-piercing round, e.g. a hypervelocity, high-density solid projectile. Can you imagine how strongly your reactive flak vest would kick if it was supposed to deflect something like a uranium-core .30-06? Remember, you're going to be *wearing* this thing. Another good reason not to use reactive armor for personal protection is the possibility for scenes such as: Dirk Manly strode through the subway, secure in his reactive bullet- proof vest. His wide shoulders jostled a crotchety old lady, who promptly jabbed at him with her umbrella.... *BAM!* About the other article about the Phalanx system (mistakenly called "Phoenix" ...can you see a man-portable radar-guided-and-activated system in the future projected by the original poster? Have you ever seen what a Phalanx looks like? I can't see myself wearing anything like that to a party. Plus, the Phalanx works on the principle that hitting a delicate *guided missile* with a relatively small round will knock it out - your projected personal-defense system would have to be able to hit and completely destroy/deflect bullets, grenades, rockets.... Dirk Manly strode through the subway, his personal CIWS perched on his head (for the best field of fire). A mischievous street urchin threw an apple over his head; the CIWS rolled upward and blasted the apple to smithereens, the recoil of the 4mm Gatling gun hurling Dirk to the ground. -- Paul
davids@well.UUCP (11/08/87)
Right, reactive armor using mass-against-mass isn't going to work-- the recoil is a Bad Thing. But what's the recoil of a laser or neutral particle beam strong enough to vaporize and ionize the incoming projectile? The recoil is near zero. (Of course, the battery might be a bit heavy...) So don't sent a bullet to do a beam's job! Like the motto goes: "Use lasers; save lead." -- David Schachter
maddox@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (11/09/87)
In article <21592@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> aoki@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) writes: >>> However, what about non-passive >>> armor? A gizmo which "sees" the incoming round and reacts, either to >>> knock it down or to provide a counter-force, in between the bullet and >>> the armor wearer? >> >...can you see a man-portable radar-guided-and-activated >system in the future projected by the original poster? > Dirk Manly strode through the subway, his personal CIWS perched > on his head (for the best field of fire). A mischievous > street urchin threw an apple over his head; the CIWS rolled upward > and blasted the apple to smithereens, the recoil of the 4mm Gatling > gun hurling Dirk to the ground. Use a gaussrifle. Room temperature superconductors for the magnetic field... Your next problem would be the power source... There's the notion of a superconducting "flywheel" that just hold current, but I wouldn't want to see this: Dirk Manly strode through the subway, his personal CIWS perched on his head (for the best field of fire). Free of worries about recoil, he didn't notice until it was too late that a skinhead with lots of ferrous spikes on his leather jacket was approaching. The magnetic forces in the the superconducting "flywheel" powering the CIWS immediately seized the surprised punk's jacket... Now, how about a small device that sits in your pocket and has sensors in a headband you wear. The thing automatically warps space around you whenever something is flying at you like a bullet, and the bullet flies through a hole in the space-time continuum thirty cm in front of your chest and comes out of the hole thirty cm behind you. You can avoid other problems that brings up by making the creation of such holes only practical with size of perhaps 10cm diameter and a "length" of about 1m and a duration of about half a second. That avoids putting holes in doors so you can reach through and turn the knob on the other side, let yourself in *anywhere* by bypassing walls and other neat stuff like that... /----------------------------------v------------------------------------------\ | Carl Greenberg, guest here | "I have a very firm grasp on reality! I | | ARPA: maddox@ernie.berkeley.edu | can reach out and strangle it any time I | | UUCP: ...ucbvax!ucbernie!maddox | want!" - Me |