gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) (01/04/90)
From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) I was reading some information about HEAT rounds lately, and was wondering if this idea has been tested. In the article, it was stated the spinning an HEAT shell caused it to lose penetration ability, this makes sence, the gass would have a tendency to spin as it fired, and lose energy more quickly. So, they moved to a smoothbore gun. This prevents the spin, and thus produces greater penetration. Then came this box armour with a charge in it that would explode when the core of the heat shell melted (that is essentially what happens) through it. This explosion disrupted the molten jet and prevented extensive penetration. The problem then is to again allow the warhead's shaped charge to seal against the actual armour and before detenating rather than having it detenate against the boxlike covering allowing the jet to be disrupted. Has anyone tried to marry a hard cap onto the top of a heat round? In essence, what I see as advantageous it to penetrate the box armour with a hard penetrator that will get through that and any of the front of the 12-15 " of armour on the front of a t-80, then as the penetrator begins to slow, the collapes of the penetrator triggers the HEAT round. It would be a combination of a penetrating round and HEAT. The penetrator gets past the box, and the HEAT can defeat the standard armour. This seems too easy to me, but I could not think of any technical reasons why it would not work, only some unknowns. Can the penetrator get a wide enough hole in the box (I wish I could remember what the stuff is called, ah, REACTIVE(!), what a dolt.) that the HEAT would not set of an explosion that would ruin the jet? The other problem is that it may be too short a range, though it shouldn't unless the reactive armour is thicker and more resistant to penetration than I think. Any comments? Please. Greg Hooten
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (01/05/90)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <12756@cbnews.ATT.COM> gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) writes: > The problem then is to again >allow the warhead's shaped charge to seal against the actual armor . . . As I read what you wrote, I think what you _mean_ is that you want to know if there is some way to blow through the reactive layer, so that the HEAT jet is directed against the main armor, rather than the reactive armor. 'Sealing' the shaped charge against the armor reduces the penetration; a shaped charge needs a standoff to develop the jet properly for maximum penetration. This is why the probes were added to TOW missiles. >Has anyone tried to marry a hard cap onto the top of a heat >round? < description of the action of the cap to penetrate the > < reactive armor, allowing the shaped charge to impact > < the main armor deleted > I don't think this will work well in practice, because any penetrating cap solid enough to penetrate the reactive layer will just add to the armor thickness the shaped charge has to penetrate. The increased weight of the penetrating cap will reduce the velocity of the round, limiting the range, or force a reduction in the size of the shaped charge, reducing the penetration of the round further. It is claimed that the penetrating ability of existing shaped-charge warheads against the front armor of front-line Soviet tanks is marginal at best; adding more armor as part of the shell seems counterproductive. >This seems too easy to me, but I could not think of any >technical reasons why it would not work, only some unknowns. It may be worth looking into; I'm not an expert by any means. >Can the penetrator get a wide enough hole in the box . . . > . . . that the HEAT would not set of an explosion that >would ruin the jet? All it needs to do is punch a hole larger than the diameter of the jet. The armor qualities of explosive materials shouldn't be that impressive. Another problem I see comes from a picture of a Soviet tank I saw in the December issue of Jane's Soviet Intelligence, which had three layers of reactive armor boxes bolted onto the turret. Multiple layers of reactive armor would be resistant to penetration by this method. |Applications programming is a Sean Malloy |race between software engineers, Navy Personnel Research & Development Center |who strive to produce idiot-proof San Diego, CA 92152-6800 |programs, and the Universe, which malloy@nprdc.navy.mil |strives to produce bigger idiots. |So far, the Universe is winning.
johnson@BRL.MIL (W. Donald Johnson) (01/05/90)
From: "W. Donald Johnson" <johnson@BRL.MIL> In article <12756@cbnews.ATT.COM> gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) writes: > > >From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) > > In the article, >it was stated the spinning an HEAT shell caused it to lose >penetration ability, this makes sence, the gass would have a >tendency to spin as it fired, and lose energy more quickly. >So, they moved to a smoothbore gun. This prevents the spin, >and thus produces greater penetration. The spinning of the HEAT round performs an important function. The forces induced by spinning arms the fuze on U.S. HEAT rounds as I understand it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the M830 round (120mm smoothbore HEAT round) spins up after exiting the tube ( canted fins?) in order to arm the fuze. Also I believe the spinning round is more accurate. > Then came this box >armour with a charge in it that would explode when the core of >the heat shell melted (that is essentially what happens) >through it. This explosion disrupted the molten jet and >prevented extensive penetration. The formation of the jet sets off the applique armor. >Has anyone tried to marry a hard cap onto the top of a heat >round? In essence, what I see as advantageous it to penetrate >the box armour with a hard penetrator that will get through >that and any of the front of the 12-15 " of armour on the >front of a t-80, then as the penetrator begins to slow, the >collapes of the penetrator triggers the HEAT round. In order for an effective HEAT jet to form requires a certain amount of standoff. THat is when the fuze comes in contact with the armor (whether inherent tank armor or a reactive applique) it sets off the high exposive charge which is situated some distance back from the point of contact. If the jet does not have time to form properly, it loses it penetration capability. > >Greg Hooten Don Johnson The above statements are mine alone and do not reflect U.S. Army or DoD policy.
bxr307@csc.anu.oz (01/08/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz I am surprised that no one in the military is looking at the use of HESH (H.E. Squash Head or HEP to the US people out there) as a counter to reactive armour as used by the Soviets on their latest tanks. I would have thought that something like the 120mm HESH round used by the British Army in their Chieftains and Challengers would have been the perfect solution. It would literally "blow off" the reactive armour boxes and leave large gaping holes in their covering of the main armour plate as well as severely disabling the vehicles crew (cuncussion), perhaps killing them (by the scabbing of secondary projectiles off the inner armour) and destroying or damaging most of the vehicles optical/optronic systems through the cuncussion. I see the days of the HEAT round are numbered by the development of reactive armour. While such things as top attack profiles for missiles will help for a time, eventually they will also be defeated by simply coating the top of the target with reactive armour boxes as well. However if HESH is adopted for missile warheads then the problems with reactive armour will be largely negated. Brian Ross
tiwasawa@netxdev.DHL.COM (Takashi Iwasawa) (01/08/90)
From: tiwasawa@netxdev.DHL.COM (Takashi Iwasawa) In article <12756@cbnews.ATT.COM> gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) writes: > > >From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) > >I was reading some information about HEAT rounds lately, and >was wondering if this idea has been tested. In the article, >it was stated the spinning an HEAT shell caused it to lose >penetration ability, this makes sence, the gass would have a >tendency to spin as it fired, and lose energy more quickly. Actually, most shaped charges have a solid liner that forms a molten jet when the shaped charge explodes. This molten jet provides much more penetration than just the gases from the explosion. >So, they moved to a smoothbore gun. This prevents the spin, >and thus produces greater penetration. Then came this box >armour with a charge in it that would explode when the core of >the heat shell melted (that is essentially what happens) >through it. This explosion disrupted the molten jet and >prevented extensive penetration. This was first used operationally by the Israelis, who called it Blazer. The generic name for the concept is reactive armor. > The problem then is to again >allow the warhead's shaped charge to seal against the actual >armour and before detenating rather than having it detenate >against the boxlike covering allowing the jet to be disrupted. > You don't want the shaped charge to be right up against the armour, because the molten jet needs time/space to form. I don't have my references here, but I think that for precision formed shaped charges penetration increases with standoff distance (distance from armour to forward end of shaped charge) up to 5 or 6 charge diameters. For a TOW with the 6 inch warhead, that means 25 or 30 inches, ideally. That's why the new TOW warheads have long spikes that stick out in front; they increase penetration by increasing standoff, though they can't be long enough to be optimal. >Has anyone tried to marry a hard cap onto the top of a heat >round? In essence, what I see as advantageous it to penetrate >the box armour with a hard penetrator that will get through >that and any of the front of the 12-15 " of armour on the >front of a t-80, then as the penetrator begins to slow, the >collapes of the penetrator triggers the HEAT round. It would >be a combination of a penetrating round and HEAT. The >penetrator gets past the box, and the HEAT can defeat the >standard armour. > >This seems too easy to me, but I could not think of any >technical reasons why it would not work, only some unknowns. >Can the penetrator get a wide enough hole in the box (I wish I >could remember what the stuff is called, ah, REACTIVE(!), what >a dolt.) that the HEAT would not set of an explosion that >would ruin the jet? > This probably isn't workable because: 1. The hard penetrator and structure to hold it at the desirable standoff distance is heavy. HEAT is used instead of a kinetic penetrator (which is much less affected by modern armour devel- opments like Chobham armour and reactive armour) because it is light and doesn't need high velocities (which means more weight in launcher or propulsion system), so this is very undesirable. 2. If the hard penetrator is big enough and moving fast enough to push aside enough of the reactive armour, it might set off the reactive armour. Admittedly, the Israelis claim that rifle bullets won't set off Blazer, so maybe (a BIG MAYBE) this is not a problem. 3. The HEAT warhead isn't guaranteed to hit the enemy armour at right angles. In fact, HEAT warhead designers spend a lot of time trying to make sure the warhead goes off even when it hits at a shallow angle. The addition of a hard cap and the delay in initiation of the fuse will almost certainly cause glancing hits to deflect or not go off at all. 4. Now, assuming the hard penetrator has shoved a hole in the reactive armour and the shaped charge has gone off properly, the molten jet has to go through your hard penetrator before it can even start to attack the enemy armour. Even worse, if the enemy doesn't have reactive armour, you've degraded your penetration to no purpose. >The other problem is that it may be too short a range, though >it shouldn't unless the reactive armour is thicker and more >resistant to penetration than I think. > I don't understand this part. The reactive armour is just a slab of plastic explosive cased in light boxes, I think. >Any comments? Please. > >Greg Hooten I hope that you find my comments useful. I am solely responsible for my comments; neither my company nor the US government bear any responsibility or credit for them. If I've made any mistakes, I'm sure someone on the net will tell me in no uncertain terms :-) Takashi Iwasawa Net Express Communications, Inc. Suite 300 1953 Gallows Road Vienna, VA 22182 (703) 749-2768 (work) (703) 742-6631 (home) tiwasawa@netxdev.UUCP
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) (01/09/90)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <12882@cbnews.ATT.COM> bxr307@csc.anu.oz writes: > > I am surprised that no one in the military is looking at the use of >HESH (H.E. Squash Head or HEP to the US people out there) as a counter to >reactive armour as used by the Soviets on their latest tanks. I am certainly not an ordanance expert, but this is what I have heard about HESH and its cousins. HESH works by spreading explosive material on the surface of the armor and then detonates. As a result, it is quite sensitive to the shape and regularity of armor surface. For example, if it strikes a steeply sloped plate, the explosive will be poorly distributed with a glob where it hit and a too thin sheet further out. With reactive armor boxes, the surface may be quite irregular and thus presents a difficult target to have the explosive set right. > ... >It would literally "blow off" the reactive armour boxes and leave large gaping >holes in their covering of the main armour plate as well as severely disabling >the vehicles crew (cuncussion), perhaps killing them (by the scabbing of >secondary projectiles off the inner armour) and destroying or damaging most of >the vehicles optical/optronic systems through the cuncussion. It could certainly scrape off a lot of reactive armor. However, the amount of force transmitted to the underlying armor and interior would depend on quite a bit on a good distribution of the explosive. Followup rounds may have that much better chance of getting through. I suppose, conventional fragmenting HE could also scrape off reactive armor too. They could be followed by armor piercing stuff. -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696
gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) (01/10/90)
From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) In article <12888@cbnews.ATT.COM> tiwasawa@netxdev.DHL.COM (Takashi Iwasawa) writes: >This probably isn't workable because: > >>The other problem is that it may be too short a range, though >>it shouldn't unless the reactive armour is thicker and more >>resistant to penetration than I think. >> >I don't understand this part. The reactive armour is just a slab >of plastic explosive cased in light boxes, I think. > > What I ment was that the explosive has to be held in some type of armoured box. If the box is half inch plate steel (for example) then the penetrator for my HEAT warhead does not need to be very heavy duty compared to the 12-15 inches of armour that the heat has to penetrate. It would seem that the penetrator would just be turned into more molten jet. It is the box and the slab that the penetrator needs to get through, and the less this is, the less dense the penetrator needs to be. As to weight, this might not be significant in tank weapons, but would be for missiles. I was mainly talking about tank guns because I had never heard of a penetrtor type weapon in a missile system. As to hitting square on the armour, I had no thought really of it hitting square, sealing against the armour was a very poor choice of words. I always picture the panzerfaust with a flat head meeting armour and exploding, antiquated, but the image I seem to see. I guess the wat ot go about this would be to have the penetrator on the end of the standoff rod allowing penetration and standoff. >I hope that you find my comments useful. I am solely responsible > > Takashi Iwasawa > tiwasawa@netxdev.UUCP Very, thanks Greg
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (01/11/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz > I am surprised that no one in the military is looking at the use of >HESH (H.E. Squash Head or HEP to the US people out there) as a counter to >reactive armour... >... literally "blow off" the reactive armour boxes and leave large gaping >holes in their covering of the main armour plate as well as severely disabling >the vehicles crew (cuncussion), perhaps killing them (by the scabbing of >secondary projectiles off the inner armour) and destroying or damaging most of >the vehicles optical/optronic systems through the cuncussion... HESH is not magic. I doubt that all these effects will be available at the same time. Any explosion -- HESH, HEAT, whatever -- on the exterior of the tank will get rid of some of the reactive armor. Whether the holes will be big enough to exploit is a harder question. I'm a bit skeptical about the concussion effects being so much greater; do remember that a HEAT warhead has quite a bit of explosive in it. And the scabbing effect works well only for single-plate armor, while most modern armor is multi-layer. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
bxr307@csc.anu.oz (01/12/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz From: att!utzoo!henry >>From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz >> I am surprised that no one in the military is looking at the use of >>HESH (H.E. Squash Head or HEP to the US people out there) as a counter to >>reactive armour... >>... literally "blow off" the reactive armour boxes and leave large gaping >>holes in their covering of the main armour plate as well as severely disabling >>the vehicles crew (cuncussion), perhaps killing them (by the scabbing of >>secondary projectiles off the inner armour) and destroying or damaging most of >>the vehicles optical/optronic systems through the cuncussion... >HESH is not magic. I doubt that all these effects will be available at the >same time. Any explosion -- HESH, HEAT, whatever -- on the exterior of the >tank will get rid of some of the reactive armor. Whether the holes will be >big enough to exploit is a harder question. I'm a bit skeptical about the >concussion effects being so much greater; do remember that a HEAT warhead >has quite a bit of explosive in it. And the scabbing effect works well >only for single-plate armor, while most modern armor is multi-layer. I never claimed that HESH was magic. What I was discussing was the possible merits of the use of HESH against reactive armour. The British army has never abondoned HESH. In their MBT's HESH is the main secondary round loaded after APFSDS. HEAT is carried in far fewer numbers than HESH (HESH has a useful secondary use as a substitute HE round, whereas HEAT has not). As to the effect of multi-layer armour I would have thought that HEAT was just as badly affected by such things (wasn't CHOBHAM armour designed to defeat HEAT by using a multi-layer effect backed by ceramic to prevent the jet penetrating?) I would have thought though, that even with multi-layered armour that HESH's shockwave would still have been trasmitted through, whereas with HEAT the multiple layers would have prevented the plasma jet from penetrating as far. While HESH, would I am sure, remove the reactive armour boxes by blast effect HEAT would just detonate one or two of the surrounding boxes and be prevented from penetrating. In addition I'm sure that the blast from a HESH round going off right next to a vehicle's armour, while not actually penetrating would have useful side effects on the performance of the vehicles optics and crew (ie damage and disorientate them). Another possible solution which I have only just thought of, would be to fire multiple projectiles at the one target. The first being HESH to remove the reactive armour and the second following immediately after to strike the same spot to penetrate. The Germans built and trialled a few years ago a Leopard II hull mounting two 120mm guns in a casement hull with auto-loaders as a possible replacement for the Leopard II. The guns of such a vehicle could be computer controlled to fire with an intersecting line of sight on a target (the German vehicle had the guns mounted on the outside edges of the hull, if they were mounted along the central axis, either side-by-side or one above the other this problem would be solved more easily). This would allow two rounds to be fired on the one target with a high chance of the two rounds striking the one spot (or very close by). If ATGW were being used instead I'm sure the problem would be even more easily solved with a twin missile launcher which fires two missiles a few seconds apart and has the second automatically following the first (perhaps using IR guidance homing on a flare on the tail of the first, or even better yet just its exhaust plume). [mod.note: The next logical development of this, I submit, would be to have *both* rounds fired from the same weapon, so that one strikes just after the other in exactly the same spot. This is, in effect, what the new generation antitank missiles will do. They mount two charges, a small charge in the nose to detonate the reactive armor, and a larger, penetrating charge further back, which fires once the reactive armor has been removed. Presuming, naturally, that this scheme works... of which Germany and France, at least, seem convinced. - Bill ] While a kinetic energy round is, has been suggested by another contributor perhaps the best solution to the reactive armour problem such a solution is a difficult solution for small weapons like the infantry missile. Even in the tanks the development limits are being reached with regards to conventional guns. The NATO countries are looking at 140mm guns for future MBT's to defeat expected Warsaw Pact advances in armour technology. However this is starting to get to the practicable size limit of a round that can be loaded by hand in a single piece. This could mean the death of the loader in the tank crew (which has been on the cards for quite a while). However this is something that will most probably occur anyway with the demographic & economic problems being encountered in most Western societies. One possible alternative to the more exotic types of gun, like the liquid propellant weapons and rail guns is the hypervelocity gun. I know the Canadians towards the end of WWII were doing some interesting experiments with a 6 Lb (57mm) AT gun sleeved down to fire 2 Lb (40mm) projectiles (using a 6 Lb case & charge). I was wondering if anybody (apart from the Isrealis with their 60mm weapon) had followed this up in regards to main tank armament. Perhaps a 105mm round propelled by a 120mm sized charge would be more useful than a 140mm gun (with all its attendant penalties). This would create a hypervelocity gun at little expense and allow use of already established production lines for ammunition and gun mounts, etc. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- "It won't be _that_ hot, surely?" Asked Mrs.Bloggs "Well, I don't know - they say the one at Hiroshima was equal to one thousand suns. So it is _quite_ hot and besides, The Powers That Be are making much better ones now. Science has leaped forward with giant strides." Declared Jim Bloggs quite happily as he prepared for the expected nuclear attack by whitewashing the windows. From "When the Wind Blows" by Raymond Biggs ----------------------------------------|-Snail Mail------------------------ E-Mail Addresses:- bxr307@coombs.anu.oz | Brian Ross | Sociology Dept.,R.S.S.S. bxr307@csc.anu.oz | Australian National University | CANBERRA,A.C.T.,2601, | AUSTRALIA | _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
dxb105@uunet.uu.net (01/16/90)
From: munnari!csc1.anu.oz.au!dxb105@uunet.uu.net
There's been a lot of discussion lately on how to make HEAT rounds penetrate
reactive armour, but it seems to me thte most dramatic effect reactive armour
is going to have is on tank vs. infantry, ie. shaped-charge tipped rockets. I'd
like to know what ideas have been proposed for using _rockets_ on reactive
armour, and whether the idea below makes sense (and if I've made any errors of
fact).
Briefly, use a self-forging fragment (a la `Skeet') fired from a missile as it
passes over the tank. For those who haven't heard the term, the idea is to use
a shaped explosion to produce not a molten jet, but a slug of (your favourite
material and mine) depleted uranium. I understand a skeet warhead only weighs
about 2kg; it benefits from attacking the weak overhead armour.
The only obvious (to me) technical problem is that of guiding the missile to
detonate at the right instant. Also, how much does the usual warhead of, say, a
TOW weigh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger ACSNet: dxb105@phys0.anu.oz[.au]
Snail: Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysS, ANU, ACT, 2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is the logic of our times
No subject for immortal verse
That we, who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse." -- C.D. Lewisterryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (01/17/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <13188@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!csc1.anu.oz.au!dxb105@uunet.uu.net writes: > >Briefly, use a self-forging fragment (a la `Skeet') fired from a missile as it >passes over the tank. For those who haven't heard the term, the idea is to use >a shaped explosion to produce not a molten jet, but a slug of (your favourite >material and mine) depleted uranium. I understand a skeet warhead only weighs >about 2kg; it benefits from attacking the weak overhead armour. > >The only obvious (to me) technical problem is that of guiding the missile to >detonate at the right instant. Also, how much does the usual warhead of, say, a >TOW weigh? The technical problems apparently have been largely solved. The Swedish BILL and the new TOW IIB (?) have both been successfully test fired and attack the top armor of the target. The problem is with the self-forging projectile (SFP). Most SFPs really on the eplosion of a hsaped charge warhead to form the projectile. Matter of fact, most modern shaped charge warheads include a liner to get the extra effect of a SFP after armor penetration. A weapon as you propose would have to have sufficient stand-off so that the explosive jet never came into proximity to the reative armor, otherwise it might set it off thus disrupting the jet and the SFP. Now that we have sufficient stand off, the SFP must have enough kinetic energy to penetrate the armor, assuming it isn't disrupted by going through materials of different density as it passes through the reactive armor and backing plates. It sounds plausible I dont' know enough about the physics of the 'molten' plug to determine if it would not disrupt and have sufficient energy to penetrate. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
animage%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Cal-Animage Club) (01/20/90)
From: animage%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Cal-Animage Club) In article <13188@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!csc1.anu.oz.au!dxb105@uunet.uu.net writes: >From: munnari!csc1.anu.oz.au!dxb105@uunet.uu.net >There's been a lot of discussion lately on how to make HEAT rounds penetrate >reactive armour, but it seems to me thte most dramatic effect reactive armour >is going to have is on tank vs. infantry, ie. shaped-charge tipped rockets. I'd >like to know what ideas have been proposed for using _rockets_ on reactive >armour, and whether the idea below makes sense (and if I've made any errors of >fact). Aw, hell. It seems apparent to me that it's becoming more and more complicated and expensiveto try to think and research ways of defeating reactive armor. Has anyone even thought about disabling the tank WITHOUT having to blast it to pieces? Why don't we just go with a simple and cheap solution of firing gooey substances that get sucked into a tank's engine that react thermally and expand choking out the air intake into the engine thereby immobilizing the tank by killing the engine. Heck, if it can't move it can't bother anyone and if you fire enough of them, they can stop an entire tank column very very quickly. Who says you gotta destroy all your enemies, when just immobilizing them and making them squirm is 10 times more enjoyable. Plus non-moving targets are easier to hit than moving targets. :-) The Daimyo "War is a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it."
jlk307@csc.anu.oz (01/23/90)
From: jlk307@csc.anu.oz In article <13229@cbnews.ATT.COM>, terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) writes: > From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) > In article <13188@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!csc1.anu.oz.au!dxb105@uunet.uu.net writes: >> >>Briefly, use a self-forging fragment (a la `Skeet') fired from a missile as it >>passes over the tank. For those who haven't heard the term, the idea is to use >>a shaped explosion to produce not a molten jet, but a slug of (your favourite >>material and mine) depleted uranium. I understand a skeet warhead only weighs >>about 2kg; it benefits from attacking the weak overhead armour. > > The problem is with the self-forging projectile (SFP). Most SFPs > really on the eplosion of a hsaped charge warhead to form the > projectile. Matter of fact, most modern shaped charge warheads > include a liner to get the extra effect of a SFP after armor > penetration. A weapon as you propose would have to have sufficient > stand-off so that the explosive jet never came into proximity to the > reative armor, otherwise it might set it off thus disrupting the jet > and the SFP. Now that we have sufficient stand off, the SFP must have > enough kinetic energy to penetrate the armor, assuming it isn't > disrupted by going through materials of different density as it passes > through the reactive armor and backing plates. It sounds plausible I > dont' know enough about the physics of the 'molten' plug to determine > if it would not disrupt and have sufficient energy to penetrate. However even this can be countered very easily with reactive armour. By coating the top of the hull with reactive armour elements in multiple layers the overhead attack profile of the new weapons can be easily defeated. In fact a recent copy of Janes Defence Weekly had a picture of a Soviet T64 tank carrying triple layered reactive armour on top of the turret. While it heightens the silhouette of the vehicle it certianly would be effective in stopping a top attack by a HEAT warhead. Additionally the multiple layers would have a certain amount of effect on the use of SFP as even if it penetrated the top two layers the third would most probably explode and deflect it from it course and prevent it from penetrating the tanks main armour. One thing though I have not noted in this discussion is the possible side effects of the use of reactive armour on your own troops. Whereas in the past troops have tended to cluster closely to armoured vehicles for protection (or in the case of Soviet Tank riders for transportation) won't all these lovely little boxes of plastic explosive going off on the tank or APC nearby produce secondary projectiles (ie splinters) from the armoured boxes which will tend to cause casualties amongst your own troops? Perhaps a solution would be to make the boxes from some sort of plastic armour (ie Kevlar or Nylon) which would burst rather than splinter (ie as steel boxes would) when they explode? Jonathan Kelley
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/24/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: animage%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Cal-Animage Club) >... Why don't we just go with a simple and cheap >solution of firing gooey substances that get sucked into a tank's engine ... At least one idea along these lines has already been proposed: a shell that produces a cloud of acetylene. Even a few percent of acetylene in the air going into an engine will very quickly wreck it due to preignition. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu