Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: jlk307@csc.anu.oz Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: HEAT shell question and proposal. Message-ID: <13417@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 23 Jan 90 03:57:35 GMT References: <12756@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13188@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13229@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Computer Services, Australian National University Lines: 49 Approved: military@att.att.com 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