Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: UKH8%DKAUNI2.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Guenther Augustin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Reactive armour
Message-ID: <1991Feb8.015105.19231@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 8 Feb 91 01:51:05 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 9
Approved: military@att.att.com



From:    "Guenther Augustin"                         <UKH8%DKAUNI2.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
A good reason for using several smaller components of reactive armour
instead of a large one would be the following:
After a first hit the corresponding location is vulnerable. The larger
the component is, the larger the vulnerable area gets.
(No idea about how easy it would be to hit that area again or
what measures are being taken after a hit ... )