Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!cory.Berkeley.EDU!aoki
From: aoki@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: War Games (was: Future Police Speculations Needed)
Message-ID: <21592@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 4-Nov-87 03:23:47 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.21592
Posted: Wed Nov  4 03:23:47 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Nov-87 20:39:13 EST
References: <1463@haddock.ISC.COM> <1824@trex.rutgers.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: aoki@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 85
Keywords: blazer armor ATGM

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