Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!cbnews!maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Ship armor
Summary: Reactive armour is BAD...
Message-ID: <6075@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 29 Apr 89 01:24:22 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert)

In article <5987@cbnews.ATT.COM> pschmidt@bbn.com (Peter H. Schmidt) writes:
>How about reactive armor for ships?  Advantages: light, relatively inexpensive
>(compared to re-armoring with steel), removable, and upgradable (easy to
>install a new generation of armor to defeat a new missile).
>Disadvantages, anyone?

Aagh! Yes, there are disatvantages.
Reactive armour operates by firing a Milder explosion outwards from the casing
to disrupt the jet of a shaped antitank warhead.  It requires that there be
a: a shaped charge penetrator-type attack and
b: a hefty amout of backing armour, cuz the 'milder' explosion is not so mild
	overall.  for instance: don't stand next to a tank when a reacive
	armour box blows.  it's fatal.

The antiship warheads are not shaped charge and ships generally don't have 
enough of a hull backing to prevent collateral damage.

george william herbert 
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu