Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!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: reactive armor for ships
Summary: Yup, impractical.
Message-ID: <6201@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 3 May 89 03:12:55 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 16
Approved: military@att.att.com



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

In article <6153@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>The antiship warheads are not shaped charge and ships generally don't have 
>>enough of a hull backing to prevent collateral damage.
>Soviet antiship missiles are believed to use shaped charges, actually.

Yes, but that's not the primary damage mechanism.  ~1000 lbs plus of 
Comb. B equivalent is going to bash a ship regardless of shaped charge.
The shaping will increase the depth of damage, esp. with light armour.

The point is moot.  Figuring a reactive armour charge needs about as much
depth as the warhead, we'd need about 3'.  Plus the foot or so of backing...
Better to just use solid steel.