Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!tek@CS.UCLA.EDU
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: reactive armor for ships
Message-ID: <6275@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 May 89 00:35:24 GMT
References: <6201@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW))

>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.

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

just a side note to add to this discussion:

Shape charge warheads are becoming popular in warheads for
light-weight torpedos. Apparently, this is fueled by the fear that the
double-hull or titanium hull Soviet subs may too tough to breach with
normal warheads. Of course, I am not suggesting that the Soviets are
going to use reactive armor on their subs. Some people were suggesting
that, we ought to use small nuke warheads on torpedos (eg SKINT).
While easily defeating tough hulls, there are, of course, special
considerations when using nukes.

Ted Kim                           ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:    ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3804C Boelter Hall                PHONE:   (213) 206-8696
Los Angeles, CA 90024             ESPnet:  tek@ouija.board