RE: Real Space Combat Help:

Point well taken. If the relative velocity between the missile and the
target is low, contact explosives will be the most effective...whatever
the explosive. If a nuclear missile contacts a target it will obviously
do more damage than a HEAT missile, but the concepts are basically the
same.

> ----------
> From: 	Darren Douglas[SMTP:ddouglas@vmark.co.uk]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, April 09, 1997 9:00 AM
> To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Subject:	Re: Real Space Combat Help:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Win Barker
> > Imagineer
> > Solutions onQue
> > As to missiles, blast effect is reduced in vacuum so direct contact
> is
> > necessary. I'm talking about blast, not fragmentation, which is much
> > more destructive. A cloud of peanut-sized balls exploded into the
> path
> > of a ship will, depending on the relative velocities, probably rip
> it to
> > shreds.
> > 
> 
> What about heat generated in the coldness of space? 
> The reason for my question is this, if heat
> generation is flesible, then a missle with a modern HEAT (High
> Explosive
> Anti Tank) war head, could the weapon of choice. On contasting ship
> the 
> war head would burn through the ships hull and into the inside causing
> alot of damage.
> 
> If not then nuclear weapons in space would not be that good, little
> fragmentation and not much/no heat. What is left is blast and radition
> and the electronic impluse. Shielding for space travel would probably
> make the last two not that effective. ( i've seen star trek.)
> 
> Darren
>