Re: [GZG] Mine resistant vehicles

[Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ryan Gill wrote:

> >The basic idea is from WWII, designs were developed in the 1960s, I have
> >an open-source Bundeswehr technical article from the 1980 with
> >considerable details.
>
>The machining characteristics are supposed to be very trickly. Not so hard 
>if you get an exact template, but you're up to some serious quality 
>control issues. The degree of tolerances are FAR less flexible than they 
>are for traditional shaped charges. An EFP will not have as effective of 
>performance in depth of armor penetrated than an equivalent shaped charge.

Replying in reverse order:

- The last few words above should be "...than an equivalent HEAT charge"; 
EFPs are shaped charges too.

- An EFP will never have as good armour penetration as a similar-diameter 
HEAT warhead of comparable manufacturing quality, since the EFP trades away 
penetration to gain its comparatively huge stand-off.

- As for the manufacturing tolerances needed, the EFP submunitions used in 
today's BONUS, SADARM and similar MAK-style artillery munitions have 
stand-off ranges of approx. 200 meters so even a tiny deviation will cause 
the slug to miss; and that does require very high-quality manufacturing 
indeed. However, a road-side mine doesn't need a 200+ meter standoff; 20-30 
meters is plenty sufficient... which allows it to use far looser 
manufacturing tolerances and still both hit and hurt the target.

Regards,

Oerjan
orjan.ariander1@xxxxxxxxx

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l