Explosive penetrators

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by MetaKron, Feb 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Prisonplanet has an article up about these devastatingly deadly homemade devices: Link

    They make a device that can blow a hole through an armored vehicle and kill the occupants, using a copper disk, some high explosive, and a pipe. I didn't see where they said that these rounds would penetrate a tank, and they probably don't, but they're scary enough when they can do a Humvee. Humvees are pretty fragile anyway even against bullets.

    I have to wonder if they can penetrate the sheathing over DU armor and set the DU on fire, and that's one of the vulnerabilities of DU armor, is that the uranium can actually catch fire, which is the same property that makes it useful as a round of ammunition.

    The article mentions finding a bunch of such disks at a machine shop, but copper can be formed with a hammer, and a disk could be beaten together out of copper coins, copper wire, or bits or brass or bronze. My favorite would probably be to take some house wire and just wind it in the rough shape and pound it until it makes a solid piece of metal.

    This is a classic example of expensive and pretty much useless hi-tech equipment versus very cheap and highly destructive improvised devices. It is also an example of the disadvantage of being the aggressor with supply lines half the circumference of the planet.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    male organ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    EFPs are blowing holes in more than just armor, as I've already mentioned in another thread (and as you obviously understand MetaKron). They're punching regular holes in American strategy. If you scroll down to post # 76, you can get some idea of how relatively simple they are, compared with most munitions. They are becoming highly significant in Iraq, as I remarked in post # 139 of the same thread:


    With dragon's silly post above as one example, it seems as if many Americans don't understand the significants of EFPs, and more broadly miss the serious threat that seemingly low-tech resistance can present to the economic and political underpinnings of the world's mightiest military. Wars of occupation are getting ever more expensive to make, but ever more cheap (in terms of munitions) to bog down.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    It's an excellent force multiplier for the other side when we depend on multi-million dollar armor to try to force our will on these people. The playing field is becoming frighteningly level. A couple of hundred thousand soldiers cannot conquer a nation of around twenty million.

    Americans spend many millions of dollars for the wagon that transports what amounts to a cannon, and if that cannon cannot knock out what is actually shooting at Americans we might as well have left it at home.

    I also have to say that I think it's extraordinary that anyone puts any stock in a tank whose metallic sheathing can actually be set on fire.
     
  8. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    The most explosive penetrating device I know of......
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Please, no details. Genji is bad enough.
     
  10. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    It is really hard to decide whether this belongs in World Events or in the General Science subforum. If these devices can penetrate a tank all that DU shielding is worse than useless. They would be better off using some kind of concrete, which would most likely stop a few of those rounds while weighing a lot less and having no radiation hazard. Thinking about it that way makes it an engineering question. I've never wanted our troops to be in danger, one of the reasons that I write warnings about the obvious mistakes in invading Iraq.
     
  11. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    ohhh...these devices can penetrate anything.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. weed_eater_guy It ain't broke, don't fix it! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    well, these vehicles wern't designed to handle this really. the Abrams is an AWESOME tank-to-tank weapon, as we've demonstrated twice in Iraq, but we need to use them like APCs now due to unconventionality. We get our money's worth only when we use them for what they were intended for.

    Spending millions on the hardware that can be destroyed so cheaply pays off in some scenarios, but not so much in a situation that's significantly different such as in Iraq with these boobytraps.
     
  13. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    I wonder how a few of these insurgents would like to see their wives and children's faces infront of one of these explosive charges?

    That's a way to handle a guerilla.
     
  14. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    There was no way to keep this from getting political, of course, which is why I was conflicted about where to put it. The fact is, Prince James, that the "insurgents" are trying to repel an illegal invasion just like we would.

    A funny thing is that some of the worst dictatorships in the world seem to trust their people with heavy duty weapons a lot more than the United States government does. Maybe some of them take the attitude that if their citizens are armed it will be too costly for an invader to take their country, and if the citizens choose to turn the weapons against their government, then may the best group win.
     
  15. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    "There was no way to keep this from getting political..."

    True, but the technical aspects are interesting too. When "anonymous officials" were emphasising that EFPs in Iraq must be sourced in Iran, I got curious about the technology.

    Basically, an EFP is a charge with an integrated malleable projectile. Focusing the charge in order to squish out a fast, cohesive molten projectile requires only a little special dimensional knowledge. Materials-wise, it's typically a short fat pipe-bomb with a shaped copper plug at one end. I would imagine that from photographic evidence, an effective EFP could be developed easily without the actual dimensional data through simple trial-and-error.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Or could it be that dimensional data for constructing EFPs is available on the internet? (????)

    It's a similar reality to that of EMP/HERF weapons: They can be made just about anywhere by just about anybody, and their potential for disruption is considerable... but that's the political part.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2007
  16. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    It's a copper bowl. That shape was made by hand thousands of years ago. I doubt if it needs to be too nearly perfect.
     
  17. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    One thing that a lot of people don't understand is that if you want to direct the energy of a blast, all you need is mass. A sandbag will help direct the force where you want it to go, by Newton's laws.

    The only reason that Shrub wants to blame Iran is so that he can excuse attacking it next. Iraq was a way for us to defeat ourselves by essentially pounding sand, and Iran is more of the same. The one best way to defeat one's self is to expend one's own energy without result. There are no results to be had in either country.
     
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Sure you need mass ...but a few lousy sandbags aint' gonna' cut it! Which is exactly why you need a higher level of technology, which the terrorists are hard-pressed to manufacture. After all, they can't carry a couple of tons of precision machining equipment around on their backs!

    Baron Max
     
  19. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Yes, sandbags will cut it. The lowest tech, as long as you have explosives, would be nails, bits of glass, rocks, and put some kind of mass behind it like a sandbag to reflect the force that would tend to push the explosion away from the material that is being used as a projectile.

    There is no great precision needed in one of these penetrators. The copper wraps itself around the gases evolved by the explosive. It turns into a giant red hot spitwad.
     
  20. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    You're obviously wrong, MetaKron, as evidenced by the amount of damage that the NEW explosive devices have as compared to the old, handmade designs of the past. Or haven't you been keeping up with the news?

    Baron Max
     
  21. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Baron, all we're doing is talking past each other here. A sandbag is an improvement on simply setting the device out in the open, and the pipe with the copper bowl attacked is an improvement on the sandbag. A similar thing could be done with a shaped depression in a mass of sand especially if the sand was wet, or in clay, but it wouldn't be as reliable.
     
  22. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Baron Max "the terrorists... can't carry a couple of tons of precision machining equipment around on their backs!

    There does not seem to be any requirement for tons of precision machining equipment to produce EFP devices. The most sophisticated thing that may be needed to produce EFP liners is a common lathe, like used in common shops anywhere: For example, lathes for turning automotive brake discs. And even a lathe may in fact be superfluous: It isn't new or exotic technology to beat, melt, or otherwise form copper to an accurate mold.

    "You're obviously wrong, MetaKron, as evidenced by the amount of damage that the NEW explosive devices have as compared to the old, handmade designs of the past."

    It seems that you are comparing IEDs used in Iraq with the IEDs that are incorporating EFPs. There is no evidence that industrial production is necessary in making EFPs.

    The blast-focusing you are discussing is less of an issue with EFPs, because the device directs the shockwaves to the penetrator, and the penetrator does the damage, in other words the necessary tamping is accomplished within the weapon, and the penetrator is not influenced by external tamping. With explosives that do not inherently direct energy, tamping can be more of a factor.
     
  23. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    It's really going to be a tough sell to me that a tank is worth having when its hull is made of an incendiary material. They'd be better off sheathing the thing in fiberglass and vermiculite on top of a good heavy layer of steel.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page