From: joshua geller <joshua@cae.retix.com>
To: perry@imsi.com
Message Hash: c953906005b7cf7edda70d75742660a7e556593cbcc6d06e4a6118c65cf6bdf1
Message ID: <199408251809.LAA08365@sleepy.retix.com>
Reply To: <9408251722.AA05058@snark.imsi.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-08-25 18:09:14 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 11:09:14 PDT
From: joshua geller <joshua@cae.retix.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 11:09:14 PDT
To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: Nuclear Weapons Material
In-Reply-To: <9408251722.AA05058@snark.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <199408251809.LAA08365@sleepy.retix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> Mike McNally says:
> > Mike Duvos writes:
> > > The idea is that the
> > > uranium penetrates the armor and the charge then explodes once
> > > the round is inside.
> > I don't know much about modern munitions, but I do know that armor
> > piercing rounds may have no charge in them at all.
> The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Ammunition, a book that I actually
> possess, makes this claim. According to it, there are two basic kinds
> of armor piercing rounds -- one that involves having a potent thin
> metal projectile usually made of a material like tungsten, that
> penetrates the armor, and one involving having a shaped charge that
> squirts a jet of hot metal through the armor. No one seems to have
> attempted to get explosives through the armor in many many decades.
> None of the forms of modern shells described in this book involve the
> use of depleted uranium in shell casings.
out of curiousity, what does it say under 'sabot'?
josh
Return to August 1994
Return to “tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)”