From: Jack (milveh@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 - 10:49:12 PST
Rick thank you for your comments. My expertise is
mostly as an armor user, not a designer, so forgive me
if my idea is flawed and it may be.
That said, I would still think it better to have
something between me and the IED than nothing and this
would sure be quick and easy.
I understand the theory about compression to increase
blast energy, but in high explosives typically being
off center and 4 to 10 feet from the target, I can't
see how that works against the method I suggested?
My limited experience tells me such IED's tend to
release energy unequally, more blast follows to an
open area, less to points of resistance, unless a
shape charge is used point blank. In the large
artillery shell situation the blast energy loss is a
moot point because it is just so overwhelming. An
armored HMMWV is at great risk and an unarmored truck
has zero chance of survival.
A lesson from the slab sided armor on the Ferret:
Deflection!
If the blast was slightly to the side of the truck
coming from the ground upwards, deflection takes
place, not absorbtion. The steel plate under the
vehicle likely does disperse the energy over the
broader surface and you suggest thats a bad thing if
it is coming directly from a vertical blast? Hmmmm,
ok, maybe so, but almost all armor has that limited
liability unless it has a deep V-bottom.
Obviously this is not a perfect solution, but is that
what we're after here, perfection? No, just a stop
gap. Something that places a little more steel and
sand between the blast and your butt, thats all.
--- Rick v100 <rickv100@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Two concerns with your suggestion.
>
> What happens to the plate when you detonate a IED
> underneath it?
>
> 1. You now have a large steel plate that can be
> hurled
> upwards against the bottom of the vehicle and the
> passengers that will probably do more damage then
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:38:51 PDT