Ad 0501329

UNCLASSIFIED
AD NUMBER
AD501329
CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
TO: UNCLASSIFIED
FROM: CONFIDENTIAL
LIMITATION CHANGES
TO:
Approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited.
FROM:
Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't. agencies
and their contractors; Specific Authority; JUL
1964. Other requests shall be referred to Army
Materiel Command, Washington, DC 20315.
AUTHORITY
USAMDRC ltr 16 Mar 1976; USAMDRC ltr 26 Aug
1976
THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

*
4
\lt-'
h C PAMPHLET
THIS IS A REPRINT WITHOUT CHANGE OF ORDP 20-290 DATED JULY 1959
AMCP 706-290
RFrSRBSE^WtY ■^ — r, "~ '- :,tü\
i/o
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

OF MATERIEL
ENGINEERING DESIGN HANDBOOK
IA-N"
WARHEADS-GENERAL (U)
I» .«.-, j--«., j-t--, £■•*- ^.«1 f-V- ^»*, *""» ■ . £ 4 " . v -*- .., ft' V V S <j
REDSTONE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
5 0510 00109829 9
raded UNCLASSIFIED
Authority of DA 1575 HQ DA3C0M,
DRCSS-I, Dtd 16 Mar 76
S. , 22 Mar 76
Signatur^^^/J^^^ Date
1.
HEADQUARTERS, U. S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND JULY 1964
This material contains information
affecting: the national defense of the
United State« within the meaning
GROUP 3
of the Espionage Laws, Title 18,
U.S.C., Sec 793 and 794. the trans-
Downgraded at 12 year
mission or revelation of which in intervals; not automati
any manner to an unauthorised per-
son is prohibited hy law. cally declassified.
y
HEADQUARTERS
UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20315
31 July 1964
AMCP 706-290(C), Warheads--General (U), forming part of the

Army Materiel Command Engineering Design Handbook Series, is
published for the information and guidance of all concerned.
(AMCRD)
FOR THE COMMANDER:
SELWYN D. SMITH, JR.

OFFICIAL: Major General, USA
Chief of Staff
R. O.
Colonel, GJ
Chief, Adrrtn^trative Office
DISTRIBUTION: Special
K ceiner*
PREFACE
The Engineering Design Handbook of the Army Materiel Com-

mand is a coordinated series of handbooks containing basic informa-
tion and fundamental data useful in the design and development of
Army materiel and systems. The Handbooks are authoritative
reference books of practical information and quantitative facts
helpful in the design and development of Army materiel so that it
will meet the tactical and technical needs of the Armed Forces.
This handbook on Warheads--General presents information on

the fundamental principles governing the design of warheads, with
discussions of the mechanical and explosive arrangements which
have been, or may be, used in the construction of warheads. More
detailed and extensive treatment of specialized designs in warheads
is contemplated in subsequent handbooks.
This handbook was prepared under the direction of the Engineer-

ing Handbook Office of Duke University, prime contractor to the
Army Research Office-Durham. The material was prepared by
Aircraft Armaments, Inc., under subcontract to the Engineering
Handbook Office. Technical assistance was rendered by Picatinny
Arsenal and the Ballistics Research Laboratories of Aberdeen
Proving Ground. During the preparation of this handbook Govern-
ment establishments were visited for much of the material used and
for helpful discussions with many technical personnel.
Agencies of the Department of Defense, having need for Hand-

books, may submit requisitions or official requests directly to
Publications and Reproduction Agency, Letterkenny Army Depot,
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201. Contractors should submit
such requisitions or requests to their contracting officers.
Comments and suggestions on this handbook are welcome and

should be addressed to Army Research Office-Dur ham, Box CM,
Duke Station, Durham, North Carolina 27706.
W
&,y ' ■ ■*
•$+'■
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Chapter
Number Title Page
Table of Contents ii
List of Illustrations ill
List of Tables vl i
Glossary of Warhead Terms viii
Symbol Definitions xi
1 Warhead Types 1
1-1 Introduction 1
1-2 Blast Warheads 1
1-3 Fragmentation Warheads 3
1-4 Discrete Rod Warheads 7
1-5 Continuous Rod Warheads 7
1-6 Cluster Warheads 9
l0
1-7 Shaped Charge Warheads
1-8 Chemical and Biological Warheads 11
1-9 Incendiary Warheads 12
1-10 Leaflet Warheads 12
1-11 Inert and Exercise Warheads 13
2 Weapons System Concepts 30
2-1 Introduction 30
2-2 Scope 30
2-3 The Measure of the Cost of the Contribution 31
2-4 Size of the Weapons System Design Team 31
2-5 Application of Weapons System Concept to Warhead Design 32
3 Warhead Selection 33
3-1 Introduction 33
3-2 Classification of Targets 33
34
3-3 Warhead Selection Chart . , .
3-4 Bibliography 35
4 Warhead Detail Design 36
4-1 General 36
4-2 Blast Warheads 36
4-3 Fragmentation Warheads *6
4-4 Discrete Rod Warheads , ®*
4-5 Continuous Rod Warheads 87
4-6 Cluster Warheads 98
111
4-7 Shaped Charge Warheads
4-8 Chemical and Biological Warheads . . . *30
l38
4-9 Characteristics of Service Warheads
3
5 Warhead Evaluation
3
5-1 Evaluation Principles
149
5-2 Fundamental Concepts
5-3 Approximate Evaluations 153
5-4 Evaluation Methods 154
| ' •?■»
ii
l67
6 Warhead Testing
6-1 Introduction 167
6-2 Planning of Test Program 167
l
6-3 Test Procedures and Techniques ^0
l
6-4 Data Reduction and Interpretation
l8
6-5 Test Facilities *
l88
6-6 Bibliography
Appendix: Characteristics of High Explosives for Missile Warheads 189
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
Number Title Page
1-1 Typical Internal Blast Warhead With Penetration Nose 1
1-2 Typical External Blast Warhead 1
1-3 Blast Warhead - Aerial Target 2
7
1-4 Blast Warhead - Surface Target
3
1-5 Damage from Blast Warhead
1-6 Fragmentation Warhead - Aerial Target *
1-7 Fragmentation Warhead - Surface Target 5
1-8 Typical Individual Fragment Shapes 6
6
1-9 Preformed Fragment Retention
1-10 Fire-Formed Fragment Casings '
1-11 Fragment Orientation about Charge '
8
1-12 Typical Fragment Warhead
1-13 Damage from Fragmentation Warhead 9
1-14 Discrete Rod Warhead 1°
1-15 Typical Discrete Rods H
1-16 Typical Discrete Rod Warhead U
1-17 Damage from Discrete Rod Warhead 12
l3
1-18 Continuous Rod Warhead
l3
1-19 Typical Continuous Rod Warhead
1-20 Damage from Continuous Rod Warhead
l5
1-21 Cluster Warhead
l5
1-22 Submissile Shapes
1-23 Submissile Ejection 16
1-24 Skin Removal 16
l6
1-25 Example of Cluster Warhead
l7
1-26 Damage from Cluster Warhead
1-27 Shaped Charge Warhead - Aerial Target *8
1-28 Shaped Charge Warhead - Surface Target 19
20
1-29 Action of Shaped Charge Warhead
1-30 Typical Shaped Charge Warhead 20
1-31 Aircraft Damage from Shapea'Charge Warhead 21
1-32 Armor Penetration from Shaped Charge Warhead 22
1-33 Chemical or Biological Warhead 23
1-34 Current Bomblet Shapes 24
1-35 Typical Biological Warhead 24
iii
1-36 Incendiary Warhead 25
1-37 Typical Incendiary Bomblet 26
1-38 Typical Incendiary Warhead 26
27
1-39 Leaflet Warhead
1-40 Exercise Warhead - Aerial Target Drone 2°
29
1-41 Inert Warhead
2-1 Utilization of Manpower and Natural Resources 30
2-2 Engineering Effort- Guided Missile System Development 31
4-1 Action of Internal and External Blast 37
4-2 Peak Pressure Vs. Scaled Distance at Various Atmospheric Pressures, 50/50
Pentolite Spherical Bare Charges 43
4-3 Scaled Impulse Vs. Scaled Distance at Various Atmospheric Pressures, 50/50
Pentolite Spherical Bare Charges
4-4 One Piece Fabrication 44
4-5 Multipiece Fabrication **
4-6 Definition of Fragment Beam Width 47
4-7 Vector Addition of Fragment and Missile Velocities 47
4-8 C Vs. Mach Number for Various Fragment Types 48
4-9 Longitudinal Section of a Typical Fragmentation Warhead 51
4-10 Diagram for Derivation of Angle of Emission of Fragments 51
4-11 Distribution of Fragments about Nominal Ejection Direction 51
4-12 Graphical Solution of Optimum Beam Width
4-13a Examples of the Effect of Warhead Shape on Fragment Beam Width
4-13b Examples of the Effect of Warhead Shape on Fragment Beam Width 55
4-14 Volume Per Pound of Warhead Vs. Charge-to-Metal Ratio *'
4-15 Initial Static Fragment Velocity Vs. Charge-to-Metal Ratio ^
4-16 Warhead Effectiveness Vs. Fragment Size °
4-17 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: Piston Engine Fighter "0
4-18 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: Piston Engine Fighter 60
4-19 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: Piston Engine Fighter 60
4-20 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel 61
4-21 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel 6l
4-22 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel 61
4-23 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel
Invulnerable
Invulnerable 62
Invulnerable 62
4-26 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: Single Engine Jet Fighter 62
4-27 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: Single Engine Jet Fighter 63
4-28 Fragment Velocity and Size Optimization, Target: High Explosive Airborne
Bomb 63
63
Bomb
63
Bomb
64
Torpedo
iv
Torpedo 64
64
Torpedo
4-34 Velocity Ratio Vs. Range, Anti-Personnel Warhead
4-35 Vector Addition of Fragment and Missile Velocities, Anti-Personnel Warhead ... 65
4-36 Fragment and Spray Diagram: Unit-Radius Sphere for Burst at 60° u) of Warhead
Designed for the Same w 69
4-37 Fragment and Spray Diagram: Unit-Radius Sphere for Burst at 30° w of Warhead
70
Designed for 60° CJ
4-38 Warhead Efficiency Vs. Warhead Inclination 81
82
4-39 Typical Use of a Fairing (Sparrow I, Mk 7 Mod 0, Warhead Shown)
86
4-40 Expected Number of Cuts Vs. Rod Length (Cylinder Half Severed)
4-41 Expected Number of Cuts Vs. Rod Length (3* x 81 Beam Half Severed) 86
4-42 Warhead Details (Discrete Rod Warhead)

89
4-43 Expansion of Rod Hoop _
4-44 Rod Velocity Variation
4-45 A Warhead Design Producing Tangled and Broken Rods 89
4-46 Contoured Liner and Inert Build Up 89
91
4-47 Contoured Inert Build Up
4-48 Rod Scabbing 91
4-49a Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 91
4-49b Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 93
4-49c Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 93
4-49d Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 94
4-49e Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 94
4-49f Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 95
4-49g Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 95
4-49h Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 96
4-49i Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 96
4-49J Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 97
4-49k Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 97
4-491 Continuous Rod Warhead Designs 98
4-50 Resolution of Velocities 102
4-51 Unstabilized Submissiles - Typical Arrangement i 108
4-52 Stabilized Submissiles - Typical Arrangement 112
4-53 Drag Tube and Drag Plate Stabilizer 113
4-54 Folding Fin Stabilizer 114
4-55 Drag Chute Stabilizer 114
4-56 Fixed Fin Stabilizer 114
4-57 Integral Ignition System 115
4-48 Central Ignition System 116
4-59 Piston Type Ejection 117
4-60 Blast Ejection - Intermediate Liner 117
4-61 Blast Ejection - Segmented Chamber 117
4-62 Blast Ejection - Convoluted Liner 117
4-63 Submissile Arrangement 118
4-64 Ejection Tube and Case 118
4-65 Gun Tube Ejection 118
— i
4-66 Pressure/Length Curves 118
4-67 Maximum Allowable Chamber Pressure Vs. Gun Tube Geometry 118
4-70 Spherical Submissile Warhead 119
4-71 Charge-to-Metal Ratio Vs. Velocity for T-46 Cluster Warhead 119
4-72 T-46 Prototype Warhead 120
4-73 Typical Submissile Flight Pattern 120
4-74 Spherical Submissile 120
4-75 Types of Stabilization 120
4-76 Fin Stabilized Submissile 121
4-77 Fin Lock 121
4-78 Support Structure 121
4-79 Tube Analysis 121
4-80 Submissile Retention 121
4-81 Skin Removal Harness 122
4-82 Guillotine Installation 122
4-83 Guillotine Effect 122
4-84 Shaped Charge Nomenclature I23
124
4-85 Penetration Vs. Standoff; Cone Angle and Cone Thickness Against Concrete
4-86 Penetration Vs. Standoff and Cone Thickness Against Concrete
125
4-87 Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild Steel Target
126
4-88 Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild Steel Target
127
4-89 Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild Steel Target • •
4-90 Penetration Vs. Cone Angle Against Concrete I27
127
4-91a Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild Steel Targets
l2
4-91b Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild Steel Targets ^
4-91c Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild Steel Targets
128
4-91d Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild Steel Targets
4-92 Reasonable Values of Cone Wall Thickness for Copper Cones
12
4-93 Penetration Vs. Cone Thickness and Cone Angle Against Concrete ^
12
4-94 Explosive Charge Wave Shaping "
4-95 Bomblet Dispersion Patterns
4-96 Ejection Sequence, Spheres 13 2
3
4-97 Ejection Sequence, Fletners and Gliders
5-1 Attack with Perfect Guidance and Perfect Fuzing 142
5-2 Orientation of the Axes 142
5-3 Random Guidance Errors 143
5-4 The Normal Frequency Function I43
5-5 Area Under Normal Frequency Curve I43
144
5-6 The Normal Curve of Error
144
5-7 Orientation of Rectangular Target Area
5-8 Probability of a Hit, P^, within a Circle of u Standard Errors 146
5-9 Cumulative Bivariate Normal Distribution (Over Circles of Radius R Centered at
148
the Mean) ICQ
5-10 Random Fuzing Errors Combined with Random Guidance Errors
5-11 Random Warhead Bursts Around Target
157
5-12 Critical Distance, d, for Evaluation of Blast Warhead
157
5-13 Critical Distance, d, for Evaluation of Fragment Warhead
5- 14 Geometry for Fragment Striking Velocity 158
5- 15 Critical Distance, d, for Evaluation of Rod Warhead 158
5- 16 Critical Distance, d, for Evaluation of Cluster Warhead 159
5- 17 Critical Angle, $, for Evaluation of Shaped Charge Warhead 159
5-■18 External Blast Warhead Evaluation-Warhead Weight Variable 159
5- 19 External Blast Warhead Evaluation-Target Type Variable 160
5-•20 External Blast Warhead Evaluation-Engagement Altitude Variable 160
5- 21 External Blast Warhead Evaluation-Standard Error of Guidance Variable I60
5-•22 External Blast Warhead Evaluation-Kill Probability Intervals 1*0
5-•23 Internal Blast Warhead Evaluation-Target Type Variable 161
5-•24 Internal Blast Warhead Evaluation - Engagement Altitude Variable 1°*
5-•25 Internal Blast Warhead Evaluation - Standard Error of Guidance Variable 161
5-•26 Internal Blast Warhead Evaluation - Kill Probability Intervals 161
5-•27 Fragment Warhead Evaluation - Warhead Weight Variable 162
5-• 28 Fragment Warhead Evaluation - Target Type Variable 162
5-•29 Fragment Warhead Evaluation - Standard Error of Guidance Variable I62
l 2
5-• 30 Fragment Warhead Evaluation - Kill Probability Intervals
70
6-• 1 Fragment Lethality Test I
6--2 Fragment Gun and Sabot 171
6-•3 Screen Used for Measuring Velocity 173
6-•4 Individual Rod Test 17*
6-• 5 Complete Fragment Warhead Test 175
6--6 Submissile Ejection System Test 176
6-•7 Skin Removal Test 177
6-•8 Sled Test - Complete Cluster Warhead 178
6-•9 Complete Shaped Charge Warhead Test 179
6-•10 Blast Warhead Test 180
6-•11 Complete Rod Warhead Test 184
LIST OF TABLES
3 -1 Target Classification 33
3--2 Warhead Selection Chart 34
4--1 Characteristics of Explosives 39
4--2 Characteristics of HBX-1 and H-6 39
4--3 Penetration Capabilities of Penetration Case 42
4--4 One Piece Fabrication 44
4 -5 Nose Spray Warhead Characteristics 68
4 -6 Estimated Relative Fragment Production From Various Fragmentation Control
Methods 78
4.-7 Rough Numerical Comparisons of Various Fragmentation Control Methods 78
4--8 Summary Chart 99
4--9 Relative Penetration Capabilities of Various Liner Materials 125
4--10 Characteristics of Existing Service Warheads 134
5--1 The Areas Under the Normal Curve of Error (included Between t and -t) 145
5--2 The Probabilities of a Hit, Pm , Within a Circle of Radius u Standard Errors I'»6
5 -3 Cumulative Bivariate Normal Distribution Over Circles Centered at the Mean 1*7
6 -1 Test Facility Selection Chart 183
vii
GLOSSARY OF WARHEAD TERMS
Aim Point - That point at which the warhead would detonate if all component systems
functioned perfectly.
Biological Warhead - A warhead containing organisms, which damages primarily by

inflicting diseases.
Blast Warhead - A warhead containing a high explosive charge which, upon detonation,
creates a blast wave that inflicts damage by either the positive or the negative
pressure phase, or both.
Bomblet - One of the many containers of lethal agents included in a missile warhead.
Casing - The material which forms the outer shell of a warhead.
Chemical Warhead - A warhead containing chemical agents, which damages primarily

by toxic effects.
Cluster Warhead - A warhead containing a group of submissiles or bomblets, together

with an ejection system.
Conditional Kill Probability - The probability of inflicting specified damage provided the
target is detected, the guidance system functions, the warhead is delivered
to the target, and the fuzing system functions.
Continuous Rod Warhead - A warhead designed to emit an expanding metal hoop as the
primary damaging agent.
Detonating Cord - A plastic-covered textile wrapper containing a core of explosive material.
Discrete Rod Warhead - A warhead designed so that metal rods are the primary damaging
agent.
Dynamic Fragment Velocity - The velocity in free air of the fragments from a warhead
in motion.
Ejection System - The system that is used in cluster warheads for dispersing submissiles.
Elevon - Combination elevator and aileron, controlling both roll and pitch.
Evaluation - Determination of warhead performance, often relative to the original require-

ments for which it was developed.
Exercise and Inert Warheads - Warheads designed to be used for training and systems
operation checking purposes. Formerly known as practice and training
warheads respectively.
External Blast Warhead - A warhead designed to cause damage by blast when detonated
in the vicinity of the target.
viii
Fairing - Sheet metal skin installed around the warhead to maintain the missile aero-
dynamic contour.
Fragment - Piece of metal scattered by the detonation of a warhead.
Fragment Beam Width - Angle covered by a useful density of fragments.
Fragment Density - Number of fragments per square foot at a given distance from the
point of detonation.
Fragment Pattern - The arrangement of fragments after detonation.
Fragmentation Warhead - A warhead so designed that metal fragments emitted at high

velocities are the primary damaging agent.
Fuze - A device designed to initiate detonation of a warhead at a specific time or position,

under certain desired conditions.
Guidance Error - The shortest distance between the missile trajectory and the aim point.
Guidance System - A group of electronic and mechanical devices designed to direct a

missile to a target.
Hard Target - A target that is relatively difficult to damage as required.
Implosion - A force tending to create inward collapse.
Incendiary Material - A substance capable of setting fire to the target.
Incendiary Warhead - A warhead containing incendiary material as the primary damaging

agent.
Internal Blast Warhead - A blast warhead designed to detonate upon impact or after
penetration of a target.
Leaflet Warhead - A warhead containing leaflets or pamphlets.
Lethal Distance - The maximum distance at which a specific warhead can inflict lethal
damage on a specific target.
Lethality - A measure of the effectiveness of a warhead.
Miss Distance - The distance between the burst point and the center of gravity of the
target.
Missile - A self-propelling pilotless weapon.
Overpressure - That air pressure greater than the ambient air pressure.
'" !***•£ ix
Practice Warhead - See "Exercise and Inert Warheads".
Proximity Fuze - An electronic fuze which senses the presence of a target and initiates
the detonation of the warhead at a certain distance from the target.
S & A - Safety and arming device.
Shaped Charge Warhead - A warhead designed to emit a jet of minute, hyper-velocity

metal pieces which act as the primary damaging agent.
Soft Target - A target which may be damaged with relative ease.
Standard Error of Guidance - A measure of the dispersion (linear standard deviation)

of guidance error.
Submissile - An individual unit containing explosive or other active agent, which forms
only part of a missile warhead.
Target - The object or group of objects which a missile is employed against for the
purpose of inflicting damage.
Training Warhead - See "Exercise and Inert Warheads".
Warhead Compartment - That space in a missile which is allocated to the warhead.
ft*.|
SYMBOL DEFINITIONS
A Average presented area of fragment, MB Maximum bending moment between

square inches. loads, foot-pounds.
AB Bore area, square inches. Mr Ratio of casing weight to charge

weight in cylindrical section.
AL Lethal area, square feet.
Total number of missiles fired.
AT Target projected vulnerable area,
square feet. Total number of fragments.
/
CD Drag coefficient. N(M) Number of fragments of mass greater

than M.
D Diameter, feet or inches.
p Peak pressure, psi.
DR Drag, pounds or poundals.
Pa Probability of a hit between ± a.
D(dd) Dynamic fragment density or a given
direction Qd , number of fragments pb Probability of a hit between ± b.
per steradian.
Pc Probability that the missile system
D(0 ) Static fragment density, number of will launch the missile.
fragments per steradian-
Pd Probability that the missile will de-
£ Energy per unit mass of explosive. liver the warhead to the target.
F Force, pounds or poundals. P^ Probability of a hit within a circle of

radius m.
H Burst height, feet.
°l Probability that a fuzing system will
/ Positive impulse, psi - milliseconds. function.
K Inside radius /outside radius. Probability of a hit.
L Length, feet or inches. Conditional kill probability.
M Mass, grains, ounces or pounds. Pressure, atmospheres or psi.
M' Weight to charge ratio parameter Probability of detecting and/or recog-

nizing a target.
M0 Mean fragment mass, grains, ounces
or pounds. Overall kill probability.
MA Maximum bending moment at loads, Probability of fuzing within any

foot-pounds. given z
xi
R Distance from explosion, feet. VR Radial velocity, feet per second.
S Burst point. vs Resultant striking velocity of frag-

ments, feet per second.
RD Distance traveled, feet.
V. Velocity of target, feet per second.
RG Radius of centroid of tubular cross
section, inches. Vj Total allowable warhead volume,
cubic inches.
RL Lethal distance, feet.
vx Velocity at any point, feet per second.
T Thickness of armor, inches.
vxs Absolute fragment velocity at the tar-
TA Total tangential compression at loads, get, feet per second.
pounds.
V(T) Vulnerability of target.
Tß Maximum tangential compression be-
tween loads, pounds. W Weight of warhead, pounds.
V Total warhead volume, cubic inches. w Equivalent bare charge weight, pounds.
V Average velocity, feet per second. W

D.W. "dead" weight in warhead, pounds.
VD Velocity of detonation wave in the Weight of individual submissile ejec-

explosive, feet per second.' tion tube, pounds.
Vj Initial dynamic fragment velocity, feet Weight of fragmenting metal, pounds.

per second.
Net weight, pounds.
VD w "dead" volume, cubic inches.
Weight of submissile, pounds.
V, Initial static fragment velocity, feet
7 Weight of individual submissile support
per second.
structure, pounds.
V Longitudinal component of fragment
velocity, feet per second. Total allowable warhead weight, pounds.
vL Lethal striking velocity, feet per Weight of individual submissile ex-

second. plosive, pounds.
V' Missile velocity, feet per second. Weight of explosive, pounds.
Vn Net volume, cubic inches. c/m Charge-to-metal ratio.
vo Initial relative velocity, feet per d Significant distance in warhead eval-

second. uation, feet.
V. Submissile volume, cubic inches. dV Acceleration of a fragment along its

P dt
Xll
path, feet per second . z Fuzing error, feet.
2
g Acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec . ■q Warhead efficiency.
b Altitude of engagement, feet. 0 Angle between the missile and target

trajectories, degrees.
/ Total travel distance, inches or feet.
9b Beam width, degrees.
l(m) Lethality of the missile.
9d Anguiar direction, degrees.
m Weight of the metal case, pounds.
0, Half angle between forces, degrees.
m Projectile mass, pounds.
0 Angle of rod trajectories above or below
n Number of submissiles. the horizontal, degrees.
nxi Number of missiles which have an x 9s Static angle of fragment ejection,

component of error equal to x.. degrees.
p{ Probability of bursting at the i'th dj Angle of inclination of the missile with

position. the ground, degrees.
pki Probability of a kill given a burst from tp(F) Frequency distribution of fuzing error.
the i'th position.
Q Angle of fragment emission, degrees.
p (x) Pressure producing velocity.
&G) Frequency distribution of guidance error.
r Radius of submissile pattern, feet.
« Constant, characteristic of explosives.
r. Inside radius, inches or feet.
ß A specific angle.
rQ Outside radius, inches or feet.
<Mt) Normal frequency function.
t Time, seconds.
&x) Frequency distribution of x.
x Distance traveled, inches or feet.
(My) Frequency of distribution function of y.
x Projectile acceleration, feet per
second^. o(z) Frequency distribution of z.
x■ x component of guidance error for the Pa Air density, pounds per cubic foot or
i'th missile . slugs per cubic foot, as applied.
xs Distance traveled to strike point, feet. A Guidance error of the missile, feet.
yi y component of guidance error for the Pc Density of charge, pounds per cubic
i'th missile. inch.
xi u
Pm Density of metal, pounds per cubic
inch.
p0 Air density at sea level, pounds per

cubic foot or slugs per cubic foot, as
applied.
pCA) Radial density function.
OQ Standard error of guidance.
or Radial compression, pounds.
ox Standard deviation of x from the aim

point, feet.
oy Standard deviation of y from the aim

point, feet.
oz Standard error of fuzing, feet.
aa Tangential tension, pounds.

/
r Shear, pounds.
Subscripts:
/ Fragment -
i Pertaining to the i'th missile.
n Pertaining to the n'th missile.
xiv
' 8 Ü V"'\
UNC
Chapter 1
WARHEAD TYPES
1-1. INTRODUCTION Blast warheads are divided into two func-

tional categories, internal and external blast.
This chapter presents a general discussion An internal blast warhead is designed to inflict
of current warhead types. It consists of intro- damage when detonated upon impact with the
ductory material for use by those not familiar target, or after penetration. When penetration of
with warhead design art. The figures represent a hard target such as armor is required, the
an artist's conception of the warhead for each internal blast type is equipped with an armor
type. These have been drawn to include the piercing head. When penetration of a softer
missile delivering the warhead, the warhead in target such as aircraft structure is required,
operation and the target. They provide an over- the warhead detonates upon impact and the
all concept of the warhead system in operation. extremely high pressures developed very close
Artistic license has been applied in some of to the detonation point provide the means for
these figures for clarity by showing the de- entering the target. Since internal blast war-
livering missile intact after detonation of the heads must literally contact the target to be
warhead. This is not usually the case. effective, they are normally used in missiles
whose guidance systems are of the requisite
1-2. BLAST WARHEADS (Fig. l-l through L-5) accuracy. Extreme guidance accuracy is not
required of missiles containing a number of
Fundamentally, a blast warhead is high internal blast submissiles, such as are carried
explosive installed in a container. Upon deto- by a cluster warhead. Fuzes for internal blast
nation, it creates a wave front of high positive warheads are designed to detonate the warhead
pressure, followed immediately by a negative upon impact or very shortly thereafter.
pressure. The wave moves radially outward at The external blast warhead is designed to
supersonic speed from the point of detonation. inflict damage when detonated near the target,
Primary damage occurs when a target is struck
by the wave. Secondary damage usually results
CASING SUPPORT RING
from flying debris. Blast warheads, installed
in the body of a missile, are used against both
air and surface targets. FUZES
LOADING
CAP-
" LOADING
PLUG
HOISTING
RING
Figur« ;.;, Typical Internal Blast Warhead With Figure J.2. Typical External Blast Warhead
Penetration Nose
Figur» J.3. Blast Ylarhmad - Aerial Targmt
Figur» 7-4. Blast Warhead • Surface Targmt
2
U. S. Army Photo
View shows inspection of damage resulting from a blast warhead
detonated beneath a Fighter Aircraft suspended in the air between
two towers.
Figure J-5. Damage from Blast Warhead
instead of upon striking the target. Consequent- U3. FRAGMENTATION WARHEADS

ly, it can be used in a missile whose guidance (Fig. 1-6 through 1-13)
system provides less accuracy than that re- A fragmentation warhead consists of an
quired for the internal blast type, gcoximiijt explosive charge surrounded by a wall of pre-
type fuzes are used to detonate the warhead formed metal fragments or a prescored or
whenever it comes within lethal range oTthe solid metal casing. Upon detonation, the frag-
target. This range depends on {he size 61 The ments are propelled outward at velocities of
warhead, the target and the density of the air. from g.OOO^frf-lU.UUirfeet per second by ex-
It may be as low as 10 to 20 feet or as high as plosive forces. Generally slow-acting damage
150 to 200 feet. is inflicted on the target when it is struck by
Since the damage from both internal and the fragments. Also, disruptive blast damage is
external blast warheads is produced by a wave common from fragmentation warheads. Frag-
of high pressure air, the lethality of either war- mentation warheads, installed in the body of
head deteriorates significantly as the target missiles are used against both air and surface
aitihyfe» jncreases. Consequently, blast Wur- targets, the surface targets most often being
heads, designed for use against air targets, are personnel. Their lethality against bomber
most effective when employed at low altitudes, targets depends upon the damage inflicted on a
say below 20,000 feet. plurality of multiple components, such as
Figure 1-6. Fragmentation Warhead • Aerial Target
4
>>
&
iW?j*v
'■/-
Figure J-7. Fragmentation Warhead • Surface Target
engines, fuel lines, controls, instruments, hy- in their proper orientation around the charge by
draulic lines, and crew members. placing them in a fragment chamber, and either
The weight and shape of the individual cementing them in place with adhesives or im-
fragments depends on the particular intended bedding them in a plastic or frangible sub-
application of the warhead. Design fragment stance.
weights may vary from below .014 ounces (6.0 Fire-formed fragments take on their final
grains) to over 0.5 ounces (220 grains). Frag- individual shape during detonation of the explo-
ment shapes in past and current use include sive charge. Prior to detonation they are com-
steel spheres, cubes, rods, wires, and aero- ponents of a fragment casing which surrounds
dynamically stable configurations. (See Figure the explosive charge. This casing is scored or
L-8.) These shapes are either preformed or notched in such a manner that it will break up
fire-formed. Preformed fragments are formed upon detonation of the charge into individual
into their final shape before detonation of the fragments of the desired shape.
explosive charge. They are mechanically held The pattern that the fragments form as a
OUTER LINER
J
SPHERE CUBE NEAR CUBE
FRAGMENTS
MBEDMENT
MATERIAL
INNER LINER
CENTRAL
TUBE
WALL
ROD WIRE NEEDLE
Figure 7-8. Typical Individual Fragment Shapes

EXPLOSIVE
CHARGE
group as they are propelled outward from the

warhead by the explosive forces is primarily
IMBEDMENT
dependent upon their orientation around the
FRAGMENTS
charge prior to detonation. The patterns re-
ADHESIVE
sulting from the orientations shown in Figure
Hni'in'MIMIIillllllllll
1-11 are intuitively apparent. The casing ADHESIVE
shape selected for a particular warhead de- LINER
pends primarily on the guidance accuracy of

the missile delivering the warhead, the size of CENTRAL
the target and the density of the fragment beam TUBE
WALL
on the target that is necessary to do lethal
damage to the target.
Fragmentation warheads are designed to EXPLOSIVE
CHARGE
be detonated near, rather than upon striking,
the target. Proximity-type fuzes are normally
used and the guidance accuracy of the missile
delivering the warhead need not produce a di- ADHESIVE
OUTER LINER
rect hit to insure lethality. In some instances,
FRAGMENT
warhead detonation may be initiated by com- CHAMBER
mand from the ground. Fragmentation war-
heads used against air targets at high altitude
-INNER LINER
may be lethal when detonated as far as 200
feet away. The lethal distance is primarily
dependent upon the target and the fragment
size and velocity at the time it strikes the
target, since it must have sufficient kinetic
.EXPLOSIVE
energy to penetrate. Fragment striking velocity CHARGE
is a function of the target velocity, initial frag-
ment velocity immediately after detonation and
1 Lü_i
the aerodynamic drag forces which slow down

the fragment during its flight to the target. The CHAMBER
initial velocity is dependent upon the amount of
explosive charge relative to the metal in the Figure 7-9. Preformed Fragment Retention
casing, and the weight and shape of the warhead.
The drag forces depend on the shape of the
WIRE
CASING
' -" SCORED/h NOTCH

CASING
EXPLOSIVE
NOTCHED WIRE CASING
SCORED CASING
Figure 7-70. Fire-Formed Fragment Casings
CHARGE
FRAGMENTS
Figure 7-77. Fragment Orientation about Charge
7
CONFIDENTIAL
OUTER INNER
HOISTING LINER FRAGMENTS LINER against high altitude airborne targets similarly
LUG to fragmentation warheads by virtue of reduced
i~l'l I I I I I I IT I I I I I
slow down at high altitude during their flight to
the target after detonation of the explosive
charge. They have been displaced now to a
great extent by continuous rod warheads dis-
cussed in subchapter 1-5.
1-5. CONTINUOUS ROD WARHEADS

(Fig. 1-18 through 1-20.)
A continuous rod warhead consists of an
explosive charge surrounded by a series of
metal rods. Each rod is welded at one end to
the rod adjacent to it on one side and is welded
at the other end to the rod adjacent to it on the
Figure 1-72. Typical Fragment Warhead other side. Upon detonation of the explosive
charge the rod welded assembly is propelled
fragment and the density of the air. Consequent- outward at velocities of from 3,000 to 5,000
ly, preformed aerodynamically stable frag- feet per second or greater. As it moves out-
ment shapes slow down less during their ward from the point of detonation it forms a
flight and are lethal at greater distances than continuous and expanding hoop which eventually
random fragments produced by casing breakup. breaks up into several pieces as the hoop cir-
All fragment warheads are lethal to greater cumference approaches and exceeds the sum-
distances at higher altitudes due to the reduced mation of the rod lengths. Continuous rod war-
drag of the rarer atmosphere. heads, mounted in the body of missiles are
employed primarily against air targets. They
1-4. DISCRETE ROD WARHEADS are lethal by virtue of their ability to critically
weaken major structural components by a
A discrete rod warhead is similar to a cutting action. One of the distinguishing char-
fragmentation warhead (reference subchapter acteristics of a continuous rod warhead is its
1-3). It consists of an explosive charge sur- ability to accomplish a "quick kill".
rounded by individual metal rods. Upon deto- The thickness and length of the rods have
nation, the rods are propelled outward at varied from 3/16 inch by 10 inches to 5/8 inch
velocities of from 4,000 to 6,000 feet per second by 40 inches. Their cross-sectional shape may
by the explosive forces and inflict damage on be circular, square or trapezoidal. The maxi-
the target as they strike it. Discrete rod war- mum diameter of the expanded hoop depends of
heads, installed in the body of missiles, are course on the number and length of rods and
used primarily against air targets. Their le- has varied between 30 and 200 feet. Since the
thality stems from their ability to cut through rods are most effective before the hoop breaks
and thereby critically weaken primary aircraft up, the warhead is most lethal when detonated
structure and aircraft system components. so that the hoop strikes the target before break-
The rods generally vary in thickness and up.
length from 1/4 inch by 20 inches to 3/4 inches The cutting ability of the rods is a function
by 40 inches. Their cross-sectional shape may of the rod hoop weight and its velocity. Here
be circular, square, or trapezoidal. They are again then, they are most effective when em-
oriented about the explosive charge in one or ployed against air targets at high altitude
more layers. since the rarer air at altitude causes less slow
Discrete rod warheads are most effective down of the hoop.
Aerojet Photo 955548
Secondary damage on Bikini gage protector plate, 60 feet to the rear of

the T45 warhead, caused by fragmentation of the rear plate of the war-
head. Controlled fragmentation is not provided in this area. Larger
holes are from fragments; smaller holes are from covering material
or from sand or grit.
Figure 1-13. Damage from Fragmentation Y/arhead
1-6. CLUSTER WARHEADS the ejection device is actuated and the sub-
(Fig 1-21 through 1-26) missiles are propelled outwardly at velocities
Chemical, biological and incendiary war- of from 100 to 500 feet per second. Damage is
heads are types of cluster warheads which inflicted on the target as the explosive charge
contain bomblets that are ejected from the in the submissile is detonated upon striking
warhead by aerodynamic forces after removal the target. Cluster warheads, installed in the
of the missile skin from around the warhead body of missiles, are used primarily against
compartment. These warheads are discussed air targets. Their lethality is derived from the
individually in subchapters 1-8 and 1-9, and the ability of one or a few submissiles to destroy
discussion in this section is limited to explo- a major component of the target or to inflict
sive-type cluster warheads. critical structural damage.
A cluster warhead consists of a number of The number, weight, and shape of the
submissiles mounted in the warhead on indi- individual submissiles depend primarily upon
vidual ejection devices or surrounding an ejec- the weight and space allocated to the warhead
tion device. Each submissile contains an explo- in the missile. The number of submissiles may
' sive charge. Upon detonation of the warhead, be as low as 10 or as high as several hundred.
Figur» 1-14. Discrete Rod Warhead
Their individual weight is usually of the order done, the skin is usually removed by explosive
of 3 to 5 pounds. The shape is dependent upon means just prior to ejecting the submissiles so
missile warhead compartment packaging con- that the skin will not impede their ejection.
siderations and upon whether an aerodynam-
ically stable or unstable submissile is desired. 1-7. SHAPED CHARGF. WARHEADS
Stability is obtained through fins or drag pro- (Fig. 1-27 through 1-32)
ducing devices. Unstable shapes include A shaped charge warhead has an axially
spheres, cubes, and near-cubes. symmetric high-order explosive arranged in a
One example of an ejection device consists specific geometry with, generally, a detonating
of explosive actuated guns, one for each sub - point located on the axis at one end of the charge
missile. These consist of annularly displaced and a symmetrically placed lined cavity at the
and radially directed tubes which slide into a other. In many cases the liner of the cavity is
close fitting cavity in the submissile. Simul- in. the form of a cone with apex toward the
taneous detonation of the propelling charge in detonator, but many other cavity shapes have
the tubes shoots the submissiles outward from been used. The principal characteristic of a
the missile. shaped charge is that the shock wave in the
Cluster warheads are in some instances explosive compresses some of the liner mate-
designed for installation in the missile in such rial into a high velocity stream called a jet.
a manner that the outside of the submissiles The forward end of the jet attains a velocity
forms the exterior surface of the missile body. of from 16,000 to 20,000 feet per second while
In this case, the submissiles are accurately the aft end of the jet and the remaining liner
shaped and fitted so as to provide an aerody- material (called the "slug") have a forward
namically acceptable surface prior to detona- velocity of about 1500 feet per second. Thus, if
tion of the warhead. In other cases, the warhead the material of the liner is sufficiently ductile
is housed within the missile skin. When this is and if there is sufficient space, the liner will
10
TIE BANDS RODS
IGNITER
EXPLOSIVE
CHARGE
END
PLATE
Figur« 7-75. Typical Discrete Rods
draw out into a very long thin ]et of extra-

ordinary penetrating ability. The distance be-
tween the charge and the surface to be attacked
is called the "standoff" and, depending on liner
material and other parameters, there is gen-
Figure 7-76. Typical Discrete Rod Warhead
erally an optimum standoff for greatest pene-
tration. This distance, however, is seldom
achieved in use. the warhead is pointing toward or slightly
Against armored targets, the damage in- leading the target when detonated.
flicted by a shaped charge attack arises from A specialized application of the shaped
the ability of the ]et to penetrate large thick- charge phenomenon is the Mismay-Schardin
nesses of material and from the production of effect in which the principle is used to form and
"spall" from the exit side of the surface propel fragments generated in the warhead
attacked. Against aircraft and missile struc- casing. By shaping the explosive charge or by
ture, where standoffs are large, the Jet is confining the sides of the charge, fragments
usually broken up. Penetration of thin skins is can be ejected from certain portions in various
therefore effected over a larger area and beam widths. The fragment beam width is also
additional important damage (referred to as governed by the L/D of the charge, and the
"vaporific") arises due to shock and blast charge-to-metal ratio.
effects in semi-enclosed structural spaces. Another type of warhead related to the
The most significant aspect of shaped shaped charge type is one known as the
charges lies in the cavity and liner. Liner "squash-head" or high explosive plastic (HEP)
shape, thickness and material are important warhead. However, since this type is easily
variables. As examples, one may cite the use defeated by the use of a soft layer in the target
of copper cone liners .08 inches thick with 40° armor, it is not generally considered for use
apex angles for use in the penetration of tank in missile warheads.
armor by 3.5 inch diameter shaped charge
warheads. Against aircraft, aluminum liners 1-8. CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARHEADS
0.5 inches thick with 90° cone apex angles are
(Fig. 1-33 through 1-35)
typical for 8 inch diameter warheads. A chemical or biological warhead usually
Shaped charge warheads of weights stated consists of a container housing a relatively
later herein and detonated 1 to 2 feet from the large number of smaller containers known as
surface of a target, can penetrate 1 to 4 feet bomblets. Upon release from the warhead, the
of steel armor, or 15 to 20 feet of concrete. bomblets, containing chemical or biological
Large ones can be effective against aircraft agents, are dispersed over a wide area on the
when detonated 100 to 200 feet away. Since, in ground. When the bomblet strikes the ground,
either case, the Jet must impinge on the target, the agent is released. Damage is inflicted upon
the missile guidance system must be suchthat targets such as personnel, animals and crops
11
-I
by contamination of the target or the air around

the target in the region where the bomblets fall.
A wide variety ofbomblet shapes have been
studied and tested in an effort to obtain a shape
which lends itself to efficient packaging in the
warhead compartment and which will consist- -4/r3~ iv
ently disperse itself uniformly over large areas
when large numbers of bomblets are released
from the missile. Shapes which currently show
the most promise are the ribbed sphere, the
Fletner, and the glider. (See Figure 1-34.)
Bomblets usually weigh between 4 and 10
pounds. As many as 500 bomblets are packaged
in a single warhead. Dispersal areas on the
ground may vary between 1 and 10 miles in
diameter. Average ground distance between
U. S. Navy Photo NP/9-48774
individual bomblets may vary from 50 to 300
feet. Fired through 3/4" thick 24S-T4 alumi-
Chemical and biological agents are not num plate. View shows length of spall on
always dispersed by the use of individual back side of plate.
bomblets in the warheads. Massive warheads Figure 7-77. Damage from Discrete Rod Warhead
consisting of one or a few larger containers
for the agent may be jettisoned with or without
a parachute from the missile warhead. cast iron nose so that the bomblet penetrates
the target prior to igniting. (See Figure 1-37.)
1-9. INCENDIARY WARHEADS For the scatter type, the bomblets are equipped
{Fig. 1-36 through 1-38) with a small explosive charge which ignites
Fundamentally, an incendiary warhead is and disperses the incendiary material over an
a container for incendiary material. Incendiary area from 50 to 100 feet in diameter when det-
material of a highly flammable nature is placed onated as the bomblet strikes the target. Suit-
in small bomblets which are packaged in the able incendiary materials include thermite,
warhead. When released from the warhead the white phosphorous, napalm and thickened mix-
bomblets fall to earth over a dispersed target tures of inflammable fuels.
area. Damage is inflicted on combustible tar- The bomblet ejection system in the war-
gets when the incendiary material from the head consists of a means of removing the war-
bomblets starts a large number of fires. head skin. This is usually accomplished by
Because there have been no requirements inserting detonating cord betweeu the skin and
established by the Department of Defense in its supporting structural members. Detonation
recent years for incendiary warheads, develop- of the cord severs and blasts tne skin away
ment work has been limited to warheads using from the warhead, whereupon the bomblets are
existing incendiary bomblets originally devel- thrown out of the warhead by aerodynamic and
oped for use in clustered bombs. gravitational forces.
Incendiary materials are separated into
two basic categories, the intense type which 1-10. LEAFLET WARHEADS
burns at very high temperatures over a small (Fig. 1-39)
area and the scatter type which burns at a A leaflet warhead consists of a container
lower temperature and is scattered over a wide for housing leaflets or booklets. The leaflets
area. Bomblets for the intense type contain a are released from the warhead compartment
12
Figure 7-78. Continuous Rod Warhead
and fall to earth over a widely dispersed area exercise warhead may also contain, in lieu of
Damage is inflicted through the demoralizing instrumentation, pyrotechnic materials and
effect of the written material on the leaflets. small amounts of high explosive or spotting
charges, and be tactically fuzed to provide
1-11. INERT AND EXERCISE WARHEADS realism.
(Fig. 1-40 and 1-41) An inert warhead, formerly known as a
Inert and exercise warheads are not used training warhead, simulates the shape, size,
directly against the enemy, but rather are used
to train personnel and for checking the opera-
LOADING OUTER RODS EXPLOSIVE
tion of weapon systems and their components. CAP COVER CHARGE
An exercise warhead, formerly known as a
practice warhead is a warhead which simulates
the shape and weight of the tactical warhead.
It is usually loaded with instruments which
record or telemeter data on the performance
of the weapon system components and operators
during operation of the system. It is used FILLER
against simulated targets on the surface and
against target drones in the air. For use
against air targets, it usually includes miss
distance instrumentation which measures and FUZE END
ADAPTER PLATE
records how close the delivering missile comes
to the target during the practice flight. An Figure 7-79% Typical Continuous Rod Warhead
13
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Photo
Figur» 1-20. Damage from Continuous Rod Warhead

(Fired against aircraft skin panels)
weight, support and handling provisions, ex- designed to be flown in the missile but instead
ternal electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic is used for ground checkout and training of the
receptacles, and in general all components of weapon system operating personnel. It some-
the actual warhead which have an influence on times includes instrumentation to measure the
the operations carried out by the weapon system accuracy and speed with which the ground
ground crews. Such an inert warhead is not crews carry out their particular functions.
14
Figure 1-21. Cluster Warhead
SPHERE
FINNED ^^ NEAR CUBE
STABLE UNSTABLE
Figure ]-22. Submissile Shapes
15
i
:%^Y Ü-
Figure 7-23. Submissile Ejection

Gun Tube Method
Figure 1-24. Skin Removal
Figure 7-25. Example of Cluster Warhead
16
Entrance side of wing panel after being damaged by high explosive
unstabilized submissile after impact with the target.
Figure 7-26. Damage from Cluster Warhead
17
Figure 1-27. Shaped Charge V/arhead - Aerial Target
18
£ - fri - O 8ZI-6«
61
IBßjDjâoDjJnS'poaijJOft aßjDijj padDy$ *8£-/ *JO6IJ

EXPLOSIVE BLAST WAVE
/
LINER
DETONATOR
K (2)
(3) (4)
SLUG JET
(5)
Figure 7-29. Action of Shaped Charge Warhead
EXPLOSIVE CASING
CHARGE
I
\ilBISlBIHItfl»lfflHBini«lflipgiflliigiKI5
BACK,
PLATE NEROR
CONE
Figure 1-30. Typical Shaped Charge Warhead
20
IS
'ÔpUDiS
JOOJ. 00l~J°J *dJ OOZ'H •'SAO jo A;ioo|3A ;af aßojaAO ya aßjDip pauoo
iunuioin|D Aq >pnj;s IJOJOJIO ><s-J9J JO oajo joDdaii jaf sMoqs Maj/\
SZS8£-Sfr/dN OiOMd AADN 'S fl

U. S. Army Photo
View shows impact location of 90 mm HEAT T108E40 projectile

fired against a T26 Pershing type tank. Entrance hole is approxi-
mately 2-1/2 in. x 1-1/2 in.
Figure 1-32. Armor Penetration from Shaped Charge Warhead
22
. //.
~ je**.
Figure J-33. Chemical or Biological Warhead
23
SPHERE
FLETNER
GUOER
Figure 7-34« Current Bombtet Shapes
Figure 1-35. Typical Biological Warhead
24
,%
Figure 1-36. Incendiary Warhead
25
CAST IRON NOSE THERMITE FUZE STABILIZER
\
1. 75"'
21"
Figure 1-37. Typical Incendiary Bomblet
Figure J-38. Typical Incendiary V/arhead
26
TV
Figure 1-39. Leaflet Warhead

■"%sm
27
'•■*»
Figure 1-40. Exercise Warhead • Aerial Target Drone
2«
m
Figure 1-41. Inert Y/arhead
29
Chapter 2
WEAPONS SYSTEM CONCEPTS
2-1. INTRODUCTION 2-2. SCOPE
The weapons system concept is a philos- The Department of Defense applies weap-
ophy applied to the design of a multi-com- ons system concepts in its broadest sense when
ponent system wherein each component of the it so utilizes the manpower and natural re-
system is so designed that its contribution sources of this country that the contribution of
to the complete system is a maximum when each segment to the security of the United
operating in conjunction with the other com- States is a maximum when operating in con-
ponents of the system. This philosophy of junction with all other segments. Weapons
design has long been applied in sound engineer- system concepts are then applied within the
ing practice. The increase in the complexity Department of Defense in a narrower sense,
of modern weapons during recent years, along when, for example, an assignment is given to a
with the attendant increase in the size of weapons system team to develop a system for
the engineering staff required to design these Air Defense. This air defense system might
weapons, brought forth a name for the phi- conceivably include four or five different means
losophy of weapons system design. A dis- for destroying the attackers; one of which
cussion of the concept is included here since might be a surface-to-air missile system. This
in practically every instance the warhead system is designed for maximum contribution
designer is working as a member of a weap- to air defense by applying weapons system
ons system team. It is important, then, that concepts in a still narrower sense. Further-
he appreciate the scope, principles, and the more, the warhead designer developing the
method of applying, weapons system design warhead for this ground-to-air system designs
concepts. his warhead for a maximum contribution to the
system and thereby applies the concept. In fact,
PROCUREMENT LOGISTICS OPERATIONS
^^ _ __-..>■
«yk_^ tu:
RESEARCH STORAGE TRAINING
DEVELOPMENT SHIPMENT TEST
PROTOTYPE MANUFACTURE SUPPLY EVALUATION
TEST MAINTENANCE DOCTRINE
PRODUCTION DESIGN OVERHAUL OFFENSIVE UTILIZATION
TOOLING AND PROCUREMENT REPAIR DEFENSIVE UTILIZATION
PRODUCTION MANUFACTURE SPARES ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-1. Utilization of Manpower and Natural Resources.

30
YEARS
CONCEPTION PRELIMINARY PRE-PRODUCTION COMPONENT FLIGHT

DESIGN DESIGN TEST TEST
PRODUCTION S
TOOL DESIGN*
DELIVERY
800 6,150,000 MAN HOURS
50,000,000 DOLLARS
700 ••
*
LU
600
Ld
2
O
500-
UJ
400
a: 300
UJ
m
200-
100
Figure 2'2, Engineering Effort - Guided Missile System Development
the detailed design of the various components of terms of light weight, ease of maintenance,
the warhead are developed so as to contribute simplicity, reliability, low cost, strategic
to the maximum effectiveness of the warhead. materials, and a host of other terms, all refer
Thus, it may be seen that the concept of weap- to conservation of manpower and natural re-
ons system design may be applied on a scope sources. These are the true measures of cost,
as broad as the operation of the Department of and therefore the optimum weapons system is
Defense or as narrow as the detailed design of one which obtains its objectives with the least
a warhead component. overall expenditure of these two commodities.
A breakdown of the utilization of these com-
2-1 THE MEASURE OF THE COST OF THE CONTRIBUTION modities in bringing a weapons system to bear
on the enemy is shown graphically in Figure
The most difficult aspect of practicingthe 2-1:
concept of weapons system design is to decide
where to stop maximizing the contribution of 2-4. SIZE OF THE WEAPONS SYSTEM DESIGN TEAM
a component. To make this decision, one must
measure the contribution relative to the effort The size of a weapons system design team
required to produce it. Thi° effort, in the last obviously varies widely in proportion to the
analysis, is always measured in terms of man- scope of the problem. The missile warhead
power and natural resources. The much used designer will most often be working as a
31
member of a design team dealing with a these responsibilities.
complete missile system. The diagram shown The warhead designer needs data relating
in Figure 2-2 graphically represents the to the complete missile system in order to
distribution of engineering effort for a typical carry out his function as the warhead member
missile system development. It is presented of the missile system team. These data are
here to give the designer an understanding of listed as follows. The pamphlet is written on
how his work fits in with that of the other the basis that this specific information is pro-
members of the team. vided in each case for which a warhead design
is required.
2-5. APPLICATION OF WEAPONS SYSTEM CON-
CEPT TO WARHEAD DESIGN Information Supplied to the Warhead Designer
1. Allowable warhead weight
This pamphlet is written and arranged on 2. Warhead compartment size and shape
the premise that the warhead designer will be 3. Missile velocity
working as a member of a weapons system 4. Standard error of guidance
team. As such, he will be responsible for all 5. Size and shape of target
design and development work directly related 6. Target velocity
to the warhead. His responsibilities will in- 7. Target vulnerability
clude warhead-type selection, warhead evalu- 8. Target engagement altitude
ation, detailed design in coordination with the 9. Target engagement aspect
missile and fuze designers, and warhead tests. 10. Warhead installation information
Basic data are included in the pamphlet to 11. Missile environment during handling and
assist the warhead designer in carrying out flight
32
I
Chapter 3
WARHEAD SELECTION
3-1. INTRODUCTION These classifications have been chosen

first so as to distinguish between aerial and
For a particular missile, the warhead surface targets. Aerial targets are further
designer may be required to select a warhead classified as high level or low level; a low level
which will make the maximum contribution to target is considered as being below 20,000
the complete missile weapons system. If this feet, a high level target as being above 20,000
is the case, in order to be certain that he has feet. Surface targets are further subdivided
selected the proper type, he should actually into concentrated targets, dispersed targets
carry out the detailed design of several types and unprotected personnel targets. A concen-
and then carefully evaluate each one against trated target is one which requires a direct
the other to determine the optimum. Prelimi- hit or very near miss to do damage and it can
nary design data for all warhead types are pro- be disabled with one hit. A dispersed target is
vided in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides basic spread out over a large area and requires
information for evaluating the warhead types many hits to disable it. Personnel are in a
against various targets. This chapter (Chapter separate class. Surface targets are further
3) presents data to aid the designer in selecting classified as hard and soft. A hard target is
the warhead types for initial detailed design one which has been specifically designed and
and evaluation. constructed to withstand attack, while a soft
The initial selection is based on the weight
allotted for the warhead by the missile system
designer, the standard error of guidance of the TABLE 3-1
missile guidance system, and on the target or
Target Classification
targets specified. This data, used in conjunction
with the selection chart presented in sub- Classification Title
chapter 3-3, will permit the warhead designer
to select one or two warhead types for opti- HAA High Altitude Aerial
mization. If the chart does not indicate a unique LAA Low Altitude Aerial
CHS Concentrated Hard Surface
type, the types selected must be designed in CSS Concentrated Soft Surface
detail and evaluated. DHS Dispersed Hard Surface
DSS Dispersed Soft Surface
3-2. CLASSIFICATION OF TARGETS UPS Unprotected Personnel
on Surface
CPS Partly Covered Personnel
Targets are classified into eight types in on Surface
the selection chart. These classifications are
shown in Table 3-1.
33
3-3. WARHEAD SELECTION CHART
Warhead selections shown in Table 3-2 are tentative, and should be used as a
very rough guide only.
Table 3-2 Warhead Selection Chart
WARHEAD WEIGHT IN POUNDS

STANDARD
TARGET ERROR OF
25 25 100 300
CLASSIFICATION GUIDANCE Over
or to to to
(FEET) 600
Less 100 300 600
HAA SC* SC* CR* FR*CR* FR*CL* FR*

Less than 30
EB FR CL CL
High CR* FR*CR* FR* CL* FR*
30 to 60
SC EB FR CL CL
Altitude
Aerial CL* FR* CL* FR*
More than 60
CR FR FR CR CL
LAA SC*EB EB*SC* EB* EB* EB*
Less than 30
CL CR CL CL
Low EB EB* EB*CL* EB* EB*
30 to 60
SC CR CR CL* CL
Altitude
Aerial More than 60 CL CL* EB*
CR EB EB CR EB CL
CHS SC* SC* SC* IB* IB*
Less than 30
IB EB
Concentrated SC* SC* IB* IB*
30 to 60
SC IB EB
Hard
Surface IB*
More than 60 IB
IB SC EB
CSS FR*IB* FR*IB* FR*IB* FR*IB* FR*IB*
Less than 30
EB EB EB
Concentrated FR* FR* FR* FR*EB* FR*EB*
30 to 60 OR IB EB CL CL
Soft
Surface FR* FR* FR* FR* FR*EB*
More than 60
OR CL EB CL
DHS SC* SC* IB*
Less than 30 IB
SC
Dispersed SC* SC* IB*
30 to 60
SC IB
Hard
Surface IB*
More than 60
SC SC
DSS FR* FR* FR* CL* FR* CL* FR*EB*
Less than 30 OR OR EB CL
Dispersed FR* FR* FR* CL* FR* CL* FR*EB*
30 to 60
OR OR EB CL
Soft
FR* FR» FR*CL* FR*CL* FR*EB*
Surface More than 60
DR DR EB CL
UPS FR* FR* FR FR FR
Less than 30 CL CL CL
FR* FR* FR FR FR
Unprotected 30 to 60 CL CL CL
Personnel on
Surface FR* FR* FR FR FR
More than 60 CL
CL CL
CPS FR* FR* FR FR FR
Less than 30 CL CL CL
Partly Covered FR* FR* FR FR FR
30 to 60 CL CL CL
Personnel on
FR* FR FR FR FR
Surface More than 60 CL CL CL
CODE: IB - Internal Blast FR - Fragment CR - Continuous Rod SC - Shaped Charge

EB - External Blast CL - Cluster DR - Discrete Rod
»More likely selections.
34
target has not, although it may be military Operations Research; Armament", Grayson
equipment. Merrill and Harold Goldberg, D. VanNostrand
Examples of the various classification of Company, Inc., Princeton, 1956.
targets follows. (2) "New Weapons for Air Warfare, Sci-
HAA Turbojet aircraft, turboprop aircraft, ence in World War II", J. C. Boyce, Little,
reciprocating engine aircraft, turbo- Brown, 1947.
jet missiles, ramjet missiles, rocket (3) "Elementary Comparison of Antiair-
powered missiles. craft Warhead Types", HerbertK. Weiss, BRL
LAA Same as HAA plus helicopters, light- Memo 631, ASTIA AD-7624, Nov. 1952.
er-than-air craft. (4) ' 'Optimization of Warhead and Fuzing
CHS Concrete pill boxes, bunkers, ar- Parameters", Rand Corp., RM-349, Mar. 1950.
mored vehicles, single fortifications, (5) "Weapons Selectionfor Air Targets",
tunnels or causeways, concrete dams, Directorate of Intelligence (USAF), ASTIA
battleships, destroyers, large caliber AD-38743, Jan. 1954.
gun emplacements, concrete bridges. (6) "Tactical Analysis of Surface-to-Air
CSS Trucks, locomotives, transport ships, Guided Missile Systems", C. F. Meyer, R. P.
tankers, landing craft, individual air- Rich and others, Johns Hopkins Univ. Report
craft on ground, individual industrial No. TB-166-1, ASTIA AD-22820, Nov. 1953.
buildings, wooden bridges. (7) "Effectiveness of Warheads for Guid-
DHS Submarine pens, steel mills, under- ed Missiles Used Against Aircraft", Ed S.
ground industrial plants, Naval ship- Smith, BRL Memo. Report 507, Mar. 1950.
yards. (8) "Effectiveness of Existing and De-
DSS Large industrial complexes, railroad velopment Weapons in the Intermediate Anti-
marshalling^ yards, airports, oil re- aircraft Role", F. G. King and F. Q. Barnett,
fineries, ammunition dumps, supply BRL Memo. Report 528, Nov. 1950.
areas, highways. (9) "Effectiveness of Missile Warheads
UPS Infantry troops in the field or in Against High-Speed Air Targets", EdS. Smith,
encampments. BRL Memo. Report 528, Dec. 1954.
CPS Partly covered troops on the surface (10) "1500 lb. Anti-Personnel Warhead
of the terrain, e.g. in trenches. for the Honest John Rocket", Ed S. Smith,
A. K. Eittreim and W. L. Stubbs, BRL Memo.
3-4. BIBLIOGRAPHY Report 779.
(1) "Principles of Guided Missile Design;
35
559-728 Ü - 74 - 4
dfop 20-29«*
Chapter 4
WARHEAD DETAIL DESIGN
4-1. GENERAL and Space Allocated

3. Design, Installation and Handling Pro-
This chapter presents the data needed to visions
effect the complete detail design of all warhead 4. Make Strength Analysis
types. A step by step procedure is set forth for 5. Provide for Loading Explosive
each warhead type except chemical and biolog- 6. Provide for Installation of Fuze
ical which are presented in general narrative 7. Select Method of Fabrication
form. A summary of design data required and 8. Prepare Summary of Fuzing Require-
a list of the data required by the fuze designer ments
is presented at the end of each subchapter. 9. Prepare Summary of Design Data
The attention of the designer is again in-
vited to the fact brought out in Chapter 2 that The exact order of the design procedure
certain data are generally required to allow may vary depending upon the viewpoint of the
the warhead designer to effect the detail design designer and, even more, on the military re-
of the warhead. The check list of these required quirements which often fix certain parameters
data is repeated here for emphasis and con- in advance.
venient reference.
4-2.2. Detail Design Data (Fig. 4-1 through
Information Supplied to the Warhead Designer Fig. 4-5; Tables 4-1 through 4-3)
1. Allowable warhead weight Function of the Warhead Case and Related Blast
2. Warhead compartment size and shape Effects The function of the warhead case de-
3. Missile velocity pends upon whether the warhead is designed to
4. Standard error of guidance be detonated inside or outside of the target
5. Size and shape of target envelope, that is internal or external blast.
6. Target velocity The case for an internal blast warhead must
7. Target vulnerability function not only as a container for the explo-
8. Target engagement altitude sive charge but also as a means for penetrating
9. Target engagement aspect the target. The case for an external blast war-
10. Warhead installation information head serves only as a container for the charge.
11. Missile environment during handling Internal blast within a structure produces
and flight an overpressure inside of the structure. When
4-2. BLAST WARHEADS
this overpressure is of sufficient magnitude
and duration, the target structure will fail due
4-2.1. Detail Design Steps to the explosive action of the blast acting on the
Step structure. This explosive action is such that
Number Detail Design Step the outer structure of the target is blown out
1. Decide Function of the Warhead Case and away from the target. The remaining
2. Investigate Compatibility of Weight structure is weakened to such an extent that it
36 "9jf>
V.
P~
<cf^> V
\
^^\/Q\/^\;K/\7~\,'\£/\/\/y\/\/\/\K7:7\ *
INTERNAL
/\/\/\AA;yWVyVv\A/\/V\AAA[
EXTERNAL
Figure 4-1. Action of Internal and External Blast
37
is unable to withstand the structural loads and range covered by equation 4-2.2 and Reference
collapse of the target structure occurs. See 4-2.a cause extensions of the line (on log paper)
Figure 4-1. to be curved *
Internal blast damage is proportional to The foregoing data on peak pressure and
the ratio of the high explosive to the volume of impulse may be corrected for other explosives
the space containing the burst. Therefore, it is by using the following relative values on an
possible to accomplish similar damage with a equal volume basis . Reference 4-2.b .
small charge weight in a small volume as with To obtain relative values on an equal weight
a large charge weight in a proportionately lar- basis, the specific gravity of the explosives
ger volume. It is to be noted that damage by must be considered. For example, the following
internal detonations is caused not only by the table illustrates the values of peak pressure
air blast wave but also by the expanding gaseous and impulse relative to composition "B" on
products of detonation. Damage from the latter both a weight and volume basis for HBX-1 and
cause is also dependent upon the ratio of the H-6. The exact composition and properties of
high explosive released and the volume con- the various explosives may vary slightly be-
taining the burst. tween the armed services.
A similar action occurs with an external The steel case retaining the explosive
blast except that the explosive action is directed charge reduces the effectiveness of the charge
against the outer rather than the inner surface since it requires energy to rupture it after the
of the structure. With external blast, the over- charge has been detonated. The effect of this
pressure produces an implosive effect on the has been studied in Reference 4-2.c with the
target structure rather than explosive, and following empirical results. For peak pres-
structural failure is generally due to inward sure:
collapse. See Figure 4-1. w' 1 + M (1 - M')
= 1.19 (4-2.3)
The peak overpressures and the positive 1 + M
impulse of air shock waves from the detonation
of spherically shaped explosive charges of For positive impulse:
= (-»ih
*r>
50/50 Pentolite (see Appendix) have been meas- H" 1 + M (1 - M' )
ured under ambient atmospheric pressures and (4-2.4)
1 + M
temperatures simulating altitudes from sea where: \
■*v>
level to 50,000 feet. Reference 4-2.a The W equivalent bare charge weight
following equations fit the experimental data. actual charge weight
actual casing weight
P „ 37.95 t 154.9 2 03.4 403.9 AL = ratio of casing weight to charge
(4-2.1)
ZP
o'/* <zp0%r (ZP'/J (ZPjLf weight in cylindrical section
At' = casing-to-charge weight-ratio pa-
lo
rameter, defined as follows:
8.
no - 1.374 - 0.695 log 10 (ZP0%)
P % & 1.0 when M ^ 1.0 M' -/ when M r < 1.0
where: (4-2.2) c
= peak pressure in psi
p The types of targets likely to be encoun-
p
= ambient pressure in atmospheres tered in blast warhead applications vary from
(1 atmosphere = 14.7 psi) light structures such as aircraft ai.d frame
z = R/c\ known as scaled distance buildings to intermediate structures such as
R = distance from explosion in feet vehicles and masonry buildings through very
c = weight of Pentolite in pounds heavy structures such as armored vehicles and
/ = positive inpulse, milliseconds psi reinforced concrete structures. Light struc-
These equations are graphically represented tures are critically damaged by blast when det-
in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. Later data beyond the onated in the air nearby (by proximity fuzes)
* References are listed at the end of sections within chapters.
38
\' J-
\.
Table 4-1 Characteristics of Explosives

Relative
Peak Relative Specific
Explosive Pressure Impulse Gravity
Pentolite (50/50: TNT/PETN 0.98 0.97 1.68
Composition "B" (60/40/1: RDX/TNT/ 1.00 1.00 1.68

Wax added)
TNT 0.92 0.94 1.60
Tritonal (80/20: TNT/Al) 1.04 1.08 1.70
Torpex 2 (42/40/18: RDX/TNT/A1) 1.13 1.16 1.76
HBX- 1 (67/11/17/5/0.5:
Comp B/TNT/A1 powder/D-2
Desens/ CaCl) 1.12 1.19 1.72
H-6 (74/21/5/0.5:
Comp B/Al/D-2 Desens. /CaCl) 1.20 1.39 1.75
Table 4-2 Characteristics of HBX-1 and H-6

Relative peak pressure Relative Impulse
on basis of on basis of
cplosive Weight Volume Weight Volume
HBX-1 1.07 1.12 1.14 1.20
H-6 1.12 1.19 1.30 1.39
or by surface impact close to the structures. represent 50% of the total warhead weight.
In this instance, the warhead case, acting as a The effects of altitude on external blast
pure container, represents from 15% to 20% of are reported in References 4-2.n and 4-2.o.
the total warhead weight. If a warhead with such The blast envelope generally takes the form
a case registers a direct hit on light target of an oblate spheroid. The axial bounds of this
structure, the case is usually strong enough to envelope are generally unaffected by altitude;
properly retain the charge until detonation the transverse bounds (above and below the
takes place and results in a damaginghigh order target) are generally pinched in with increase
explosion. Warheads for use against interme- of altitude. More extreme effects (on the trans-
diate structures are usually fuzed to explode verse bounds) are caused by gust loading due
on impact or soon thereafter. For such a war- to the velocity of the target. Reference 4-2.0 .
head, the case is strengthened somewhat to If the direction of the external blast rel-
withstand the impact forces and usually repre- ative to a target surface is face-on, the blast
sents about 25% to 30% of the total warhead volume is much greater than if the direction
weight. Warheads used against very heavy is side-on, especially at high altitudes. In
structures are designed with heavy steel ogival general, for bursts occurring at equal distances
heads and reinforced walls to give them pene- from an aerial target surface, the damage is a
tration capability. For this use, the case may direct function of the charge weight. As this
39
weight decreases from large (<=. 600 lb) to proximated by the damage due to an internal
small (=. 100 lb), the tendency is to obtain burst of one-half this weight.
local failure instead of drastic and immediate The damage to industrial buildings from
disruption of the aircraft. external blast was studied experimentally in
It is to be noted that many aircraft are Reference 4-2.d. The damage from blast was
capable of continuing in flight with considerable negligible at overpressures up to 2.0 psi and
local damage. In utilizing the data presented consisted almost entirely of broken windows
in References 4-2.n and 4-2.o, it is to be fur- and roof decks. At 3.5 psi all windows and
ther noted that the Russian IL-38 "Bear" and roof decks were broken and some walls cracked
present Russian fighters are generally similar but did not cave in. At 5.0 psi a few localized
to the B-29 and F-86 aircraft, respectively, in portions of external walls were blown down.
regard to the effects of blast phenomena. At 7.5 psi over half of the walls crumbled and
The effects of altitude on internal blast are parts of the roof structure including framing
reported in References 4-2.p and 4-2.q. These were brought down. At 10 psi all of the masonry
references report the results of experiments walls were reduced to rubble and the steel sup-
conducted by using small charge weights port structure was distorted; only the major
against various aircraft components, in which steel columns were left standing. At 15 psi the
the blast waves struck the nearest portion of entire building had collapsed and everything
the structure normally (i.e. head on) butdonot was wrecked except equipment in the base-
include the effect of charge velocity, i.e., far ment and some steam generators above ground.
side enhancement. These results show that the At 30 psi the entire building and everything
ratio of the explosive weight needed at high above ground with the exception of the steam
altitude to that at sea level for equal damage generators was a tangled mass of masonry and
increases with altitude. The average ratios for crumpled metal.
the aircraft components tested were 1.22,1.39, Data on the penetration ability of various
and 1.72 for altitudes of 30,000, 45,000, and ogives is given in Table 4-3. This information
60,000 feet respectively. may be used as a guide to designing penetration
References 4-2.r through 4-2.t report the cases.
effects of the charge velocity on the resulting The warhead designer, acting as a member
peak pressure and positive impulse. These ex- of a weapon system team, is given information
periments are all with 3/8 lb charges at sea defining the targets, the missile performance,
level. They indicate that the side-on peak pres- the guidance accuracy, and the allowable total
sure and positive impulse are both increased warhead weight. With this known and by use of
in the direction of charge motion and decreased the foregoing data on blast effects and casings,
in the opposite direction relative to results ob- a decision is made regarding the function of
tained from detonation of a stationary charge. the warhead case between the limits of a pure
These velocity effects are probably larger for container and a containing-plus-penetration
the relatively small charge weights tested than means. This will establish the case configu-
for the larger weights used in engagements. ration. Also, using the data and percentages
Similarly, the effects are likely to be larger given, an approximation of the weight of the
at high altitudes than at sea level. case is made.
The effects of altitude on target surface
bursts are intermediate between those for ex- Compatibility of Weight and Space AllocatedKnow-
ternal and internal blast. The effect of a sur- ing the approximate configuration and weight
face burst of a given charge weight may be ap- of the case and the total allowable warhead
40
weight, an approximate charge-to-metal ratio ring around the periphery of the warhead case.
may be established. Having this, the compati- These mounting fixtures will normally be lo-
bility of the weight and space allocated to the cated centrally on the warhead case or near
warhead is checked using the following formu- both ends of the case. The warhead may be
la: supported from one end only, but additional
i--i ^+-^ (4-2.5) strength in the casing is then necessary to
W p (1+c/m) (l+c/m)Pc overcome the cantilever effect of the over-
where: hanging portion.
V = total warhead volume in cubic
inches Strength Analysis The strength of the overall
w = allowed weight of warhead in pounds case and the support fittings can now be ana-
c/m = charge-to-metal ratio based on to- lyzed. The type and magnitude of the loads to
tal charge and metal weight which the warhead will be subjected depends on
pm = density of metal in pounds per the location of the support fittings and the de-
cubic inch sign load criteria. This information is also
Pc = density of charge in pounds per obtained from the missile system designer.
cubic inch In some installations the warhead case is an
Use of the above equation will indicate integral part of the missile structure and must
whether weight or space is the limiting factor be treated accordingly in the analysis. Where
in determining the size of the warhead case. the case functions only as a container for the
Weight will be the limiting factor when total explosive charge the design is based on a stress
weight of a warhead which occupies the entire analysis considering the missile and handling
warhead compartment is in excess of the weight inertia load factors. For such warheads, mis-
allocated for the warhead. In this instance, the sile-acceleration forces are always important,
weight and size of the warhead must be reduced and centrifugal forces cannot be neglected for
accordingly. Space is the limiting factor when spinning rockets and missiles. When impact or
the total weight of the warhead is less than penetration of structure is required, it will
that allocated for the warhead. In this instance usually be found that the impact or penetration
the charge-to-metal' ratio may be decreased loads are much more severe than the missile
for penetration type cases by increasing the and handling loads. Under these conditions the
amount of steel in the ogive. This will increase impact and penetration loads determine the
its penetration capabilities and increase the strength of the warhead case, while the missile
weight per unit volume of the warhead. Note inertia load factors determine the design of
that the method of mounting the warhead can mounting lugs from a strength viewpoint.
also be a limiting factor in determining the
weight and shape, and consequently the mount- Explosive Loading and Sealing An Opening must
ing must be considered. At this point in the be provided in the warhead casing to allow
design, the overall configuration of the war- loading of the explosive charge. Loading aper-
head, total weight and charge-to-metal ratio tures are usually centrally located on either
may be fixed. end of the warhead case when target impact is
not required. When target penetration is re-
Installation and Handling Provisions The installa- quired, the loading apertures will normally be
tion provisions in the warhead compartment on the rear of the warhead case, because such
and support fixtures required for handling must an aperture in the nose weakens the penetration
be studied. The requirements for these will be ability of the warhead. The inside surface of
obtained from the missile system designer. the warhead casing is coated with inert mate-
Typical installation and support fittings for the rial to eliminate chemical reaction between
warhead consist of mounting lugs or a mounting the explosive and warhead metal, to provide
41
Table 4-3
Penetration Capabilities Of Penetration Case
Approx. Projectile Impact Impact Material Penetrated

Weight Diameter Velocity Angle Penetrated Depth - Reference
Description of Projectile lb in. fps deg. in.
Bomb, Experimental, Mk 81, Mod O 250 9 1000 20 STS Armor* 1-7/8 9-2. i
Bomb, G. P. (Low Drag) Type EX-12, Mod O 500 10.95 1000 20 STS Armor* 1-1/4 9-2. j
Bomb, G. P. (Low Drag) Type EX-10, Mod 3 925 - 1000 0 STS Armor* 1-1/2 9-2.1
Bomb, G.P., AN-M65A1 1240 19 807 0 STS Armor* 2 9-2. k
Warhead, G. P., T23 1675 - 1487 0 STS Armor* 2 9-2.f
Warhead, G.P., T23 1675 - 1486 15 STS Armor* 1.5 9-2.f
N3 Warhead, T.P., T23 1691 - 1392 45 1 9-2.f
Bomb, G.P. (Low Drag) Type EX-11, Mod O 2000 17.95 1000 20 STS Armor* 1-7/8 9-2. h
Bomb, G.P., AN-M66A2 2402 24 574 0 STS Armor* 2 9-2.k
Bomb, General Service, T55 3000 24 1000 15-30 STS Armor* .633 9-2.g
Bomb, G.P. (Low Drag) Type EX-10, Mod 3 925 - 1000 0 Concrete** 24 9-2.1
Inert Loaded Warhead, T2 1400 - 1128 0-20 Concrete** 10 9-2.1
Bomb, General Service, T55 3000 24 1000 15-30 Concrete** 10 9-2.g
Bomb, T28E1 (Amazon II) 25000 38 1070 17 Concrete** 177 9-2. m
Bomb, T28E2 25000 32 1090 20 Concrete** 249 9-2.m
*STS Armor Plate

**Concrete, Reinforced
)
500.0
300.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
70.0
50.0
Figure 4-2. Peak Pressure Vs.Scaled Distance at
30.0 -
Various Atmospheric Pressures, 50/50
Q.|Q? 20.0 Pentolite Spherical Bare Charges
15.0
0.0
7.0
5.0
3.0 h
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0
1/3 R.
r
O „ |/3
c
Figure 4-3. Scaled Impulse Vs.

Scaled Distance at Various
Atmospheric Pressures, 50/50
Pentolite Spherical Bare Charges
7.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 30.0 50.0

1/3
Z P
43
m
SEAMLESS OR WELDED
TUBING DRAWN TO SIZE
CONTINUOUS'
BUTT
WELDS
Figure 4-5. Multipiece Fabrication
near the freezing temperature of the explosive

to avoid excessive shrinkage and to control the
grain size which affects sensitivity. Shrinkage
is minimized by the use of risers, controlled
cooling rate, etc. The final seal usually con-
sists of a plate bolted in place over the loading
aperture. A layer of inert material is usually
inserted between the sealing plate and the ex-
Figure 4-4. One Piece Fabrication plosive charge to allow for thermal expansion.
a cushion between small crevices or pro- Fuze Installation The warhead fuze is usually
jections of the metal surface, and to provide located in either the nose or the rear portion
a bond between the explosive and the metal of the warhead. Some warhead applications re-
casing wall. quire a fuze in both locations. A threaded hole
The explosive charge is usually cast in for fuze insertion can be tapped directly in the
place in the warhead cavity. The explosive is warhead casing. A fuze adapter consisting of
heated until molten, poured in place, and then a bushing with external and internal threads is
allowed to cool and solidify. The pellet-and- generally used. The fuze is threaded into the
pour method of loading is frequently used in adapter, or an adapter plug is inserted to keep
larger warheads weighing more than 200 out foreign material and moisture prior to fuze
pounds. This method involves alternately pour- installation. This plug can also be so made as
ing the explosive melt at a temperature some- to be useful in handling the warhead.
what greater than the normal melt temperature,
and dropping in quantities of the same explo- Fabrication and Too/i'ngBlast warheads are fab-
sive in pellet form until the warhead is filled. ricated using two general methods—one piece
Loading may also be accomplished by pressing and multipiece construction.
or tamping preformed or plasticized explosive One piece construction utilizes the so-
in place. called pierce and draw method. A preheated
Variations in density caused by porosity billet is pierced with a mandrel sufficiently to
and shrinkage cavities are most undesirable. start the general internal shaping. The front
These tend to affect the design weight and also, ogive is then formed. The billet is then forced
more importantly, degrade the initial fragment through draw rings to form the cylindrical and
velocity. Filling is generally accomplished rear portions. This is followed by heat-treating
44
until minimum physical properties are met. 4-2.3. References
See Figure 4-4.
For the multiplece construction, the nose 4-2.a "The Effect of Atmospheric Pressure
and rear sections may be either pressed from and Temperature on Air Shock", Jane
plate or forged, depending on the configuration. Dewey and Joseph Sperrazza, BRL
The cylindrical section is usually fabricated Report 721, May 1950.
from seamless or welded tubing. The above 4-2.b "Relative Air Blast Damage Effec-
components are then as sembled by butt welding. tiveness of Various Explosives", W.
See Figure 4-5. E. Baker and O. T. Johnson, BRL Re-
Fabrication by the pierce and draw method port 689, June 1953.
is best adapted to heavy-walled munitions while 4-2.c "The Effect of the Steel Case on the
thin-walled cases are usually fabricated using Air Blast from High Explosives", E.
multipiece construction. After initial setup, M. Fisher and C. J. Aronson, NAVORD
higher production rates can be obtained with the Report 2753, Feb. 1953.
pierce and draw procedure. 4-2.d Report by Armour Research Founda-
tion of Illinois Institute of Technology,
Summary of Fuzing Requirements The fuze design- "Study of Vulnerability of a Thermal
er needs design information to design a fuze Electric Power Plant to Air Blast",
which is compatible with the missile system Mar. 1954.
and the warhead. He will have access to the 4-2 .e "Final Report on Ballistics Experi-
same missile system data as did the warhead mental Tests of Guided Missile War-
designer. In addition to this, the fuze designer heads", NPG Report no. 691, Dec.
will need the following information relating 1950
specifically to the warhead: 4-2.f "Tests of Warheads, G. P., 1500 lb,
(1) Weight of warhead allotted to fuze T23", NPG Report no. 1234.
or S&A 4-2.g "First Partial Report of Gun Firing
(2) Type of explosive used Test of Bombs, General Service, 3000
(3) A drawing of the warhead lb, T-55", NPG Report no. 945, Mar.
(4) Type of case used, that is pure con- 1952.
tainer, impact, or penetration 4-2.h "Thirty second Partial Report on
(5) Bombs and Associated Components.
Final Report on Plate Penetration
Summary of Design Data At the conclusion of the Tests of the 2000 lb, G. P. (Low
design procedure, a summary of engineering Drag) Type EX-11, Mod O", NPG
data relating to the warhead should be prepared. Report no. 950.
This should include the following items: 4-2.i "Plate Penetration Tests of Experi-
(1) Total weight mental 250 lb, Mk 81, Mod O Bomb
(2) Design and installation drawings Bodies", NPG Report no. 1292, Sept.
(3) Explosive 1954.
(a) Material 4-2.j "Plate Impact Tests of Low Drag,
(b) Weight G. P., 500 lb, Bomb Type EX-12,
(c) Density Mod O", NPG Report no. 1299, Oct.
(4) Charge-to-metal ratio 1954.
(5) Case 4-2.k "Ballistic Test of Modified 1000 lb,
(a) Type G. P. Bomb, AN-M65A1 and 2000 lb,
(b) Weight G. P., Bomb, AN-M66A2 and Bomb
(6) Location of center of gravity Data for Penetration of Missile Re-
(7) Mounting means sistant Armor", NPG Report no. 382,
45
Oct. 1949. Blast Damage to Structures", E. Sevin
4-2.1 "Ballistic Tests of 1000 lb Low Drag, and R. W. Sauer, Armour Research
G. P. Bomb, Type EX-10, Mod 3", Foundation, ASTIA AD-47 930, Sept.
NPG Report no. 748, April, 1951. 1954.
4-2.m "Penetration and Deceleration of (4) "Air Blast Loading on Structures",
25,000 lb Bombs in Massive Concrete D. C. Sachs and S. R. Hornig, Stan-
Targets", BRLReport712, Dec. 1949. ford Research Inst., ASTIA AD-
4-2.n "A Method of Predicting External 43 119, July, 1954.
Blast Vulnerability of Aircraft as a (5) "A Simple Method for Evaluating
Function of Altitude with Application Blast Effects on Buildings", Armour
to B-29 Aircraft", O. T. Johnson, et Research Foundation, ASTIA AD-38
al., BRL Report 1002, Dec. 1956. 891, July, 1954.
4-2.0 "An Experimental Investigation of (6) " Deformation Model Studie s of Build-
the Effect of Motion of a B-29 Hori- ings Subjected to Blast", H. Williams
zontal Stabilizer on External Blast and A. Ruby, Vibration Research Lab.,
Damage from Explosive Charges", ASTIA AD-58 619, Dec. 1954.
R. L. Ballard, et al., BRL Report 982, (7) "Effects of Impacts and Explosions",
June, 1956. NDRC-DIV. 2 Vol. 1.
4-2. p "Internal Blast Damage to Aircraft at
High Altitude", J. Sperrazza, BRL 4-3. FRAGMENTATION WARHEADS
Memo. Report 605, April, 1952
4-2.q "Internal Blast Damage to Aircraft 4-3.1. Detail Design Steps
at High Altitudes—Part II", W. E. Step No. Detail Design Step
Baker and L. E. Needles, BRL Memo. 1. Estimate the Optimum Beam Width
Report 1036, August, 1956. 2. Select the External Configuration
4-2.r "Air Blast Measurements Around 3. Compute the Maximum Allowable
Moving Explosive Charges", J. D. Charge to Metal Ratio
Patterson II and J. Wenig, BRL Memo. 4. Compute the Maximum Possible
Report 767, March.1954. Fragment Ejection Velocity
4-2.s "Air Blast Measurements Around 5. Select the Optimum Fragment Mass
Moving Explosive Charges, Part II", and Ejection Velocity
B. F. Armendt, Jr., BRL Memo. Re- 6. Compute the Actual Charge to Metal
port 900, May, 1955. Ratio and Select the Explosive Type
4-2.t "Air Blast Measurements Around 7. Select the Fragment Shape and Ma-
Moving Explosive Charges, Part III", terial
B. F. Armendt and J. Sperr azza, BRL 8. Select the Method of Fragment Con-
Memo. Report 1019, July, 1956. trol
9. Design in Detail the Fragmenting
4-2.4. Bibliography Metal
(1) "Report on Tests of the Effect of 10. Design in Detail All Other Components
Blast from Bare and Cased Charges 11. Prepare Summary of FuzingRequire-
on Aircraft", James N.Sarmousakis, ments
BRL Memo. Report 436, July, 1946. 12. Prepare Summary of Design Data
(2) "Internal Blast Damage to Aircraft The exact order of the design procedure
at High Altitude", J. Sperrazza, BRL may vary depending upon the viewpoint of the
Memo. Report 605, April, 1952. designer and, even more, on the military re-
(3) ' 'Studies of the Influence of Variations quirements which often fix certain parameters
of Blast and Structural Parameters on in advance.
46
WARHEAD SECTION
FRAGMENT
BEAM WIDTH
ANGLE OF FRAGMENT = g
EJECTION (DYNAMIC)
DIRECTION OF MISSILE MOTION
Figure 4-6. Definition of Fragment Beam Width Figure A'l. Vector Addition of Fragment
and Missile Velocities
4-3.2. Detail Design Data (Fig 4-6 through fragments after a short travel is termed the
Fig. 4-13; Tables 4-4 through 4-7) "initial static fragment velocity". The method
Beam Width In designing a fragmentation war- of computing this velocity will be shown later.
head, the designer may first estimate the re- If the warhead is moving through space at the
quired fragment beam width. Fragment beam time of detonation, as is naturally the case in
width is defined as the angle covered by a flight, the velocity possessed by the fragments
useful density of fragments, as shown in Figure a short distance away is termed the "initial
4-6(a). It also is sometimes given as shown dynamic fragment velocity". This dynamic
in Figure 4-6(b), in which case the actual velocity is obtained by adding vectorally the
beam width is «-ß static fragment velocity and the missile veloc-
To better understand the behavior of the ity.
fragments, it is necessary to know what hap-
pens to them between the time of detonation Initial Dynamic Fragment Velocity The initial
and the time of their arrival at the target. An dynamic fragment velocity, vd, is found by
analysis of the dynamic fragment velocity and applying the law of cosines in Figure 4-7 and
the method for the determination of the frag- is given by
ment pattern follows.
Upon detonation of the explosive charge, Vf + Vm '4-2V,V cos 9S (4-3.1)
the detonation wave causes the explosive and
its case to swell until the failure point is where:
V
reached. The case then fails in shear and f = static velocity of the fragments
tension and fragments are ejected at high veloc- Vm = missile velocity
ity. If the warhead is stationary at the time 0S = angle of fragment ejection
of detonation, the velocity possessed by the (static), to be derived later
47
MACH NUMBER RANGE ■
CLASSIFICATION
0 to 0.6 0. 6 to 1. 4 1.4 to 4.4 4.4 & Higher
C C C C C C C
D C
D D D
Balls .245 .00003 .41 .00155 .48 .00182 .456 .00172
Rt. Cyl. & Cubes S=l .330 .00155 .50 .00235 .57 .00267 .530 .00249
Long Fragments S=5 .330 .00104 .50 .00294 .57 .00335 .530 .00312
S=10 .330 nnooo .50 .00354 .57 .00403 .530 .00375
S=15 .330 .00263 .50 .00399 .57 .00455 .530 .00423
S=20 .330 .00287 .50 .00435 .57 .00496 .530 .00461
Table 4-4 One Piece Fabrication
C .8
D
.7
NOTE; CD IS ONE-HA LF TH* T CUBES A >JD RIG HT C1 UNDERS(L'D)

GENE RALLY U 3ED IN AERO DYNAMICS
.6
BALI-S
/
.5 Wi^
.^^_
//
/ i
.4
/" /
• /
s /
I
.3
.2
1.0 1.5 10
MACH NUMBER-M
Figure 4-8. CQ VS. Mach Number for Various Fragment Types
48
As a fragment travels through the air, it In many instances the distance Rp will be
is slowed down by air resistance so that it given and the velocity (Vx) at this distance will
will strike a stationary target at a lower veloc- be sought.In using equation 4-3.2 it is necessary
ity in free air than the initial velocity. For to use a co corresponding to an average
moving targets, the striking velocity is actually velocity over the distance, which will require
the vector difference of the target velocity and a few iterations of a trial and error method of
the fragment velocity at the end of its travel, solution. However, the velocity (V ) is not very
and hence the striking velocity may be greater sensitive to Cp when the distance Rp is small.
than the initial fragment velocity. This is dis- Also of some interest is the average
cussed further in Section 5-2.3. The actual velocity (v) over the distance RD:
trajectory of the fragment in space can gen-
erally be ignored since its path is so short that VKRn
the effect of the gravity can be neglected, and KR D-l

a straight line space trajectory within the
fragment's lethal distance can be assumed. where:
K~CDPa A/Mf
Fragment Slow-down If the initial frag- This equation is most often used in finding the
ment velocity in free air is known, the velocity values of K or CD from tests that provide
corresponding to a given distance traveled can values of VQ and y over a measured Rp It
be computed as follows: can be reversed to give the initial velocity if
the average velocity and drag coefficient are
-CD Pa R
D <A/Mf> (4-3.2) known.
In connection with Figure 4- 8, the following
where, in consistent units: conventions are used:
R
D = distance traveled (a) For balls or spheres, the projected
v
x = velocity at any distance Ro area is that of the maximum section, or A = n ro 2
v
0 = initial relative velocity in free air where r0 is the radius in feet.
A = random projected area of fragment (b) For cubes (and also approximately for
Pa = air density right cylinders where length L = D ) the curve
M
f = fragment mass is used in conjunction with an area given by
D drag force A = 0.25 times the fragment total area in
■p = drag coefficient in dimensionless square feet.
units = D/Pa AV2. (c) Tests at Mach 5.8 indicate that there
C
D is one-half the drag coefficient generally is no significant difference above Mach one
used in aerodynamics. Equation 4-3.2involves between the drag coefficient (Cp) of cubes and
the assumption that CD is substantially con- elongated fragments approximating rectangu-
stant over the travel distance Rp . lar parallelepipeds having a length of approxi-
A curve of cp vs Mach number is given in mately 9.5 times the geometric mean of width
Figure 4-8. To obtain the distance Rp forgiven and thickness. Hence to find Cp for an elongated
initial and final velocities, the value of CD fragment, one should use for supersonic velo-
corresponding to the mean velocity,(Vx + V0)/ 2 cities, either the drag coefficient for a cube
is read from the curve. The value of Rp is then with an area A =0.25 times the fragment total
obtained from equation (4-3.2). If the variation area in square feet or a closely consistent
in CD is relatively large, the velocity range relation such as
should be divided into subranges (such as
subsonic, transonic, and supersonic) for which v m v e - 0.0045 (pa/Po) Rp/'fWf (4-3.3)
c
p is approximately constant and the distances
added to obtain RD.
49
where (pa/pQ) is the air density ratio and M. notches in the casing, casings made in more
is the fragment mass in ounces. than one part, or asymmetric location of the
For steel fragments (spheres, cubes, or point where the detonation is initiated, there
rectangular parallelepipeds) the following sim- are some indications of asymmetry in the frag-
plified equation is more convenient to use than ment pattern. However, the only case in which
equation (4-3.2): the problem appears serious is that of a very
V _V e ■ C (Pa/
Po) R
D/ffÄ~ (4-3.4) asymmetric detonation point, especially if the
x o I
warhead is annular in shape (i.e., has a large
where Mf is given in ounces and RD in feet. hollow space along the axis). In this case, the
For various Mach number ranges, Table 4-4 detonation wave may strike the casing at sub-
gives values of CD and C for fragments classi- stantially different angles on the near and far
fied according to shape and a parameter S, sides, producing correspondingly different pat-
where s is the ratio of length to geometric terns; moreover, in the zone where detonation
mean lateral dimension. waves traveling around opposite sides of the
Values of CD for irregularly shaped frag- annulus meet, fragment shatter and alteration
ments are not accurately known but are possibly of velocities are to be expected.
slightly higher than those of the oblong, square- Reverting to the usual case of axial sym-
cornered shapes considered above. Drag co- metry, it remains to consider the fragment
efficients for fin stabilized fragments of un- density as a function of angle of emission <p
usual shape should be obtained from aero- measured from the forward direction of the
dynamic analysis or tests; however for darts warhead axis. Of interest are two different
similar to those of around 8-gr. designed by the versions of this pattern, usually called "static"
International Harvester Company (IHC Report and "dynamic". The static pattern is the one
15), values of CD can be obtained from Refer- produced if the warhead is detonated while
ences 4-3.z and 4-3.aa. motionless, while the dynamic pattern is the one
obtained if the warhead is in flight.
Fragment Patterns Both for prediction and For the prediction of static fragment
design of fragmentation warheads, it is impera- patterns, reliance is customarily placed on the
tive to know how the pattern of fragments Shapiro method, Reference 4-3. c. This method
ejected from the warhead is related to the assumes that fragments are (or can bethought
design of the warhead. The primary dependence of as) originally arranged in successive rings,
is on the shape of the warhead wall and the lo- the part of the warhead casing of interest being
cation of the point where detonation is initiated. composed of many such rings stacked one on
Except perhaps for the detonation point, another, each with its center on the axis of
fragmentation warheads are nearly always symmetry. Although this may not be the actual
symmetrical about a longitudinal axis, which is mode of fabrication of the casing, the Shapiro
usually also the axis of the missile carrying relation is probably a sufficiently accurate
the warhead. Correspondingly, it is usually approximation for initial design purposes.
assumed that the fragmentation pattern is sym- Figure 4-9 shows a longitudinal cross-section
metrical about the same axis. In the case of of such a warhead; Figure 4-10 is a more
truly symmetric warheads the available evi- detailed view of the cross-section in the vicinity
dence does not contradict the hypothesis of of one ring, with pertinent variables labeled.
symmetry of the fragment pattern, though Shapiro considers that the final static pattern
there is only a little experimental evidence on is obtained by compounding a nominal angle of
this point, most effort having been concentrated ejection with a dispersion about this nominal
on determination of the variation in the other angle.
direction as discussed in the next paragraph. The fragments from a given ring are
In cases of asymmetric staggering of nominally ejected in a direction making an angle
50
FRAGMENTS
<f> with the forward missile axis where, theo-
END
retically, <f> is given exactly by equation 4-3.6 PLATE
and approximately by equation4-3.7. The nota-

tion is the same as that shown in Figure 4-10,
except that VQ is the initial fragment velocity
(ejection velocity) and VD is the velocity of the DETONATOR
detonation wave in the explosive. Figure 4-9. Longitudinal Section of a Typical Frag-
/2aVD + (c-d) Vc mentation Warhead
90u (4-3.6)
2 2bVr
DIRECTION OF STATIC
FRAGMENT EMISSION
N
'VCoV0
£.- 90° (4-3.7)
2 2bVn ,
Although the derivation of these equations

is not entirely empirical, their results appear
to be consistent with experiments.
The fragments nominally ejected at angle
<f> are subject to dispersion about this direction.
The actual spread increases with the length of
the warhead and the ejection velocity decreases
at the ends. The standard deviation of the dis-
persion assumed for missile warheads is 3°.
Figure 4-11 shows this distribution for a war-
head having 10° beam width.
Having found the nominal direction of
INITIATION POINT
ejection of the fragments from each individual Figure 4-10. Diagram for Derivation of Angle of
ring, and their dispersion about that ring, it Emission of Fragments
remains to combine these to get the static
pattern from the warhead as a whole. To deter-
mine the total number of fragments at a given (10° CYLINDRICAL WARHEAD, BASE INITIATED)
static angle 6S. measured as usual from the
H
forward axis, and generally being the same as
1U|_
<£, the contributions from the various rings
are added together. Reverting to Figure 4-7, <LU
t-0s means the L$ of Figure 4-10.Actually
one does not deal with the exact angle 0 , but LU /
O /
with an angular interval (such as ±1° increments <
in 4>). represented by this angle. Having thus
obtained the total number " Q of fragments
ejected in the interval, conversion to density
D
(6S) of fragments per unit solid angle
(steradian) is made by the following equation
which treats the density at the center of the
2° interval as representing the average density
in the interval.
(4-3.8) Figure 4-11. Distribution of Fragments about Nomi-

D(ds) = 4.560 (esc > n.
nal Ejection Direction
51
Having found the static fragment pattern, approximations usually involved.
it now remains to find the fragment density if In the event that the designer desires to
the warhead is moving through space and the calculate dynamic fragment densities using the
vector velocities of the fragment (static) and relative velocity of missile and target rather
warhead are to be compounded to find the than that of the missile alone, it is expedient
actual direction in which the fragment proceeds to consider the component of target motion
outward. Reference 4-3.b . parallel to the missile motion (otherwise the
The dynamic density D(dd) for a given pattern would be asymmetric). The relative
direction dj is obtainable from the static den- velocity vr is then often approximated by
sity D(d ) for the corresponding direction Reference 4-3.b
0d Reference Figure 4-7 by the equations V - V, cos
m t (4-3.11)
where:
cot 0 , = cot 6 +
a s ,,
esc Q
s
(4-3.9)
9 = the angle between missile and tar-
get courses
and:
sin 6 (4-3.10) v = velocity of target
I s \
o(ed) = D(es>[—-f-)
sin 9
1 +- cos & For a more exact treatment of the relative
where: I velocity vT see Reference 4-3.bb.
Vi = velocity of fragments in the direc- Selection of Beam Width The factors influen-
tion 6S in the static case cing the choice of beam width are the target,
and: standard error of guidance, aspect, and the
V =
m warhead velocity or relative veloc- fuzing accuracy. The first consideration should
ity of missile and target be given to the target. The information given
In addition to the general characteristics the warhead designer will include the vulner-
of the fragment pattern, there is the question able area of the target which must be covered,
of the fine structure of the pattern: within small or in the case of multiple vulnerable areas,
sections of the fragment beam, is the distri- the distance between vulnerable components.
bution of the fragments random, is it regular, There may or may not be information on the
or do the fragments tend to bunch? Generally fuzing accuracy. If not, one must specify the
speaking, a random pattern may be assumed, amount of dispersion along the trajectory that
although in extreme cases this may give a dif- can be tolerated. The best fuzing accuracy
ferent warhead effectiveness than a regular understood to have been attained in tests to
pattern. Bunching has sometimes been re- date was a standard deviation of approximately
ported, but it seems likely that most cases of 15 feet. If no other data on the fuzing is avail-
this have actually represented poor fragment able, a conservative distance of 25 feet can be
control. used for a reasonable estimate against aerial
Consideration has sometimes been given targets. The beam width may also be affected
to a "sweeping-up" effect as a result of target by fuze location. Some safety and arming fuzes
motion. That is, if the fragments are dispersed are side-mounted, in which case they interfere
either laterally or along their trajectory (e.g., somewhat with the symmetry of the beam.
by velocity spread) then the motion of the tar- Knowing the target characteristics, error
get through the swarm may result in more hits of guidance, and aspect, the designer may de-
on the target than if the target were motionless. termine the necessary beam width graphically
It is believed, however, that this effect is negli- as shown in Figure 4-12. The design burst
gible for missile warheads used against targets point should be designated as the mid-point of
of relatively slow velocity, compared to other the target vulnerable length, with the appro-
52
)K k&VÂ, 4*t
^5
priate allowance made for the guidance error. shapes lend themselves more readily to present
The beam width db selected should contain manufacturing techniques (Reference 4-3.n)
85 to 95 percent of the fragments, and cover and are better suited to the smaller inclinations
the target projected vulnerable area for design typical of missiles.
burst points at distance aG from the target. The majority of conventional anti-person-
If the fuzing accuracy is known, it should be nel warheads developed to date have been lo-
incorporated as shown in order to estimate cated in the nose of the missile and are sphe-
the approximate width of the fragment beam roidal in shape, as diagrammatically shown in
that will cover the target in the event of early Figure 4-13 (f). This allows for the greatest
or late detonation. In the event that the target possible beam width or ground coverage. The
is completely missed, or only a small portion Kent-Hitchcock Contour also shows promise for
of the beam covers the target when the fuzing the special application of vertical fall, but as
accuracy is considered, the beam width should previously stated has not yet been applied. If
be enlarged slightly to give a reasonable target the warhead is located in a section other than
coverage (i.e., by 50 to 60 percent of the beam the missile nose, the modified barrel type
width) for the bounds of fuze-initiated bursts shown in Figure 4-13(e) is recommended. The
In the case of ground targets, such as per- distribution of fragments is dependent to some
sonnel, the beam width is usually selected as extent on the position of the booster in the war-
the maximum attainable so as to cover the head.
greatest ground area with the largest number The largest proportion of fragment war-
of lethal fragments. (This may require anose- heads designed to date for use against aerial
spray warhead, see Figures 4-35 et seq. and targets are barrel-shaped. This has resulted
context.) The area covered is a function of from both the fact that the designer is usually
aspect, burst height, and missile and fragment allotted a cylindrically shaped section located
velocities. In some cases the design beam in the body of the missile and the fact that a
width may be based on a requirement for uni- desirably large beam width results from this
form fragment distribution in the target area, shape.
see References 4-3.n and 4-3.o. It is generally desired that the explosive
charge of a fragmentation warhead be solid
External Configuration Since it is essential for rather than hollow. There is no serious objec-
the designer to have at least a rough idea of tion to a small conduit down the center but a
the warhead shape needed for the beam width large hole leads to reduced fragment velocity,
he desires, some general comparisons of shape other things being equal. On the other hand, too
and beam width follow. The testing of actual small a diameter warhead may re suit in failure
warheads to date show results which correlate to develop the full power of the explosion; the
with intuitive reasoning. That is to say, a minimum satisfactory outside diameter is ap-
spherical shaped warhead will produce the proximately 2 to 5 inches. Likewise, the length
widest beam, while a short cylindrical warhead should not be too small—in general, length-
with concave sides gives a focusing effect and diameter ratios of less than 1.25 seriously
a very narrow beam. Variations between these reduce the average fragment velocity. How-
two extremes give beam angles roughly pro- ever, some compromise in this respect is
portional to their variation, considering sim- generally required in the interest of other
ilar detonation points. It should be mentioned needs of the missile design with little if any
that, for a vertical axis, a surf ace for constant gain realized by increasing the ratio over 2.5.
fragment density on the ground known as the In general, it is not desirable that the war-
Kent-Hitchcock Contour (Reference 4-3.0) has head be cylindrical in shape because this gives
been developed for bombs, but has not been an excessively narrow fragment beam. If an
practically applied since standard geometric ogival shaped section of the missile is allotted
53
to the warhead, this may give a sufficiently A series of examples of previous warhead
large beam width for a matching exterior sur- designs are presented in Figure 4-13 in order
face of the warhead; otherwise, it will probably to facilitate the selection of the proper warhead
be necessary to shape the warhead like a barrel, shape to obtain a specified beam width. These
and cover it with a fairing, with some, though examples will guide one in selecting the approx-
not great, waste of either weight or of fragment imate beam width; an exact design can only be
velocity. It is also desirable to avoid packaging determined after extensive calculations, and
anything massive outside the warhead, as the still must be proven by testing. For most cases
fragments ejected would lose too much velocity of warhead initial design, this approximation
in passing through such external material. should be adequate. However in each case, such
However, it is often necessary to provide elec- design should be either verified or modified
trical cabling past the warhead, either exter- after testing.
nally or through a central conduit, and some-
times fuze antennas must be located on the Maximum Charge to Metal Ratio The charge to
outer surface. metal ratio, commonly referred to as c/m, is
It is usually easier to attain a desired the ratio of the weight "c" of the explosive to
fragment pattern if the initial detonation point
is somewhere near the center of the warhead. .3ID -—
■
The main purpose of shifting the initiation point
from the warhead center is to throw the center
of the beam forward or aft as required.
t
Aspect - side 74D D
L = target projected vulnerable length
(Xto the plane containing missile
1
and target), feet W///A 'I
= guidance error, feet
Annul us Beam Width = 10°
= design burst point
(a) (Central Initiation)
S,4S2 = possible burst points, due to fuzing
error
= beam width, degrees
= possible fuzing error, feet
Cylinder Beam Width = 13c

(b) (End Initiation)
I.6D
r
77D
1 D
Truncated Cone
1
Beam Width = 25'
[—Z2-4— Z,—| (c) (End Initiation)
Figure 4-12. Graphical Solution of Optimum Beam Figure 4-13a. Examples of the Effect of Warhead"
Width Shape on Fragment Beam Width
54
the weight "m" of the metal case (excluding ing items such as the end plates, attaching
end plates, fittings, etc.). It will later be shown fittings, required structure, detonator, etc.
that the initial speed of the fragments emitted In warheads under 100 pounds built to date,
from the warhead is directly dependent upon this weight has varied considerably, from 10
c/m , subject to the warhead shape and the type percent to 32 percent in extreme cases where
of explosive employed. the warhead was required to carry large struc-
Since the density of high explosive is ap- tural loads. It appears that a conservative es-
proximately 22 percent of that of steel, the timate of "dead weight" for most warheads in
volume of a given weight warhead will vary as the 100 pound class is 25 per cent of the allowed
the charge to metal ratio is changed. The pro- gross weight. For warheads in the 100 to 300
cedure for computing the maximum c /m which pound class, this percentage may be lowered
can be utilized in the weight and volume allotted to between 10 to 20 percent. For warheads
for the warhead follows. over 300 pounds an allowance of 10 percent
An approximate allowance must first be should be reasonable. After the so-called "dead
made for the so-called "dead weight" of the weight" components have been designed in de-
warhead, which is composed of non-fragment- tail, this weight estimate should be checked.
2.I5D An approximation must also be made for
the volume occupied by the dead weight. To
compute this volume, an overall length allow-
ance of 1-1/2 inches should be made for at-
taching fittings, end plates, etc. If a center
tube is required through the warhead for mis-
sile wiring, it should also be considered as a
Beam Width = 50° "dead" volume. The usual diameter of such
(Central Initiation) a center tube is 1.0 to 2.0 inches.
3D The useful or net weight (charge plus
fragmenting metal) of the warhead may now be
easily computed as follows:
•68D
W
„~W-WD.W. (4-3.12)
where:
r- 78D
Wn = net weight
Modified Beam Width = 70° W = allotted total weight
Barrel (Central Initiation) w D.w. = estimated "dead" weight
(e
Having previously established the shape
of the warhead, and knowing the allotted war-
head compartment dimensions, the total volume
of the warhead may be computed. The useful
or net volume (charge plus fragmenting metal)
.820 is given by
V « V» V,D.W. (4-3.13)
where:
v„ = net volume
V = total warhead volume
Nose Beam Width = 120° from nose. D.w. = estimated "dead" volume
Type (Central Initiation)
Ifl Once the net volume and net weight have
Figure 4-736. Examples of the Effect of Warhead been calculated, one may obtain the net speci-
Shape on Fragment Beam Width fic volume (v) of the warhead, which is
55
the explosion. This occurs within a very short
" (4-3.14) distance.
W
n
Four-principal formulas are in use for
Figure 4-14 illustrates the variation of predicting initial fragment velocities; Gurney's
c/m with warhead net specific volume. The two formulas, developed for an infinitely long
maximum c/m that the allotted space and cylindrical warhead and for a sphere, and
weight will permit may be read from this curve Sterne's two formulas, developed for a flat
for the net specific volume just computed. The layer of explosive with metal plates on one or
usual value for c/m is in the range of 0.2 to both sides. Denoting the ratio of explosive
0.5 for use against personnel, and from 0.4 to charge mass to metal mass in a unit-length
2.0 for use against aircraft. Values of c/m as cross-section of the warhead as c/m, the
low as 0.1 may occur with small gun-boosted initial fragment velocity, v , can be found as
rockets used against ground personnel. follows:
( c/m (Gurney, solid (4_3 15*
In succeeding sections of this handbook v 0 -.TU^.'
the optimum c/m from the viewpoint of frag- fi + o. 5 c/m cylinder)
ment velocity and weight will be selected. If
the optimum c/m is well below that allowed c/r,
(Gurney, sphere) (4-3.16)
by the allotted space and weight, either the 1 + 0.6 c/n
allotted volume is more than necessary, in
which case "dead" space would be incorpo-
1
0.6 c/m (Sterne, flat
rated in the final design, or the warhead allowed
1 + 0.2 c/m + 0.8 m/c plate) (4-3.17)
weight is too low. Obviously either of these con-
ditions are of interest to the missile system (Sterne, symme-
designer. It is to be noted that, many times, c/2m trical flat
V = (4-3.18)
o
warheads are designed for missiles already 1 + c/Gm sandwich, each
in use, in which case the design would proba- plate of mass m)
bly be carried out using the original warhead where is a characteristic of the explosive.
weight and volume. (In some cases, it is nec- The derivations of these formulas are based on
essary to add ballast to bring the center of an assumed distribution of gas velocities, with
gravity to a position that stabilizes the missile.) the gas velocity equal to the fragment velocity
If the optimum c/m is above that allowed at the interface. (See References 4-3.e and
by the allotted space and weight, the converse 4-3.f.)
would be true: either the warhead weight should To use any of the aforementioned equa-
be reduced or the volume increased. Reduction tions, a value of « is required. Theoretically,
in warhead weight would mean fewer fragments « = IfzF where E is the energy, per unit mass
and, hence, a lower warhead effectiveness. of explosive, convertible to mechanical work.
Another alternative is to design the warhead It is to be noted that this is not the same as the
for other than optimum c /m . This alternative total energy of a unit mass of explosive. Indi-
is usually acceptable because the effective- cations are that the following values, reported
ness of a warhead is not highly sensitive to in Reference 4-3. b, are appropriate for solid
variations of c/m near the optimum. cylinders.
TNT 8,000 ft/sec
Maximum Initial Static Fragment Velocity After the Composition B * 8,800 ft/sec
maximum allowable charge-to-metal ratio and Composition C3 * 8,800 ft/sec
the shape of the warhead have been established, H-6 8,650 ft/sec
the maximum initial fragment velocity may be For flat plates, values of « that are 25
estimated, that is, the velocity possessed by the percent higher are thought appropriate since
fragments after they have been accelerated by the casing of a cylinder ruptures when about
56
80 percent of the energy E has been converted
1 1 1
into mechanical work. It is actually impossible Charge Density . 3607 lb/in.3
to say what the exact values of <* are, since Metal Density . »83 lb/in.3
the definition is not susceptible to experimen- 14
tation and one can only deduce answers from
the velocities observed. Thus in a particular 12
geometry there is no clear basis for saying
z 10
whether the velocity is lower than predicted by
the formula or a different value of « should be
used to represent the effectiveness of the ex- O
>
plosive under those conditions. However, the 6
o
value of « is probably dependent on the density
H
which the explosive has when loaded. UJ
a.
IS)
Generally speaking, the Gurney formula
for solid cylinders has given good agreement
with experiment for long cylinders (length/
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
diameter or L/D = 2.5; in some cases even for
CHARGE TO METAL RATIO
L/D = 1.25 ), and moderately good but some-
what high results for short cylinders or ogives, Figure 4-14.Volume Per Pound of Warhead Vs.Charge-
and Sterne's formulas give good results for to-Metal Ratio
thin hollow cylinders.
For example, for annular warheads (i.e.,
1 —1 1
with air core) with rather thin layers of ex- a = 8800 SOLID
_CYI INDFR GURNFY
plosive and large radii, Sterne's "sandwich"
J" 800 SPHERE,
formula (equation 4-3.18) is found by tests to
- 8 -GUR
be a good approximation. o
To further assist the designer, the frag-

ment initial velocities computed by use of
equations 4-3.15, 4-3.16, and 4-3.17 for the
a = II, oc )0 FLAT
solid cylinder, sphere and flat plate are plotted PLATE, STERNE
against c/m in Figure 4-15. The curves shown o 1
are plotted on the basis of Composition B ex- o Curves based on composition B explosive
plosive, and incorporate a table of correction Flat plate corrected by 25% to correlate
factors for other types. The use of this table with experimental data
will be immediately apparent. The designer is Correction factors for various explosives:
Composition B 1 0 TNT .9
reminded to bear in mind that the initial frag- Cornposit ion C 3 1. : E «plosive D .85 -
ment velocity obtained in this step is a maxi- H-< 78
mum possible value, and is not necessarily 12 3 4
the optimum. Note that lower values are found CHARGE-TO-METAL RATIO
near the ends of a cylindrical warhead and
near an edge of a plate warhead. Figure 4-75. Initial Static Fragment Velocity Vs.
Charge-to-Metal Ratio
Optimum Fragment Weight and Velocity—Aerial

Targets A fragment's damaging power against
aerial targets can be measured by the thick- given velocity, in particular for the optimum
ness of metal it can penetrate and by its ability velocity, there is an optimum fragment size.
to initiate fires or to damage bombs carried The optimum is dependent on fragment slow-
by the target aircraft. Therefore, for any down, hence on altitude and guidance error.
57
In choosing the optimum fragment size only Reference 4-3. g . These curves of rela-
against aerial targets, there are several other tive effectiveness are based on recent experi-
factors which must be considered. Very small mental vulnerability data rather than pene-
fragments which are optimum at high altitude tration laws and the effectiveness scale is in
would be nearly useless at low altitude except arbitrary units. The results presented are in
for very small guidance errors. Since the general accordance with these penetration laws
missile is likely to be required to operate except for a tendency to require slightly greater
over a range of altitudes, ineffectiveness of a fragment size.
given size of fragment at the minimum re- References 4-3.x and,4-3.y present de-
quired altitude rules out that size as a choice. tailed experimental data on steel fragment
The probable target has a major influence velocity and size needed to penetrate various
on fragment size. For example, in the case of thicknesses of mild steel (Reference 4-3.x)
aircraft, the armor thickness around vital and armor materials (Reference 4-3. y) at
components varies considerably between dif- different obliquities. Empirical formulas are
ferent models. The warhead designer is there- presented in conjunction with their graphical
fore faced with the problem of selecting the representation. Data is included for fragment
probable thickness of armor of his target. sizes of from 10 to 1000 grains with velocities
Effectiveness of very small fragments against of 400 to 6000 feet per second. Reference
Jet engines has been discounted in most cases. 4-3.y .
Another factor which must be considered To tentatively select the optimum frag-
is that the shape of the curve of warhead ef- ment size and weight, one should refer to the
fectiveness against fragment size is not sym- presented curves for a target with character-
metrical. It is essentially zero for very small istics similar to the target of his warhead at
fragments (ignoring blast effects) until the the proper altitude and guidance error. The
useful threshold is reached, then rises steeply curves may be interpolated for altitudes and
as fragment size increases, has a rather broad guidance errors not presented. Since the maxi-
maximum, and falls slowly as fragment size mum initial fragment velocity based on the
increases beyond the optimum. The useful maximum allowable c /m has previously been
threshold varies according to the target. Figure established, one can readily find the fragment
4-16 shows qualitatively a typical curve form. size and velocity (equal to or less then V max)
For a large departure from optimum fragment which will reflect in maximum effectiveness.
size, it is evident that the penalty for choosing If the missile must be effective at more than
too small a fragment size is much greater one altitude, as is generally the case, the frag-
than the penalty for choosing too large a fragment size-velocity curves should be plotted or
ment size. Against engines and bombs the transposed on the same curve sheet in order to
optimum effective fragment size is strongly be certain that the selected fragment size and
increased over that for penetrating the skin of velocity for the one altitude results in a rea-
the target. sonably near optimum effectiveness for the
In any analysis of fragment size and velo- other altitude in question. If this is not true, the
city based on target skin penetration, rather designer should select a combination of frag-
severe approximations and lengthy calculations ment size and velocity which will be reasonably
are involved. For this reason, graphs of ef- near optimum effectiveness for the altitude
fectiveness of fragments of optimum size and range desired. An example of this selection
velocity against aerial targets are presented process follows.
for the convenience of the designer in Figures The designer may have a case where two
4-17 through 4-33. These figures are a very possible operating altitudes are specified. For
rough guide for use in preliminary design example, if the operational characteristics of
58
the missile designate a guidance error of 100 velocity, the greater the flash. The flash pro-
feet against a piston engine fighter at both sea duced by fragments striking at less than 4000
level and 30,000 feet, and the designer has de- feet per second is not effective. The thickness
termined from the charge to metal ratio versus of the plate also affects the flash. If the target
velocity curve that his maximum velocity is is thin as on most aerial targets, the flash
6,000 feet per second, the optimization pro- occurs on the far side of the plate; if the target
cedure is as follows. Both Figures 4-17 and is thick, the flash occurs on the near side of
4-19 must be used. From Figure 4-19 it is seen the plate. Obliquity of the target plate tends to
that a 0.05 ounce fragment would be best at produce larger flashes. The average duration
30,000 feet. However, from Figure 4-17, a 0.1 of a fragment produced flash is approximately
ounce fragment is optimum for an altitude of five milliseconds.
0 feet. It is obvious from examining the graphs If an aircraft fuel cell is the primary tar-
that very little effectiveness would be lost by get of the fragment, the type and protection of
using a 0.1 ounce fragment at 30,000 feet as the cell governs the size and velocity of the
compared with attempting to use a 0.05 ounce fragment. The objective of the fragment is to
fragment at 0 feet. Therefore, a 0.1 ounce penetrate the protective plate of the fuel cell
fragment is the logical choice since it has a and create holes through which the fuel squirts
fairly high effectiveness at both altitudes. It can outward. Thus the thickness of the protective
also be seen from the curves that in this case armor governs the necessary fragment veloc-
the designer should try to maintain the maxi- ity. Usual velocities for this purpose are 6000
mum velocity possible as this will lead to the feet per second and higher. The accompanying
best relative effectiveness. It is possible that, flash subsequently starts the desired fire. If the
depending on the operating conditions and maxi- fuel cell is of the integral type, fires are very
mum velocity, reducing the velocity will result difficult to start and maintain. Generally 2-6
in better overall effectiveness, and in cases of inches clearance between the cell wall and the
operation at more than one altitude all facets of aircraft structure is necessary to start and
the situation should be considered. promote a fuel fire. In general, a 120 grain
The optimum fragment size and velocity fragment is considered the minimum size for
for purposes of causing detonation of aerial creating fires in a self-sealing fuel cell, and
targets such as missiles are reported in Ref- a 30 grain fragment is the minimum size for a
erences 4-3. p and 4-3. q. bladder-type fuel cell.
Some fragmentation warheads are design- Data on the effects of altitude on a frag-
ed to initiate fires in the target. In the case of ment's ability to initiate fires are somewhat
aircraft, the primary targets are the fuel cells lacking. Fires can be started at altitudes up to
and fuel lines, and the secondary targets are approximately 75,000 feet; fires can be started
oil and hydraulic lines, oxygen or acid tanks, with fragments at altitudes up to approximately
etc. It is to be noted that fires can rarely cause 65,000 feet. The flames however, are not as
"A" or quick kills, but are ideal for causing a hot or as violent and are less damaging at
"B" kill which results in target destruction in high altitudes. The lower the ambient tempera-
approximately twenty minutes. Fuel lines can ture, the more difficult it is to start a fire. It
be killed by relatively small fragments, but is to be noted that the local ambient in aircraft
unless all the aircraft fuel lines are inter- is dependent upon the type of aircraft con-
connected, such damage only causes the loss of struction as well as the operating altitude. In
a single engine. general, from 0 to 20,000 feet the fire starting
When aluminum plate is struck by a steel capabilities of a fragment are good, and do not
fragment, the aluminum is pulverized and a vary. From 20,000 to 35,000 feet the fire start-
flash occurs. The higher the fragment striking ing capabilities are somewhat adversely af-
59
fected, and from 35,000 feet upward these 1 1 1
M. = fragment weight in ounces
capabilities are poor and become increasingly
Altitude = 0 feet
worse.
Guidance Error = 100 feet
Pyrophoric fragment materials give a
better flash than steel fragments, but their use <f>
in
5
Mf.2
"^V^Mf -.1
is only justified in the event that penetration of
the target is obtained. Titanium and stainless
steel targets flash less than aluminum ones, f - "Mf - .3
and consequently a higher velocity fragment

&/
is required for these targets to produce a com- /
parable flash. In addition, larger fragments are
< 2
required for penetration of titanium and stain- Id Mf - .05 Mf .4\
a:
less steel. Honeycomb aluminum structures
produce larger flashes than single sheet alumi-
num structures.
It is to be noted that the foregoing dis- 3456789 10
cussion concerning the use of fragments to V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC)
initiate aircraft fuel fires is relevant to the
present fuels of the JP type. The advent of Figure 4-17. Fragment Velocity and Size Optimiza-
new type fuels could alter the advisability of tion, Target: Piston Engine Fighter
the use of fragments for such purposes.
Mf = fragmt nt wei ght in xinces

AltitL de = 3 3,000 f eet
Guide nee Et ror = 25 feet

OPTIMUM
in 14
in in
in LiJ Mf=.C)5
7
z LiJ 12
iij
> >
V-
o o 10
llJ
III
Li. ll
li. ll
LlJ Id Mf .1
O Ld
fl
<Ld >
y-
I
a: < b
>
< _J
III
Mf .2
5 or
^■THRESHOLD
4 Mf=.31
23456789 10
FRAGMENT SIZE V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC)
Figure 4-16. Warhead Effectiveness Vs. Fragment Figure 4-18. Fragment Velocity and Size Optimiza-
Size tion, Target: Piston Engine Fighter
60
10 14
Mf = .05
Altitude = 30,000 feet
Guidance Error = 2S teet

Mf=05
in Mf = .l
to
UJ 10
2
Ul z
> UJ
> Mf = .l
I-
O I-
ÜJ
Ü.
o
UJ
u. Mf=.2 Mf=.2
UJ
ÜJ
> Mf=.3
UJ
>
Mf=.3
I- Mf= .4
Mf=.4 <
ÜJ _J
UJ
or
M = fragment weight In ounces
4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8
V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC) INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC)
Figure 4-19. Fragment Velocity and Size Optimiza- Figure 4-27. Fragment Velocity and Size Optimiza-
tion, Target: Piston Engine Fighter tion, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel
tion, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel tion, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel
M. = fragment weight in ounces ' Mt=.05 "
Altitude - 0 feet
Guidanc e Error = 100 fe ;t

\
(S)
Mf=.i
Mf = .1
>
^
£
o M, = fragment weight in ounces
Ld Mf=.3 Mf« .2
> Altitude = 30,000 feet
Guiaance Error = 100 feet
M, 4 f G
Mf=~2 '
cr Mf = .05
Ld Mf«.3
Mf = .4
3456 789 10 4 5 6 7 8 9
V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC) V0 = INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC)
61
M. = fragment weight In ounces
Altitude = 0 feet
V)
Lü
Z
Lü
>
t- 3
u
LÜ
Lü U.
z U.
LÜ
> Mf=.2 Mf-.l
LÜ
O Mf.05 >
Lü
U.
Mf* .4 <
Ü.
Lü ■*Jüf=^3' LÜ
LÜ
a:
>
< M, = fragment weight In ounces
_l
Lü Altitude = 30,000 feet
a-
4 5 6 7 8 9 5 S 7 8 9
V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (I000 FT/SEC) J0" INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (IOOOFT/SEC)
tion, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel tion, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel
Invulnerable Invulnerable
tion, Target: B-29 Aircraft with Fuel tion, Target: Single Engine Jet Fighter
Invulnerable
M, = fragment weight in ounces

Mf=05
'^Mf=.05
Guidance Error = 25 feet >^ 16
in
</>
LÜ 8
ÜJ
14
Z
LÜ z
^M[ = .l LÜ
£4 >
12
O
U. LÜ
U. Mf=.l
LÜ
Mf=.2 Mf=.2
ÜJ
10
> LÜ
> MfT^
Mf=.3
LÜ
or LÜ Mf=.4
CC
Mf=.4
6 ■ M{ = fr<igment w eight In
Altitude = 0 feet
Guidanc e Error = 100 fe Jt
3 4 5 6 7 8 23456789
V0 = INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (IOOO FT/SEC) V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (IOOO FT/SEC)
62
25
M, - fragment weight in ounces
Mf = .05
Altitude = 30.000 feet
8
20
<o
co 7
s— f
h^
CO UJ
en Mf.l ?•
UJ
.> Mf=.3
UJ fi
> i-
o
UI
U Ii
Mf=2 II h
UJ
10
Mf=.3 hi
>
1-
4 / 1
< Mf
_J
< Mf= .4 UI
ir
3
-/
M,=
7
UJ
/
2
/ 1 /Mf = 15
A
Altitude = 30,000 feet Mf=.l
/
4 5 6 7 8 9 I 23456789 10
V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC) V0 = INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC)
tion, Target: Single Engine Jet Fighter tion, Target: High Explosive Airborne
Bomb
Figure 4-28. Fragment Velocity and Size Optimiza- Figure 4=30. Fragment Velocity and Size Optimiza-
tion, Target: High Explosive Airborne tion, Target: High Explosive Airborne
Bomb Bomb
M. = fragrnent weight n ounces 1 1

M. = fragment weight in ounce s
Altitude ■ 0 feet
Mf=.35 Altitude = 30,000 feet
Guidance E>ror = 100 feet Mf=.25
Guida ice Erro r = lOOf eet S
Mf=.3
CO
CO CO
co
UJ
z Mf=.5 UJ
Mf=.35
UJ
> >
I- Mf=.4
Mf=.3 o
UJ
Mf=,45
U-
LU
UJ
UJ >
> I-
Mf = .45 <
<
_l
UJ
cr /M,=.2
1
y
Mf= .4 M,= 25 M,=.I5
/
4 5 6 7 8 9 34 56789 10
V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC) V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SEC)
63
Mf = fraj ment weight in ounces
/M,-.I
Altitude = Ofeet
Mf=.2 co Mf=.l5
co
CO
co
Ul ui
Mf=.25
UJ
>
> t-
o Mf = .2
r- Mf = .3
o
UJ
Mf = .35 Mf = .25
Mf=.4
UI Mf = .3
> s M. = fragment weight in ounces/
t-
< Mf=.l5 UJ
2 -
Altitude = 30,000 feet Mf=.35
_l or Mf=.055
UI Guidance Error = 100 fe et /
or
4 5 6 7 8 9 3456789 10
V0 = INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (IOOO FT/SEC) V0 = INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (1000 FT/SECJ
tion, Target: High Explosive Airborne tion, Target: High Explosive Airborne
Torpedo Torpedo
Figure 4-32. Fragment Velocity and Size Optimiza- Figure 4-34. Velocity Ratio Vs. Range, Anti-Per-
tion, Target: High Explosive Airborne sonnel Warhead
Torpedo
/ ~\
Mf=.l
CO
CO
UJ
z
UI
>
r
<
\,
\
Mf-.I5
LU
>
kN. \
Mf=.2
^ Mf=.2E
<
_l
Mf = fra gment weight in ounces Mf=.3
UI
or
— Alt itude - 30,00 Dfeet
Gu dance Error = 25 f<>et
Mf=05
23456789 10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9001000
V0= INITIAL FRAGMENT VELOCITY (IOOO FT/SEC) RANGE-FEET
(DETONATION POINT TO GROUND)
64
cubical fragment. Also, the smaller the indi-
vidual fragment, the greater number of frag-
0=ANGLE OF INCIDENCE ments are possible in a given volume. (However
more spheres or cubes of a given mass can be
packaged in a smaller volume than darts or
HORIZONTAL
flechettes of the same mass.) Conversely, the
smaller the fragment, the higher the velocity
required for its effectiveness, and hence the
greater c/m ratio and less total weight avail-
able for fragments. Although no concrete sim-
plified basis can be given for selecting the
optimum fragment size and striking velocity
Vm LETHAL because of the complexity of the damage
SLANT RANGE
criteria, warheads have been designed using
MEN EXPOSED ON COVER CUTOFF the following criteria. For the case of the
GROUND SURFACE ANGLE
spherical fragment, fragments of 28 to 240
grains (437.5 grains = l oz) have been utilized
Figure 4-35. Vecfor Addition of Fragment and Mis- with a striking velocity of from 1000 to 6000
sile Velocities, Anti-Personnel Warhead feet per second.
The increased number of potentially lethal
or disabling small fragments increases the
probability of at least one hit on an individual
Optimum Fragment Weight and Velocity--Ground within the effect-area of the warhead. However
Targets In the case of anti-personnel warheads, the effect-area for small fragments shrinks
the optimum fragment size and velocity is a with decrease of fragment size unless the
function of the type of fragment used. There are initial velocity is increased by increasing c/m
two general types: the spherical or cubical which reduces the number of lethal fragments.
fragment, and the fin-stabilized or "needle" In the end, the optimum warhead is a compro-
type. The fin-stabilized type has better aero- mise that also involves burst height and the
dynamic characteristics and inherently better coverage of personnel in typical positions.
penetration, but has a high initial cost for the For the latest available data on incapacita-
experimental item. This type has been devel- tion by fragments, one should consult the
oped for a few of the more recent warheads. If Contact Wound Ballistics Laboratory, Army
development time is sufficient for packaging Chemical Center, Edgewood, Maryland. If it
and if it proves that this type can be launched is not feasible to do this, sufficient data may
without excessive breakage, it is recommended be found in the work of Allen and Sperrazza,
that fin-stabilized fragments be considered. reference 4-3.h, to make possible anestimate
However the development time is less for war- of a usable combination of fragment size and
heads using conventional preformed spheres or velocity.
nearly cubical fragments, and they should be Knowing the striking velocity desired and
used in interim warheads. distance above the ground at detonation, the
The optimization of size and striking ve- c/m required may be calculated as follows.
locity of the fragments is a field in itself, and Use can be made of equation4-3.2 in computing
opinions vary considerably on the subject. Due the initial dynamic velocity, as explained pre-
to the shape and striking attitude of the fin- viously. The drag coefficient, CD, is at a maxi-
stabilized fragment, it is readily apparent that mum in the vicinity of Mach 1, which degrades
a lesser force or impact energy is necessary performance for operation near this point. In
for incapacitation than for a spherical or addition, the effect of velocity slow-down at sea
65
level is far more pronounced than that at a near a rapidly expanding spherical surface of
high altitude because of the relatively high radius R = v,t and centered on the warhead
density of the atmosphere at sea level. Figure position.
4-34 illustrates the effects of the drag on the Likewise at time t after a burst of a
typical anti-personnel fragment shapes for an missile fragmentation warhead moving at ve-
11 grain fragment size. Once the initial dynamic locity_ Vm, a spherical surface of radius
velocity is known, it remains to find the initial R = v,t adjacent to most of the fragments is
static fragment velocity. The initial dynamic centered at a point on the missile path which
velocity (Vd) is a function of both the initial - v„
static velocity (V,) and the velocity of the is located at distance Vmt = Vd (~) t from the
d
missile (V ). If, e.g., the shape of the nose-
spray warhead and the minimum angle (6 ) of burst point, where Vd is obtained from equation
incidence to the ground have been previously 4-3.19 and the air-drag slow-down relation,
established, Figure 4-35 may be drawn. As an and vdt is the fragment travel from burst to
approximation, the detonation point can be so target. In other words, the center of the rapidly
located that the path of a fragment at the expanding sphere is near the point where the
bottom of the rear edge of the warhead will be warhead would have been at time t if it had not
inclined at angle 6s, in the notation of Figure exploded. This spherical model closely ap-
4-10, by drawing a line between the point of proximates the oblate spheroid that actually
detonation and the last-mentioned fragment as exists for moving warheads of either the frag-
shown in Figure 4-35. mentation or external blast types. (See Section
Knowing the direction of Vj (Qs) and the 4-2.2.)
magnitude of Vm and V d, v, may be found from To be useful, fragments generally move at
equation 4-3.19 which is a velocity V t which is much higher than that of
V a' = Vj the warhead-carrying missile, vm. Hence, for
f +VJ
m + 2 VV
/ m cos 6>s (4-3.19)
such a warhead, it is adequate in both design
Now, with v I known, the c/m required to pro- and evaluation to take the radius of the spherical
fragment-containing skin as R = v (An
vide it may be found from Figure 4-15, taking r
exception is where a missile, e.g. for anti-
into account the lowering of the actual velocity
of an edge fragment as compared with the missile use, throws out a cloud of relatively
theoretical. slow moving pellets or submissiles; their
radically different geometry is introductorily
Spherical Model for Miss ile -Carried Fragmentation treated in Reference 4-3. cc.)
Warhead A simple spherical model ade- In the following section we consider the
quately represents the terminal ballistic geo- geometry for bursts of nose-spray fragmenta-
metry for a stationary external blast warhead, tion, antipersonnel warheads. True side-spray
as is self-evident. The spherical model can warheads seldom can use as many as 50% of
likewise be used for missile (moving) warheads their fragments against a surface target. Like-
of both the fragmentation and external blast wise, spherical warheads use only about 47%
types. of their fragments. On this basis, these low
At any early time t after a stationary frag- "efficiencies" are to be remembered when
mentation warhead has burst, most of the examining the warhead efficiencies in the
fragments are at nearly the same distance next section. A side-spray warhead can be
R = V, t from the warhead position, where v. is taken as the difference between two nose-
the average fragment velocity (considering spray warheads of different spray-angles —
slow-down due to air-drag) during the time t. another reason for first considering the nose-
Otherwise stated, most of the fragments are spray warhead.
66
Design of a Nose - Spray V/arhead for Inclination If one takes an inclination of 10° as the
of the Missile Problems of warhead geom- virtual or effective cutoff of cover, one has
etry and design are briefly illustrated in this a dynamic beam angle of Lb = 30 + 80 = 110°
Section. The purpose is to provide an insight from the 60 and 10° angles. See Figure 4-36.
rather than to urge the use of any particular From the missile and fragment velocities,
method or values of parameters. In particular, Vm - 1000 and Vf - 5000 feet/sec respec-
certain values—58 ft lb lethal fragment kinetic tively, we find that the static beam angle of
energy and 10° foxhole cover cutoff, are used the bound of the warhead is L a » 120°. A lar-
mainly to simplify the treatment; these values ger value of L a would waste lethal fragments in
are here used in preliminary design without region "A" by projecting them in paths less
implying that they would be used in final opti- inclined than the 10° cover cutoff. A much
mization or effectiveness evaluation in the smaller value of L a tends to needlessly in-
future. crease the average distance that the fragments
For missiles at steep final inclinations have to travel (by increasing the burst height)
(e.g., <u>45°), fragmentation missile warheads to spray all of the area in which men are ex-
of the nose-spray type can be more efficient posed within the 10° cutoff circle for the lower
than those of the side-spray type. (For ogival burst height with La suited to the 10° cutoff
shell, the lethal area increases with the in- and the 60° inclination. In Figures 4-36 and
clination mainly because of the cover-func- 4-37, the shading represents areas on the war-
tions. Missile warheads generally have a much head for all fragments, and for the static no-
higher ratio of v/vm than shell warheads do. cover cap vectored from the dynamic situation.
Hence, in use, the shell "side-spray" is For similar (usually steel) fragments of
vectored forward to approach the nose-spray varying size and mass M, the minimum lethal
of missile warheads. In other words, the pres- striking velocity V, is found from some func-
ent remarks on the effects of warhead incli- tion of the mass. For example: VL is such that
nation on the lethality of side-spray missile the lethal energy is at least 58 ft lb (which was
warheads are not to be applied to shell.) At formerly in wide use for fragments heavier than
required long ranges, most missiles have in- about 25 grains). For this lethal velocity VL,
clinations steep enough to reduce the effec- the lethal distance R, can be found for different
tiveness of side-spray warheads to very low values of the fragment mass M and of the initial
values and to increase the effectiveness of fragment velocity V, (relative to the warhead)
nose-spray warheads over that for minimum which is a function of c/m. To find R,, we
range. Near the required minimum range, the
inclination is still so large for guided missiles use the air-drag relation vL = V Qe ' where
(usually around half that at the maximum re-
quired range) that the effectiveness of a wide- * depends on the fragment shape and mass and
angle nose-spray warhead generally falls off V 0 is the initial velocity resulting from V , and
less drastically than does that of side-spray V m . The value of R^ is found at the conical
warheads at maximum range. Direct-fire rock- bound of the fragment spray (e.g., at "A")
ets at minimum ranges are more nearly hori- since this is where the value of V o is smallest
zontal, but much of this Section applies to for a given c /m. In other words, the missile
rockets used over a wide band of ranges. For velocity V contributes more to V (for frag-
example, take limiting u's of 30 and 60° and ments projected forward) as their angle from
design the warhead spray-angle for <u = 60°. the missile direction decreases, and also the
(However, one optimizes the fragment mass fragment velocity V i drops near the bound of
M and the charge-to-metal ratio c/m for the the spray.
mean &> of 45°.) The optimum burst height is at or slightly
67
559-728 Ü - 74
Table 4-5
Nose Spray Warhead Characteristics
(1) (2)< (3) ** (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Spherical Nose Warhead
No-Cover Warhead Nose Warheads Designed for o (60° <•> Design)

"Used Area" or
Cap angle In (3)/2 Area Frags . (3)/
2*
E, Area No-Cover Cap ^s L.C,° a," 1 + cos C 'n 'n(60°)

2*
90 91.4 L024 .512 8806 91.4 1.024 1.000

05
00
75 90.9 1.016 .508 73.6 106.4 1.282 .792
60 90.3 „995 .497 60.0 120.0 1.500 .663 .663
45 88.0 .965 .483 45.6 134.4 1.700 .568 598
30 85.9 .928 .464 32.6 14 7.4 1.843 .504 527
15 83.7 .890 .445 20.15 159.85 1.939 .459
0 81.4 .850 .425 8.01 171.99 1.990 .427
* Approximate values from graphed vectors.
**Values from Reference 9-3.n.
) )
UNIT-RADIUS SPHERE FOR BURST AT 60°U)OF WARHEAD
DESIGNED FOR THE SAME CJ (V,« 5 V AGAINST MEN HAVING
T m
10° FOXHOLE COVER AND LETHAL RADIUS = 1 UNIT).
NO-FRAGMENT 60° STATIC CAP
FRAGMENT CORRESPONDING WITH
BOUND 70° NO-SPRAY DYNAMIC CAP.
SPRAY
BOUND MISSILE
PATH
10° FOXHOLE
CUTOFF
ZE»90°
LEGEND
[""""IFRAGMENTS
[POTENTIAL TARGETS WITH 10° COVER,
USED FRAGMENTS
Figure 4-36. Fragment and Spray Diagram: Unit-Radius Sphere for Burst
of 60 co of Warhead Designed for the Same a>
69
UNIT-RADIUS SPHERE FOR BURST AT 30°CJOF WARHEAD
DESIGNED FOR 60°Cü (V.«5V AGAINST MEN HAVING 10°
T m
FOX-HOLE COVER)
NO-FRAGMENT 60° STATIC

FRAGMENT CAP CORRESPONDING WITH
ZONE 70° DYNAMIC CAP
NO-SPRAY CAP FORZ.b=MO°
LUNE,FRAGMENTS
UNUSED FOR 30°U>
BUT USED FOR 60°
DESIGN CONDITION
LEGEND
FRAGMENTS E«86°
rjTjTTTn POTENTIAL TARGETS

WITH 10° COVER
HUH USED FRAGMENTS
Figure 4-37. Fragment and Spray Diagram: Unit-Radius Sphere for Burst
at 30° co of Warhead Designed for 60° a
70
above the value H = RL sin io° for this foxhole In the latter expression, the denominator
cover cutoff. The value of H is thus found at is the fragmenting area as found from the area
co's of 30, 45 and 60° and the highest value, of a unit -radius sphere minus the area of the
H , of the three is used in the fuzing. For a no-fragment zone or cap for c. Corresponding
given Wf the warhead effectiveness falls off values of warhead efficiency J?, inclination a
rapidly as the burst height drops below H, but and beam angles LC and L a are tabulated on
negligibly (or not at all) as the burst height Table 4-3.2: (also see Figure 4-37)
exceeds H by a like distance. Hence the fuzing For a> < 30°, the fragment area of the war-
height is set to cause bursts distributed around head increases until the warhead becomes
a mean height H F that is about 2oz above H , practically spherical. Even for the 30° w war-
where az is the standard fuzing deviation. The head, the fragment zone covers nearly all of
use of 2az causes around 95% of the bursts to the warhead, i.e.:
occur above Hx. 4 n - 2 v vers 32.6°
1- 0.5 x 0. 1575 or 92.1%
This simplified procedure, or order of 477
computation steps, is introductory and intended of the spherical area.
to assist one who only occasionally designs For the 10° foxhole and a spherical war-
anti-personnel warheads. However, a special- head, the upper bound for the efficiency v can
ist in this field will probably use more sophis- be taken as the fraction of the fragments that
ticated methods, especially if a high speed reach the ground by linear paths inclined more
computer is available. In usual practice, one than 10°. The efficiency relation used is, since
proceeds by a sequential optimization of one
parameter after another, with some iteration £E = 81.4 ,
as maximum performance is approached. But 2 77 vers 81.4C 0.85 0
the reader should know that even the best con- or 42.5%
4 77
ventional fragmentation warhead cannot closely
approach the performance of new types which For the spherical warhead and V./V :=r5
are already well along in development. efficiency v is nearly independent of the war-
Spray-angles for varying inclination <o and head inclination a>, as is shown by the dash
given cover (10° foxhole) will now be discussed. curve in Figure 4-38.
For the 10° foxhole and a nose-type warhead at For a missile inclination a> of 60° and
6j > 45°, the matching static no-fragment angle a warhead that is designed for this inclination
c = 180°- La is approximately equal to <•>. and 10° foxhole cutoff, the "used Area" on
This is apparent from the following table, in the unit-radius sphere is that of the 80° no-
which accurate values of -La and -C are used. cover cap. (See Figure 4-36.) The other perti-
In this table, the maximum warhead effi- nent zone is the 60° non-fragmenting static cap
ciency V possible was found from the relation of this warhead for which the corresponding
used area dynamic 70° no-spray cap just touches the 80°
v= For a nose-spray
fragmenting area no-cover cap for 60° OJ at "A" in Figure 4-36.
warhead: This 70° (dynamic) no-spray cap corresponds
with a 60° (static) no-fragment cap.
vers E
7/ =. However, if the same warhead isinamis-
2 77 (2 - vers C)
sile inclined 30°, the 70° no-spray cap takes a
where: lune-shaped "bite" out of the 80° cap of the
L E is the average static angle on the "used area" for 60°. In other words: for a
fragment unit-radius sphere, which cor- burst at oj = 30°, the used area (80° no-cover
responds with the 80° no-cover cap in cap) for 60° w has shrunk because part of it
the dynamic situation. has been replaced by part of the no-spray 70°
71
cap. (See Figure 4-37.) On the fragment-area men standing in the open, Reference 4-3.ff for
basis, the lost lune is bounded on one side by men in artillery battery positions and in
the horizontal 86° cap "no cover" edge-circle trenches, and Reference 4-3.gg for infantry
and on the other side by the 60° "no-fragment" men in 5 typical defensive positions.)
cap circle which is inclined 60° for the missile Near-optimum performance can be pro-
inclination of 30°. Since neither of these circles duced by a warhead that has a substantially
is a great circle on the unit-sphere, the lost constant fragment density (i.e., fragments per
lunate area is only about 20% for 30° a> and 10% unit solid angle or steradian), as proposed in
for 45° a . Reference 4-3.n. Against randomly distributed
Figure 4-38 presents values of V and <w men and/or fragments, a nose-spray warhead
for both spherical and nose-spray warheads missile is an area-type weapon for which the
for vf/vm= 5 and 10" foxhole cover. The probability of killing a man within the sprayed
dash curve is for spherical warheads. The area is P = i-e"K. In this expression,
solid curve is for nose-spray warheads used k = p A (6) is the expected number of hits of
at the inclinations they were designed for. The potentially lethal fragments on a man of pro-
three points identified by triangles on this jected area A(6) in a plane that passes
figure are for the nose-spray warhead that through him and is perpendicular to the frag-
was designed for 60° inclination but used at ment path of inclination 0 when he is exposed
<u's of 30, 45 & 60°. Evidently their slight to density Ps of the fragments piercing that
departures from the design curve are of the plane.
order expected for errors in the approximate The concept of lethal area depends on the
numerical integration used in obtaining the assumption that, wherever a warhead bursts,
values of n for these three cases. targets are randomly distributed. Many tacti-
cal targets are distributed only over areas
Anti-Personnel Warhead Effectiveness The so limited that the weapon effectiveness cannot
etfectiveness of an anti-personnel warhead be properly expressed by a lethal area (see
is ordinarily expressed by its lethal area Reference 4-3.dd, Appendix C); weapon effec-
tiveness is better expressed by either (1) the
A,u * I p(a) da where a is unit-area. (One expected number of targets killed per burst
J 0 or (2) a sprayed fraction of the target area
can see Reference 4-3.n, Appendix A, for large enough (usually over 30%) of the target
the essential basic relations used in one method area to neutralize the target area with a given
of computing lethal areas of fragmentation probability that is high (usually over 90%). In
warheads.) The lethal area AL is the product general, the first alternative is used for cost
of the (ground-area per man) by the (total estimates and the second for tactical use
number of men killed throughout the whole against important targets that must have their
area A that is exposed to potentially lethal effect eliminated.
fragments). In other words, the lethal area In many cases, area-weapons are used
is used to free the expression for warhead against targets of limited area that can be
effectiveness from the density of men on the adequately represented by circular or elliptical
ground. areas. The Sandia Corporation has extensively
The exposed area of a man in a given treated such targets exposed to weapons having
position and cover varies significantly with circular areas of effect. Also one can see
the inclination of the striking angle, i.e., ele- Reference 4-3.hh for such a target exposed
vation angle of the burst relative to a man. to a small number of bursts of area-weapons.
(See Reference 4-3.ee for exposed areas of However, the present elementary treatment
72
cannot go further into the more advanced field As a first approach, the designer has al-
of weapons systems evaluation. ready assumed the use of Composition B ex-
plosive. It is to be noted that the method of
Actual Charge-to-Metal Ratio and Explosive Type design of the fragmentation warhead presented
As previously mentioned, it is quite pos- herein is based on optimum fragmentation, and
sible that the optimum velocity for warheads does not attempt to treat the effects of blast
other than anti-personnel will be well below which are inherent to some degree in any frag-
the allowable maximum, and hence a c/m value mentation warhead. The ultimate value of this
less than the maximum is indicated. If this is blast effect is most difficult to define, but its
the case, the use of the optimum value will re- effect, especially in cases where sudden kills
sult in a greater metal weight and thereby sup- are required, should not be overlooked. Avail-
ply a greater number of fragments. When this able data indicate that the blast effect is sig-
is done, the total volume of the warhead will be nificant against large targets such as bombers
reduced below the original volume estimated for standard error of guidances up to 30 feet
previously. at high altitude and up to 60 feet at sea level.
Selection of the best kind of explosive for Blast is not highly effective against small tar-
the missile warhead still requires extensive gets such as fighters or missiles except at very
study, although of course there is available close range. In the case of anti-personnel war-
a great deal of experience with bombs and heads, the area sprayed by lethal fragments is
shells. Composition B has generally been fa- relatively so great that the blast effect is of
vored for missile warheads used against ae- small consequence.
rial targets as having satisfactory properties
both as to casting and as to detonation. Some Fragment Shape and Material A cubical fragment
new explosives are also bidding for consider- is generally preferred against air targets be-
ation with H-6 apparently in the lead. H-6 has cause it has better penetrating power and less
been adopted as the standard nomenclature drag than an oblong fragment. Moderate depart-
designation for the composition formerly known ures from cubical shape have only a small ad-
as HBX-6. Tests of HBX and H-6 (References verse effect, so the casing thickness need not
4-3.j and 4-3.k) give slightly lower fragment be restricted by an exact requirement of cu-
velocity than Composition B but greater blast bical shape for the fragments. However, if the
effect, while Tritonal gives still lower velocity. charge-to-metal ratio is such that the casing
These same tests indicated that fragmentation is rather thick, it is generally better to have
control was about the same for Composition B two or more layers of fragments than one layer.
and HBX, but much poorer for Tritonal. Ultimately the choice of the number of layers
In the case of antipersonnel warheads, is determined by proper fragment shape. It is
the foregoing explosives discussion is directly to be noted that one may judiciously select a
applicable if cubical or spherical fragments fragment size with a minimum sacrifice in
are used. However, in the case of fin-stabilized effectiveness to obtain a simple shell structure.
fragments, the explosive selected should have This would be investigated if the problem of a
a relatively low detonation rate and brisance double walled shell arises.
rating in order to produce more of a pushing The foregoing discussion is also applicable
than a shattering effect. This latter effect to cubical fragments used against ground tar-
will tend to cause column failure of a dart or gets. However, in the case of fin-stabilized
damage its fins. An explosive such as Compo- fragments the L/D (length/diameter) ratio is
sition D (Ammonium picrate) has been used in most significant. Since the state-of-the-art is
some cases. A complete discussion of explo- such that no firm recommendation can be made
sives and their properties is given in the as to the optimum value, it is advisable that
Appendix. the L/D of the fragments be checked aerody-
73
namically from a drag and yaw damping view- where Mo = mean fragment mass.
point, and also for possible column failure on Modifications of this formula are available
ejection. L/D ratios of approximately 10 to 12 for use if the casing is too thick for the usual
have been used successfully. (References 4-3.z Mott Law to hold, i.e., if the breakup is three-
and 4-3.aa.) dimensional rather than primarily controlled
Little consideration has been given to any in one direction by the thickness of the casing.
fragment material other than steel. Against (See Reference 4-3.t.) However, this is not
most components the desire for good fragment usually the condition in missile warheads. Ad-
penetration argues for a fairly dense fragment ditional work on uncontrolled fragmentation is
material, and it is therefore recommended that reported in References 4-3.u through 4-3.w.
steel generally be used. The kind of steel should
be selected on the basis of availability and ease Precut Fragments The best method of con-
of fabrication, since detonation work-hardens trolling fragment size is to form or cut the
soft steel. fragments to the desired size before they are
installed in the warhead. If this is done, the
Methods of Fragment Size Control It is considered only possible deviation from the preset size
both desirable and practical to control the size would be caused by breakage upon expulsion,
of the fragments emitted by the warhead in or adhesion to each other or to other parts of
order to keep to a minimum the amount of the warhead. However, these factors may be
metal that will be wasted in fragments too small considered negligible and for all practical pur-
or too large to be effective. The eventual cri- poses nearly 100 percent fragmentation control
terion of successful fragmentation control is is achieved.
not the damaging power of the individual frag- This method of control has several major
ment, but of the whole collection of fragments objections which tend to prevent its wide-scale
from the warhead; since the warhead weight is usage. The principal objection is that additional
usually a prime boundary condition, the number structure is needed for the support of the frag-
of fragments is, at least roughly, inversely pro- ments. This structure usually is formed by a
portional to the weight of the individual frag- thin metal liner or cover, or both, to which the
ments. Although a large amount of effort has fragments are fastened with adhesive. This
been expended in studying various methods of liner, which means additional weight (approx-
controlling fragment size, no one method has imately 10 percent of the total metal weight has
been studied sufficiently to provide a really been used) contributes little, if anything, to the
sound basis for final choice between different effectiveness of the warhead. Since weight is of
methods or choice of details of a given method. primary concern to the warhead designer, this
Dr. Philip M. Whitman of the Applied is a most serious detriment to the use of the
Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, precut method of fragment control. It is to be
has conducted a thorough study of the various noted that recent developments have proven
methods of fragment size control (reported in that plastics such as fiber-glass laminates can
Reference 4-3.1) and this work has been used be successfully employed as inner and/or outer
to form the nucleus of the discussion which liners with a definite saving in weight and con-
follows. sequently, more weight can be added in useful
It is to be noted that, although uncontrolled fragments or explosive.
fragmentation is seldom considered for missile An alternate method of installing the pre-
warheads, the distribution of fragment size can formed fragments, especially spherical or fin-
be predicted by the "Mott Law" (Reference stabilized fragments, is to place them in layers
4-3.r and 4-3.s) which applies to relatively between the inner liner and the case and fill the
thin casings. This is crevices between them with a matrix to hold
them in place and protect them from damage
N(M)^Nfe
Wf 7W (4-3.20)
74
when the missile is fired. A material such as notches have been used, and although not con-
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Selectron No. 5119 clusive, it appears that internal notches gen-
(polyester resin) is frequently used for this erally give more flexibility of fragment di-
purpose. In the case of fin-stabilized fragments mensions.
used in anti-personnel warheads, the fragments The shape of the notch has received only
may be packed in more than one row, and in cursory attention, but in general sharp corners
various positions, i.e., point first, fin first, rather than round ones are used since they tend
etc. They should be packed, however, so as to to cause higher stress concentrations which aid
minimize possible fin damage on explosion. in the breakup of the casing. The width of the
The primary examples to date of appli- notch is of secondary importance, and tests
cations of the precut fragment principle were indicate that as thin a cut as possible will be
in the fragmentation warheads for the Nike sufficient. The spacing of the notches is also
Ajax, Nike Hercules, Hawk, and Bomarc Mis- indefinite, but it appears that a spacing of 1 to
siles. 1.5 times the casing thickness is generally the
minimum satisfactory spacing. Radically wider
Notched Rings Another method of controlling spacing than this (ratio of fragment edges
fragmentation is to form the warhead casing of greater than 2 to 1) is generally undesirable
a series of notched rings fastened together, because it leads to poor fragment shape for
each forming a section of the warhead perpen- aerodynamic considerations and for target
dicular to the axis of symmetry. This fastening, penetration. Also too wide a spacing may re-
possibly by brazing, should be considerably sult in additional breakup between notches
weaker than the notched ring material so that caused by circumferential forces.
breakage will occur where desired. The forces In order to minimize the tendency of frag-
from detonation operate mostly in the direction ments from adjacentringstosticktogether, the
of stressing each ring circumferentially, and notches should be staggered, but the amount of
only secondarily to separate adjacent rings. staggering is relatively unimportant; where
Essentially, the thickness and width of the rings successive rings have different numbers of
provide control of twodimensionsof the frag- fragments because of different diameters, con-
ments, while notches along the circumference sistent staggering is difficult. Varying the
of the ring provide places of weakness where fragment size slightly from ring to ring in
breakage in the third direction is desired. this instance is considered more desirable
Although this method has been investigated than having some notches aligned. Staggering
extensively, test results have not been con- of the notches tends to produce additional
clusive and the effects of details of the notching breakage opposite the notches, but not to a
has not been finally determined. However, it serious degree.
appears that within reasonable limits good con- Although the material selected for the
trol can be obtained by this method, though pos- rings is of relatively minor importance, it
sibly only after some trial and error. must be homogeneous. The material may af-
It must be kept in mind that the primary fect the maximum and minimum sizes of frag-
purpose of the notches in the rings is to create ments for which control can be achieved, and
weak spots in the metal which will fail first inhomogeneity can produce erratic results.
after detonation. It would therefore appear that Test results to date indicate that mild steel
the deeper the notch (within reason) the better might be preferable to high-carbon steel, but
the control achieved. However, this isnotnec- the reason for this is not settled.
essarily true. In some cases very shallow The method of fastening the rings together
notches have produced excellent results, while is primarily a question of cost and mass pro-
in others notches of depth approximately 50 ducibility, providing the proper strength is ob-
percent of the casing thickness have not given tained. The proper strength may be defined as
adequate control. Both internal and external the strength which will withstand the expected
75
handling and flight loads, but so weak as not to other types discussed, and there is more flexi-
retard the intended breakup. Copper brazing bility with regard to changing the fragment size.
has been the method most commonly consid- However, this method also has its disadvan-
ered, but adhesive has given better fragmen- tages in that there is a loss of some weight and
tation control in some instances with no signif- space for explosive and for useful fragments,
icant change in velocity and with somewhat less and there is an addition of some "dead "weight.
dispersion of the fragment pattern. Test results with a fluted steel liner produced
about 14 percent lower fragment velocity than
Notched Wire Some warhead designs have a similar notched wire design, although the
incorporated notched "wire" wound in a helix, flutes gave better fragment control. This loss
or spiral to control fragmentation. The wire in velocity is consistent with the difference in
is actually a longbar with two dimensions equal c /m caused by the liner. Fragmentation control
to those desired for the fragments, and is by this method is probably limited to fragments
notched at intervals along its length and coiled greater in their lateral dimensions than the
into the shape of the warhead casing. The wire thickness of the casing by a factor of approx-
must be supported by a liner or fastened to- imately 1.2. Further design information can be
gether by some means (such as welding) in found in Reference 4-3.m.
order to preserve the warhead shape. It can
readily be seen that if a welding procedure is Other Methods Various other methods of
used, the method of accomplishing the frag- fragment control have been attempted and sub-
ment control is basically the same as for the jected to limited testing. Since relatively little
notched ring method. Similarly, if a liner is data are available on these methods, they will
used, design problems are basically the same be mentioned only briefly here.
as in the precut fragment method. Reasonably Instead of notching in one direction and
good fragment control has been obtained using having actual discontinuities in the metal in the
notched wire; actually, better results have other direction (such as in the notched ring or
been obtained than in a comparable brazed wire method), it is possible to cut, punch, or
notched ring warhead. cast a two dimensional network on a solid casing
or on pieces later formed and assembled into
Grooved Charge The previously discussed a casing. Although in principle this method is
methods of controlling fragmentation are sub- the same as in the notched rings or wire, pre-
stantially similar in that the metal is either liminary tests gave poor results.
precut or notched to cause breakup along pre- Tests have also been conducted on cast
determined paths. The grooved charge method casings with staggered notches, but with no
is the reverse of these. The explosive charge other lines of weakness. This proved to give
is grooved so that irregularities of the detona- moderate control of fragment size (about 70to
tion (instead on in the metal) will break up 75 percent of the weight being ejected in frag-
the casing in the desired places. The charge is ments near the design size), and casings heat
grooved by means of a fluted liner constructed treated after casting gave somewhat better re-
of plastic, cardboard, balsa wood, or rubber sults than an untreated casing.
inserted between the solid metal casing and Another possibility is to have cases of
the explosive. When the warhead is detonated, varying thickness. Tests have been made using
the flutes give a shaped charge effect which casings with humps in the form of segments of
tends to cut the metal casing in the pattern a sphere on the inside, with the lines of contact
formed by the grooves. of these segments forming a honeycomb pat-
The warheads incorporating the grooved tern. The results of these tests, although not
charge method of fragmentation control are conclusive, indicate that good fragment con-
slightly cheaper and easier to produce than the trol and exceptionally high velocities have been
76
obtained. killed by fragments.
The detonation wave could also be shaped Table 4-6 gives a breakdown of the non-
by the insertion of inert barriers. This tech- explosive parts of the burst warhead; it is as-
nique is on the borderline between the last sumed that the total of these parts would be
mentioned type and the use of grooved charges. substantially the same for all types. Compar-
Still another method of fragmentation con- ison on this basis is slightly unfair to warheads
trol is to cast the solid metal casing around of types requiring structural non-fragmenting
wire mesh woven in the desired breakage pat- members, since they would also require some-
tern. The chilling effect of the mesh, and the what less explosive to get the same velocity,
weakness of the physical discontinuity (espe- other things being equal. It is thought that this
cially if the mesh is coated to reduce adhesion) has been adequately compensated for by taking
tend to produce breakup in the same pattern a conservative estimate of the amount of struc-
as the mesh. This method is desirable because ture required.
of its simplicity, but to date has not been fully Items such as the metal liners in precut
tested. warheads are regarded as chaff and "minor
fragments", and are not counted as "struc-
Comparison of Fragmentation Control Methods ture" in Table 4-6 ; however, the structure
Each method of fragmentation control has ad- used to carry missile loads through the war-
vantages and disadvantages whose relative im- head section is represented as "structural,
portance to the designer may not be immedi- non- fragmenting''.
ately obvious. To further assist in the formation The significant line in Table 4-6 is that
of a design, Tables 4-6 and 4-7 are present- for "relative number of useful fragments".
ed. Reference 4-3.k . In most cases complete For the various types of controlled fragments,
information is not available and the factors these numbers are in substantially the same
presented should be regarded as qualitative ratio as the proportion of weight which goes
rather than quantitative. into useful fragments. For uncontrolled frag-
In some cases the spread between differ- mentation, most of the mass goes into frag-
ent experimental results or reasonable esti- ments of useful size; however, a few fragments
mates is so great that the information is pre- are so massive as to drastically reduce the total
sented as a spread, of which the lower end number of useful fragments (from that of con-
represents results which might well occur with trolled fragments). Although the larger the
bad luck or inferior design, while the upper end fragment the more damage it can do, the in-
represents what might reasonably be expected crease in damage capability is usually far
in favorable cases. less than proportional to size. It is understood
The method of fragment control has little that "useful fragment" is not a clearly defined
if any effect on the velocity of the fragments, concept, and that small fragments still have
if it is assumed that any inert material such some possibility of inflicting damage in certain
as liners is counted as (non-valuable) casing cases. The estimates are intended to give par-
weight in the ratio c/m of charge to metal, and tial credit accordingly.
account is taken of any explosive displaced. Table 4-7 has as its first row of numbers
Hence the relative effectiveness of warheads the estimated relative lethality of the warheads,
with different types of fragment control is for equal weights. Although such effectiveness
measured largely by the number of fragments would actually vary somewhat depending on the
of useful size (weighted for dependence of tactical situation, guidance accuracy, warhead
lethality on size) which the warhead produces size, fuzing, etc., the given figures are repre-
for a given size and c/m . The relation, however, sentative of the warhead type. It must be re-
is not linear, since for some particularly good membered that these numbers are relative to
shots the target will be killed by blast or over- perfect control as unity, and are not intended
77
Table 4-6
Estimated Relative Fragment Production From
Various Fragmentation Control Methods
Perfect Uncon- Notched Grooved Cast on

Control trolled Precut Rings Charge Mesh
Relative number of
useful fragments 1.0 .3 .8 ■ 5 - »8 • 6 — .9 •5 - •o
Proportion of total
non-explosive mass .9 .8 .7 5 - .8 .6 - .8 .5 - .7
to useful fragments
Chaff and minor

fragments 0 .1 .1 ,4- .1 .3 - .1 .4 - .2
Non-metal (liners,
hot melt, etc.) 0 .01 .01 ,01 .02 .01
End plates,
fittings, etc. .1 .1 .1 .1
Structural,
non-fragmenting 0 0 .1
Table 4-7
Rough Numerical Comparison of Various
Fragmentation Control Methods
Notched
Rings &
Perfect Uncon- Related Grooved Cast on
Control trolled Precut Methods Charge Mesh
Relative lethality 1.0 .7 .9 . 75 - . 95 .8 - .95 .75- .0
Relative producibility 0 1.0 .6 .4- .7* .7 .6
Relative ease of
development from
present status 0 1.0 .8 .8 - .5 .7- .6 .7- .5
♦The higher number might apply to some related methods of manufacture such as welding together
notched rings or notching a solid casing.
78
to be used as precise data. The estimates are mentation control is desirable, and (b) how
based on the relative numbers of useful frag- good a job is done on a given type is probably
ments from Table 4-6 , plus allowance for more important than which type is selected.
guidance errors so small that either blast Since the conclusions are inadequate to
damage will occur or the fragment density will serve as a true guide for selecting a method
be so great that variations in it are unimpor- of fragmentation control, the designer should
tant. The expected degree of pattern regularity consider the experience of the manufacturer
is taken into account, but no allowance is made producing his warhead. Having had previous
for any difference in velocities of the frag- experience on a certain type may well enable
ments. This was done because, as previously a superior job to be done on that type which will
mentioned, the influence of the fragmentation more than overcome the apparently slight theo-
control method on fragment velocity is so very retical advantages of another type.
small.
The next line of Table 4-7 "relative Design of Fragmenting Metal Once the c /m ratio,
producibility", is intended to compare crudely fragment shape, weight and method of control
the reciprocal of the cost, which may be inter- have been established, the detail design of the
preted in terms of dollars, or of manhours, fragmenting metal can be effected. Using the
machine hours, and materials. This compar- selected c/m (not necessarily the maximum
ison may not be pertinent to a design which will allowable value originally computed) the total
be produced in limited quantities. weight of the fragments may be computed as
The last line of Table 4-7, "relative follows:
w
ease of development", is a rough estimate of W - " (4-3.21)
the relative amount of effort required, in view c/m + 1
of the present status and the inherent diffi-
culties, to develop a satisfactory warhead of where:
w
a given type for a given weapon. Naturally m = Weight of fragmenting metal
w
this also depends in an inverse manner on the „ = Net weight of warhead
degree of perfection sought, as reflected in The new net warhead volume may now be
the lethality. computed if the c /m has changed. Using this
It is not possible at this time to give a volume and the warhead shape previously de-
single row of numbers, compounded from all termined to provide the necessary beam width,
the factors considered in Tables 4-6, and the surface area of the fragmenting metal
4-7 which would represent the overall rel- should then be computed. Since the individual
ative merit of the various types of fragmen- optimum fragment weight has already been de-
tation control. However, it seems clear that termined, it is now relatively simple to estab-
the "relative lethality" is by far the most lish the fragment dimensions. It should be kept
important of the items discussed, except where in mind that the optimum fragment shape (from
one of the other factors is extremely low (such a packing standpoint) for use against aerial tar-
as for the unproducible and unattainable "per- gets is a cube. However, the optimum shape of
fect" control). The various methods should not a fragment may be another shape, e.g., a
be compared on the basis of lethality per dol- sphere, which has less air-drag.
lar of warhead cost, since the cost of the war- In most controlled fragment warheads the
head is only a small part of the total missile inner surface of the fragmenting case is coated
cost. with a material known as "cavityhotmelt",or
In view of the inadequate data available to "acid proof black paint", which is an asphaltic
date, no clear-cut conclusions can be drawn material similar to that used on roofs. This
from these two figures as presented. It can be coating varies in thickness from approximately
concluded, however, that (a) some type of frag- 1/16 to 1/32 inches and is applied before the
79
explosive is loaded. Its functions are to prevent 1/8 inch of steel is reasonable to use, although
contact between the explosive and sharp edges in some cases end plates as thick as 1/4 inch
of the case to prevent chemical action between have been used. The optimum thickness can only
the two, to provide some degree of thermal be determined by test of the parti cular warhead.
insulation, to effect more uniform case break- At least one end plate or a central portion
up, to fill in crevices in the casing where of an end plate should be removable to allow for
explosive might be pinched if the case were filling the warhead with explosive. This is
strained and to provide a bond between the usually done by pouring for large scale pro-
explosive and the metal casing. The type of hot duction since it is more convenient, though
melt used is a function of the type of explosive. pressing is used in some cases. In either event
Special paints have also been used for this the end plate should be either bolted in place,
purpose. For example, acid-proof paint, Speci- or secured with bayonet-type fittings. The
fication JAN-P-450(2) has been used in con- number of bolts required for this purpose
junction with most standard military explo- should be kept to a minimum.
sives. In cases where the warhead surface does
not constitute an external surface of the
Design of Warhead Components Other Than Charge missile, a fairing (sometimes called wind-
and Fragmenting Metal At this stage of the design, shield) must be provided to maintain the aero-
one is ready to establish the details of the dynamic contour. A typical fairing is shown in
warhead. To properly accomplish this a de- Figure 4-39. The fairing is usually of aluminum
tailed structural analysis must be made of the and made as light as possible to minimize the
individual components and of the warhead as a requirement for the warhead to "shoot its way
unit. The structural design criteria are estab- out of its own missile". This fairing is nor-
lished by the missile requirements, and are mally supplied by the missile manufacturer,
normally given to the designer. It is of the and is not the responsibility of the warhead
utmost importance that the parts of the missile designer. In the event that aerodynamic heating
fore and aft of the warhead be kept in the proper of the warhead compartment in flight becomes
position with respect to each other despite a problem, Rubatex or fiberglass insulation
aerodynamic and acceleration loads. Either the may be applied to the inner surface of the
warhead itself must be strong enough to per- missile skin around the warhead.
form this function, or additional structural The fairing may be attached to the warhead
members must be provided. It is most desirable itself or be a structural member. The decision
(but not always practical) to avoid distortions as to whether or not to attach the fairing to
of stresses which might crack the explosive, the warhead should be predicated on the results
as cracks adversely affect the uniformity and of the structural analysis. If such an attach-
reproducibility of detonations. ment is necessary, it should be such that it
The ends of the warhead must be closed to will easily be blown off by the detonation of
support and protect the explosive. The metal the warhead.
which does this is known as an end plate, and The required fittings for attaching the war-
also serves to prevent the explosion gases head to the missile are usually designated by
from simply rushing out open ends instead of the missile system designer. The fittings must
accelerating the fragmenting metal. However, be designed to mate with those in the missile
the end plates should not be thickened beyond and checked to insure their structural integrity.
what is necessary to support the charge or The position of these attachments will most
provide structural rigidity, for additional ex- probably be dictated by the position of the
plosive will probably do more to confine the mating missile parts. They are usually attached
main detonation than an equal weight of metal. to either the warhead end plates or the fairing.
Accordingly, something between 1/16 inch and The detail design of the attachments will de-
80
>-
u
UJ
u
UJ
Q
<
UJ
X
IT
<
45° 60"
INCLINATION GO,DEGREES
Figure 4-38. Warhead Efficiency Vs. Warhead Inclination
pend on whether or not the stresses are trans- This conduit should be kept small to avoid loss
mitted through the warhead, on the stress level of velocity for the fragments.
involved, and on whether quick assembly is The problems of location and mounting pro-
required. visions for the detonator are of major im-
Handling hooks should be incorporated for portance. It is suggested that either fuzing
use in installing, removing or transporting the experts or Reference 4-3.1 be consulted to
warhead. It might be well to check existing determine the type of detonator to be used.
handling equipment which will be used to as- Once the detonator is selected, the necessary
certain the compatibility of the design. mounting provisions and space allotment will
It is of the utmost importance to have as naturally be known. The location of the deto-
little as possible outside the warhead in the nator is optional, but a symmetrical location
way of structural members, wiring, etc. The (on the warhead axis) is definitely desirable.
location of these items is generally specified In many instances, due to safety regulations,
by the missile system designer. External the detonator is mounted within a fuze or S & A
wiring in the warhead section is a primary device in a safe position so that the explosive
source of trouble and should be avoided when- train is out of line until mechanical and elec-
ever possible. Tests of warheads with this trical arming is completed to bring the deto-
type of wiring have resulted in numerous fail- nator into line with the explosive train. The
ures. It is therefore more desirable, although location will be determined by the ease of
not always possible, to leave a small conduit assembly, and by the effect of this location on
down the axis of the warhead for wiring, if the fragment pattern. The detonator and associ-
wiring is required past the warhead section. ated components are usually located on one
81
end of the warhead or, in the case of very large The detail design of the warhead has now
warheads (over 500 pounds), on both ends. been made. It is to be noted that all assump-
The location of the center of gravity of the tions, not heretofore checked, should be veri-
warhead is of great importance to the missile fied at this point, and any necessary changes
designer, and is specified in most instances. made. The succeeding sections will detail the
This is especially true of a warhead being proper method of presenting the design and the
designed for an existing missile. After the de- information necessary for assuring the proper
tail design has been completed, the location of coordination of the warhead and its fuze.
the warhead e.g. should be ascertained. In the
event that the e.g. is very critical, the use of Summary of Fuzing Requirements Once the design
ballasting plates is recommended. These plates is final, a summary data sheet should be pre-
are usually bolted to the warhead end plates pared for the benefit of the fuze designer to
and may either be flush with them or protrude permit him to effect a fuze design which will
back or forward into the missile. Adjustments be compatible with the warhead. The following
can be made by removal of ballasting plates, as data are required:
necessary. The size and weight of the individual (1) Static and dynamic beam width.
plates are optional. Thus it is possible to (2) Fragment initial ejection velocity.
compensate for greater variation in the metal (3) Fragment size and shape.
parts assembly along with possible changes in (4) A drawing of the warhead.
the loading density of the explosive, thereby (5) Type of explosive used.
allowing fine control of the location of the
warhead e.g. Summary of Design Data At the conclusion of the
design procedure one should prepare a sum-
mary of all the pertinent data evolved. This
should include the following items:
(1) Total weight
(2) Detail design and installation drawings
(3) Explosive
(a) Material
(b) Weight
(c) Density
(4) Charge to Metal Ratio
(5) Fragments
(a) Number
(b) Total weight
(c) Individual Fragment Weight
(d) Design Size and Shape
(e) Initial Velocity
(f) Beam Width and Beam Axis
(g) Expected Spacial Density
Distribution of Fragments with
respect to angle from nose
(6) Location of e.g.
(7) Materials
(a) Casing
Figure 4-39. Typical Use of a Fairing(Sparrow I, (b) End Plates
Mk 7 Mod 0, Warhead Shown) (c) Fragments
H2:
(8) Point of Initiation Handbook", April 1952.
(9) Method of Mounting 4-3.m "British Report on Fluted Liners",
ARE/WRD-R55/54, December 1954.
4-3.3. References 4-3.n "The 1500 lb Anti-Personnel Warhead
for the Honest John Rocket", Ed S. Smith,
4-3.a "A Measurement of the Drag Coefficient A. K. Eittrein and W. L. Stubbs, BRL Memo.
of High Velocity Fragments", J. E. Shaw, BRL Report 779, April 1954.
Report 744, October 1950. 4-3.o "The Shape of a Fragmentation Bomb
4-3.b "Guidebook to Anti-Aircraft Guided to Produce Uniform Fragment Densities on
Missile Warheads, Relation of Characteristics the Ground", Robert H. Kent, BRL Report 762,
of Warhead and Fragments", Philip M. Whit- June 1951.
man, APL/JHU CF2392, June 1955. 4-3.p "Velocity Loss of Projectile Passing
4-3.c "A Report on Analysis of the Distribu- Through HE", Jamison and Williams, BRL
tion of Perforating Fragments for the 90MM Memo. Report 1127, October 1957.
M71, Fuzed T74E6, Bursting Charge TNT", 4-3.q "High Order Initiation of Two Military
Harold N. Shapiro, University of New Mexico, Explosives by Projectile Impact", Slade and
UNM/T-234, undated (about 1944). J. Dewey, BRL Report 1021, July 1957.
4-3.d "The Influence of the Surface Contour 4-3.r "A Theory of Fragmentation", N. F.
of an Exploding Body on Fragment Distribu- Mott and E. H. Linfoot, Advisory Council on
tion", Willard R. Benson, ASTIA - AD 44460, Scientific Research and Technical Development
October 1954. (British), A. C. 3348, January 1943.
4-3.e "A Note on the Initial Velocities of Frag- 4-3.s "A Theory of the Fragmentation of
ments from Warheads", Theodore E. Sterne, Shells and Bombs", N. F. Mott, Advisory
BRL Report 648, September 1947. Council of Scientific Research and Technical
4-3.f "The Initial Velocities of Fragments Development (British), A. C. 4035, May 1943.
from Bombs, Shells and Grenades", Ronald W. 4-3.t "Structural Defense, 1945", D. G.
Gurney, BRL Report 405, September 1943. Christopherson, Ministry of Home Security,
4-3.g "Guidebook to Anti-Aircraft Guided Research and Experiments Department, Janu-
Missile Warheads, Selection of Fragment War- ary 1946.
head Parameters", Philip M. Whitman, APL/ 4-3.u "Experiments with Shrapnel and Wire
JHU CF-2448, November 1955. Wound Model Warheads", S. S. Share, BRL
4-3.h ' 'New Casualty Criteria for Wounding By Report 614, July 1946.
Fragments", F. Allen and J. Sperazza, BRL 4-3.v "The Mass Distribution of Fragments
Report 996, October 1956. from Bombs, Shell, and Grenades", R. W.
4-3.i "Characteristics of fragmentation of Gurney and J. N. Sarmousakis, BRL Report
MX 904 Warheads, Blast with Fluted Liner, 448, February 1944.
Composition B, HBX, and Tritonal Loaded", 4-3.w "Effect of End Confinement and Shell
C. L. Grabarek, BRL Memo. Report 700. Length on Spatial Distribution and Velocity of
July 1953. Fragments", Silvia Sewell, BRL Memo. Report
4-3.i "Comparison of Blast from Terrier 862, January 1955.
Warheads Loaded with Composition B and 4-3.x "Penetration of Mild Steel by Bomb
H-6", Daniel K. Parks, Denver Research In- Fragments", N. A. Tolch and A. V. Bush-
stitute, University of Denver, December 1954. kovitch, BRL Report 568, August 1945.
4-3.k "Guidebook to Anti-Aircraft Guided 4-3.y "A Comparison of Various Materials in
Missile Warheads, Detailed Design of Frag- their Resistance to Perforation by Steel Frag-
mentation Warheads", Philip M. Whitman, ments; Empirical Relationships", Project
APL/JHU CF-2393, June 1955. Thor Technical Report No. 25, July 1956.
4-3.1 "Ordnance Explosive Train Designers' 4-3.i "Airdrag on Steel Darts and Balls from
83
Antiaircraft Warheads", Ed S. Smith, BRL heads", Chester L. Grabarek, ASTIA AD
Tech. Note 1179, March 1958. 64546, January 1955.
4-3.00 "Retardation and Velocity Histories of (5) "Explosives Comparison for Frag-
an 8-grain Flechette" (or dart), Maynard J. mentation Effectiveness", A. D. Solem, N.
Piddington, BRL Memo. Report 1140, April Shapiro, B. N. Singleton, Jr., ASTIA AD
1958. 40095, August 1953.
4-3.bb "Optimum Warheads and Burst Points
for BOMARC, Phase II Guided Missiles", 4-4. DISCRETE ROD WARHEADS
Ed S. Smith, et al., BRL Memo. Report 739,
November 1953. 4-4.1. Detail Design Steps
4-3.cc "Effectiveness of Missile Warheads Step No.
Against High-Speed Air Targets", EdS. Smith, 1.Determine Rod Length
BRL Memo. Report 858, December 1954. 2.Select Rod Material
4-3.dd "Complex of Soviet Ground Targets on 3.Determine Rod Cross Section
a Stabilized Front", W. A. McKean and Ed S. 4.Study Rod Velocity Required
Smith, BRL Memo. Report 855, December 5.Select Type of Explosive Charge
1954. 6.Design Warhead Details
4-3.ee "Ground Cover Function for Standing 7.Prepare Summary of Fuzing Re-
Men Targets", J. W. Marvin, BRL Memo. quirements
Report 1089, July 1957. 8. Prepare Summary of Design Data
4-3 .ff "Exposure to Airburst Warheads of The exact order of the design procedure
Men in an Artillery Battery and in Infantry may vary depending upon the viewpoint of the
Positions", Ed S. Smith, BRL Memo. Report designer and, even more, on the military re-
1115, November 1957. quirements which often fix certain parameters
4-3.gg "Exposure to Air Burst Weapons of in advance.
Occupants of Five Specific Types of Defensive
Infantry Positions", W. E. Gross, Jr., BRL 4-4.2. Detail Design Data
Memo. Report 1067, March 1957. Rod Length One consideration which estab-
4-3.hh "Expected Coverage of a Circular Tar- lishes an upper limit on the length of a discrete
get with a Salvo of N Area Kill Weapons", rod is quite obviously the length of the com-
Arthur D. Groves, BRL Memo. Report 1084, partment allocated to the warhead by the weap-
July 1957. on system designer. The lower limit on rod
length is established by the damage-producing
4-3.4. Bibliography ability of the rod, that is, it should not be so
short that it does not produce critical damage
(1) "Theory of the Explosion of Cased on its intended target, i.e., too short to have a
Charges of Simple Shape", L. H. Thomas, BRL high probability of straddling a structural
Report 475, July 1944. member. This problem has been studied ex-
(2) "Guidebook to Anti-Aircraft Guided tensively in Reference 4-4. a. Generally speak-
Missile Warheads", Philip M. Whitman, Parts ing, a 15 inch rod length is the minimum which
I through XII, 1956. will cause failure by buckling of the bottom of
(3) "T-39 and T-40 Missile Warheads", a B-29 fuselage while 36 inches is the minimum
Rheem Manufacturing Company, Monthly and length which will cause a tension failure on top
Summary Reports, R 75 Series, June 1953 of the same fuselage. Data relating rod length
through March 1956. and target cylinder radius to half-sever the
(4) "Comparative Fragmentation Tests of cylinder is represented in Figure 4-40 as a
Single and Multi-Walled Cylindrical War- guide for establishing minimum rod length for
84
damaging various diameter target fuselages. the strength of the rod is less important since
Data presenting rod length required to half- their cutting action in this case depends pri-
sever a 3 x 8 foot aluminum beam intended to marily on the rod segment which contacts the
simulate an aircraft wing is presented in Figure target and produces a momentum exchange
4-41. These data were taken from Reference between the rod and the cap. Mild steel rods
4-4.a. This reference includes a great deal of are effective against such heavy structures.
both analytical and experimental data which
is presented in a very orderly manner. The Rod Cross Section The cross sectional dimension
designer is urged to use this reference ex- of the discrete rods generally must be greater
tensively throughout this and all other steps than 3/8 inch to be effective against most aerial
in designing discrete rod warheads. targets. A higher cross sectional dimension of
The designer will find that the rods re- from 1/2 to 5/8 inch is most desirable. Rods
quired to inflict critical damage to typical with circular cross sections are not as effective
aerial targets must be quite long when derived in cutting skin and stringers as are those with
using Figures 4-40 and 4-41, and Reference square cross sections. The cross sectional
4-4. a. Even if his warhead compartment is shape has little influence on their ability to
long enough to accomodate the length estab- cut heavy structure such as wing spar caps.
lished from this damage criteria, he usually
will not be able to use this length because long Rod Velocity The velocity with which the rod
rods have a tendency to break up upon detona- strikes the target is a function of the vector
tion of the explosive charge which propels them sum of the missile velocity and the velocity
outward from the warhead. Generally speaking, induced by the explosive charge. Striking veloc-
rod breakup upon detonation is a serious prob- ities in excess of 2000 feet per second are re-
lem when the length to diameter ratio of the quired to cause cutting damage to most aerial
rods exceeds 30. This places a very serious targets. However, striking velocities consider-
limitation on the length of the rods. Various ably in excess of 2000 feet per second will
techniques have been tried to minimize rod cause other than cutting damage to target com-
breakup such as placing paste or cork liners ponents. Vaporific damage caused by the flash
between the rods and the explosive charge to induced as the steel rod strikes aluminum in
minimize the explosive shock. It is this limita- the target occurs at striking velocities of 4000
tion on the length of discrete rods which un- feet per second and above. The probability of
doubtedly led to the development of continuous causing vapor damage varies inversely as the
rod warheads which are discussed in the next volume in which the energy is released. At this
subchapter. time, vaporific damage must be taken as a
"bonus" effect. The hydraulic impulse induced
Rod Material Rods inflict damage on aerial tar- when a rod strikes a large body of liquid such
gets primarily by severing structure. Light as a fuel tank can produce significant target
structure such as skin and stringers is severed damage. Damage from this source is slight at
by direct impingement of the rods or by the striking velocities of 2000 feet per second but
overhanging ends of the rods which strike solid it increases with velocity until at 6000 feet per
structure (such as spar caps), cutting the skin second it can be responsible for an immediate
and stringers adjacent to the solid structure. kill.
Alloy steels are most effective in this latter
case although the rods must not shatter when Explosive Charge The type and weight of explo-
they strike the structure. Carbon steels, heat- sive to be used in discrete rod warheads is
treated to a hardness of about 300 on the very difficult to set forth due to the many vari-
Vickers scale provide this capability. For ables involved and more particularly, the fact
cutting heavy structures such as spar caps, that the prediction of rod breakup upon deto-
85
0.5
o 9r= ANGLE OF R(JD i8 = 5^
z
TRAJECTORIES
V
o ABOVE OR BELOW 25°
fe0.4 0.4
(- O
O
r
ys '•45°
u.
'
OL
UJ
/
UJ 0.3 Q-
0.3 / ', / /85°
a.
/ / /
O
1 I /
TED NUMBER OF CU
u.
O ,
O
0.2
1
/ /
z
/ 1
O
0.1
UJ
F
o
UJ
/ / /
*
UJ 0.
0-
10
X
UJ ; // I 10
ROD LENGTH-FEET
RATIO OF ROD LENGTH TO RADIUS OF CYLINDER
Figure 4-40. Expected Number of Cuts Vs. Rod Figure 4-41. Expected Number of Cuts Vs Rod
Length (Cylinder Half S evered) Length (3' x 8' Beam Half Severed)
FILLER OR
LINER RODS
BOOSTER
EXPLOSIVE
LOADING
BOOSTER
Figure 4-42- Warhead Details

(Discrete Rod Warhead)
86
nation is virtually impossible without carrying (4) Initial Rod Velocity
out specific tests. Generally, Composition B, (5) Missile Velocity
H-6, 80/20 Tritonal and Composition C-3 are
used. Summary of Design Data At the conclusion of the
The initial velocity imparted to the rods design procedure, a summary of engineering
is a function of the ratio of the weight of charge data relating to the warhead should be prepared.
to the weight of the rods, that is c/m . The c/m This should include the following items:
required to impart rod velocities in theneigh- (1) Total Weight
• borhood of 2000 to 3000 feet per second is of (2) Design and Installation Drawings
the order of 1/4. A satisfactory c/m to pro- (3) Explosive
duce a given initial velocity can only be deter- (a) Material
mined by test since it depends upon rod break- (b) Weight
up, rod length and diameter, shape of explosive (4) Charge to Metal Ratio
charge, end plate effects, shape of rod bundle (5) Rods
and other interrelated variables which have (a) Length and Cross Section
not been investigated experimentally. (b) Number
(c) Material
Warhead DetaiIs The individual rods are packaged (d) Weight
in the warhead around the explosive charge by (e) Initial Rod Velocity (Static)
lightly tack-welding them together at their ends (6) Location of Center of Gravity
or by lightly welding or brazing them to a sup- (7) Method of Mounting
porting tube at their ends. More than one layer
of rods is generally used. A liner or filler is 4-4.3. References
usually employed to separate the explosive
cavity from the rods. See Figure 4-42. The 4-4.a Report NMIMT/RDD/T-821, "Rod De-
shape of this filler is often varied in an effort sign", M. L. Kempton and C. R. Cassity,
to minimize rod breakup. The explosive cavity February, 1952, Research and Development
usually includes an inner liner. End plates are Division, New Mexico Institute of Mining and
added to confine the charge. Provision for Technology, ASTIA AD 47605.
loading the explosive is usually made in the end
plates. The booster should be centrally located 4-4.4. Bibliography
to provide an even distribution of initial rod
velocity. Installation and handling fittings must (1) NPG Report No. 1106, April 1953,
be provided as required by the missile system "Terminal Ballistics of Rodlike Fragments",
designer. U.S. Naval Proving Ground, Dahlgren, Virginia.
Summary of Fuzing Requirements The fuze designer 4-5. CONTINUOUS ROD WARHEADS
needs design information to design a fuze which
is compatible with the missile system and the 4-5.1. Detail Design Steps
warhead. He will have access to the same
missile system data as did the warhead de- Step
signer. In addition to this, the fuze designer No. Detail Design Step
will need the following information relating 1. Determine Rod Cross Sectional Di-
specifically to the warhead. mensions
(1) Type of Explosive Used 2. Determine Dimensions of Rod Bun-
(2) Drawing of Warhead dle
(3) Rod Length and Cross Section 3. Select Type and Amount of Explosive
87
4. Design Explosive Cavity decide on the length of the individual rods, which
5. Design Warhead Details establishes the length of the rod bundle.
6. Prepare Summary of Fuze Data Since the cross sectional dimensions are
7. Prepare Summary of Design Data fixed, the number of rods chosen fixes the
The exact order of the design procedure diameter of the bundle. Certain limits are
may vary depending upon the viewpoint of the imposed on the rod bundle length and diameter
designer and, even more, on the military re- and L/D, length to diameter ratio. Obviously,
quirements which often fix certain parameters the length and diameter cannot exceed the
in advance. warhead compartment dimensions. The length
should be as long as possible so as to minimize
4-5.2. Detail Design Data the hoop radius lost due to the welded end
Rod Cross Sectional Dimensions The cross sec- portions of adjacent rods.
tional dimensions of the rods are established However, the length should be limited to
by considering target damage requirements. between 2 to 3 times the diameter of the bundle.
Tests have been conducted at the New Mexico At L/D values in excess of 3, difficulty will be
Institute of Mining to determine the various experienced in designing the explosive charge
parameters which affect damage to aerial tar- so as not to cause bending and distortion of the
gets. From these tests it has been determined individual rods upon detonation. At low values
that rods with square cross sections 3/16 and of L/D, the expanded hoop radius will be
1/4 inches on a side striking at more than shortened since the length of the rod used for
3500 and 3000 feet per second, respectively, are welding cannot contribute to the hoop circum-
lethal if they strike a vulnerable portion of the ference. Values of L/D as low as 1 have been
target. Thus, as a first approximation, the used. The actual expanded hoop radius is ap-
cross sectional dimensions of the rods can be proximately 70% to 85% of the theoretical
selected between these two narrow limits. radius, based on the summation of the lengths
of the rods. The 70% figure applies to bundles
Dimensions of Rod Bundle The length of the rods with low values of L/D and also allows for
depends primarily upon packaging limitations. imperfect expansion of the hoop.
For a given weight and space allocated to the
warhead by the missile designer, the warhead Explosive ChargeThe type and amount of explo-
should be designed to provide the largest pos- sive charge used is based on the initial rod
sible expanded hoop radius. This is desirable velocity required to provide a striking velocity
because the lethality drops rapidly if the rods which will kill the target. The strikingvelocity
do not strike the target until after the hoop has depends upon the vector sum of the missile and
expanded to the point where it is no longer initial rod velocities and the loss in velocity
continuous (see Figure 4-43). Therefore, the due to air resistance as the hoop expands in
greater the fully expanded radius, the greater its flight toward the target. A strikingvelocity
the allowable guidance error for high lethality. of 3000 feet per second for 1/4x1/4 inch rods
The fully expanded radius is obviously a and 3500 feet per second for 3/16 x 3/16 inch
function of the summation of the lengths of the rods is considered a lower limit. (See Refer-
individual rods. Approximately 65% of the total ence 4-5.b). Rod velocity as a function of radial
warhead weight may be allotted to the steel distance from the detonation point for 1/4 x 1/4
rods, this percentage being typical of most inch and 3/16 x 3/16 inch rods has been ob-
successful continuous rod warhead designs. tained experimentally in Reference 4-5. a. This
Knowing the total weight of all of the rods, information is presented in Figure 4-44.
their individual cross sectional dimensions and The ratio of the explosive charge to the
the density of steel, the total length of rod weight of the rod material ( c/m ratio) is the
material may be computed. It then remains to most significant parameter affecting initial rod
88
RODS EXPLOSIVE
iV
"<H
1
! v 1
> '/
1
>><
>*v
t> &.
<v*
&• &•
«
c
> >
>5>
C V
O c- *
fi v t
V
> t. N
7
V
> fc t«
& t> v
1
FU LLY EXPANDED HOOP * \ &
\ r." 1 0
1: S>^
HOOP BREAKUP AFTER REACHING FULL EXPANSION END PLATE BROKEN AND
TWISTED ROD
Figure 4-43. Expansion of Rod Hoop
Figure 4-45. A Warhead Design Producing Tangled

and Broken Rods
BOOSTER
5500
RODS
Altitude = 4400tt
5000 INERT
BUILD UP
4500
\v 16"X 3/16 ROD
8 4000 CONTOURED
At ■ LINER
1/4"X 1 ><\ ROD
3500 EXPLOSIVE
3000
0 10 20 30 40 50
END PLATE
DISTANCE FROM DETONATION POINT-FEET
Figure 4-44. Rod Velocity Variation Figure 4-46-

Contoured Liner and Inert Build Up
89
velocity. Hollow central cavity warheads em- When the booster is placed in the annular ex-
ploying 3/16 x 3/16 to 1/4 x 1/4 inch rods and plosive ring of a hollow warhead, the rods on
a c/m of between .60 and .75 will produce initial the side opposite the booster break during det-
velocities of approximately 5000 feet per onation. The general practice for hollow war-
second. The exact value of the c/m required heads is to place the booster on the warhead
will depend upon the amount of charge con- axis either symmetrically within the annulus
finement afforded by the inner wall of the or in the center of a cylindrical plate of ex-
explosive cavity, the geometry of the explosive plosive located across one end of the warhead
cavity (discussed in the following subchapter) as shown in Figure 4-46. In the case of solid
and upon the type of explosive used. Composi- warheads the booster should be placed on the
tion C-4, B and H-6 are suitable types for this warhead axis as near midway between the ends
application. (See Appendix.) of the rod bundle as possible. This is because
the portion of the rod bundle which surrounds
Explosive Cavity The explosive cavity usually the booster will receive a lower radial velocity
has a hollow center. The cavity must be de- than more distant portions of the rod bundle.
signed so that detonation of the explosive Extension of the explosive charge beyond the
charge imparts a constant velocity to the rod end of the rod bundle is sometimes used in
along its entire length, thereby accelerating warheads of small diameter to overcome rod
the rod without excessively bending or distor- velocity loss in the vicinity of the booster.
ting it. The use of an explosive loading with a The booster is then placed beyond the end of
constant cross section along the entire length the rod bundle in the explosive extension.
of the rod bundle is always accompanied by Scabbing as exemplified by Figure 4-48,
rod tangling and excessive rod breakage. These and surface damage to rods during detonation
undesirable conditions are caused by the higher are deleterious effects usually attributed to
velocities imparted to the central portions of the numerous small gaps and openings which
the rod bundle as compared to the ends. Figure exist between adjacent rods of the rod bundle
4-45 shows a warhead with an explosive loading in direct contact with the explosive loading of
of uniform cross section and a broken and the warhead. The scabbing problem may be
twisted rod typical for this design. Contoured overcome by filling these gaps which open in
liners and the use of inert material placed the rod bundle and which are in contact with
along the length of the rod bundle have proved the explosive loading. Experiments at the New
to be very effective in eliminating tangling Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology show
and rod breakage due to differential rod veloc- that commercial white lead applied in a thin
ities. Figures 4-46 and 4-47 show contoured coating about .005 to .020 inches in thickness
liner and inert build up geometries used in is a nearly ideal solution to the scabbing
successful designs. These figures should be problem. Plastic laminacs have also been used
used as the basis of designs for new warheads. for this purpose. Masking tape or other mate-
Abrupt angular changes in the contours of the rial must be used to cover the coating to pre-
liners and in the inert build up or fillers are vent mixing of the white lead and the explosive
to be avoided. A number of materials can be during loading (see Reference 4-5*b). Navy
used for the inert build up. Paraplexpolyester standard practice is to coat all metal surfaces
resin has been used extensively as an inert of the explosive cavity with cavity hot melt
compound because it is tough, hard, easily (Code 280-3110-0) before casting the explosive.
formed by casting or machining, and is infusible For continuous rod warheads the recommended
at moderate temperatures. Plaster of Paris hot melt thickness is 1/64 to 1/32 inch.
has also been used successfully. A series of successful continuous rod war-
The placement of the booster charge has an head designs which have been tested are pre-
important effect on rod breakup at detonation. sented in Figures 4-49a through 4-491. These
90
.;*— .'.**$(*• »*.*Ä*ft*l»-
RODS
INERT
BUILD UP
BOOSTER
EXPLOSIVE
END PLATE
Figure 4-47.
Contoured Inert Build Up
OUTER
ROD
INNER
ROD Design Details
Gross weight 414 lb
Explosive wt. (C-4) 129 lb
Rod size 1/4 x 1/4 in.
End plates 1/4 in.
Booster Tetryl
Warhead Performance
Initial rod vel. 4500 ft/sec
Rod velocity at
90 ft radius 3000 ft/sec
Max. opening R. 120 ft
Figure 4-48.
Rod Scabbing Figure 4-49a. Continuous Rod Warhead Designs
91
include a sketch of the complete warhead (with missile system data as did the warhead de-
lengths in inches), data relating to the warhead signer. In addition to this, the fuze designer
components and information on the perform- will need the following information relating
ance of the warhead. They were taken from specifically to the warhead:
Reference 4-5. a and are included here to guide (1) Type of Explosive Used
the warhead designer particularly in regard to (2) Drawing of Warhead
the design of the explosive cavity. (3) Rod Length and Cross Section
(4) Expanded Rod Diameter
Warhead Details All continuous rod warheads (5) Initial Rod Velocity (Static)
must be provided with end plates which serve
to hold the warhead together, to contain the Summary of Design Data At the conclusion of the
explosive at the ends of the warhead and in design procedure, a summary of engineering
some cases to serve as structural members. data relating to the warhead should be pre-
Good containment also helps to decrease rod pared to summarize the design. This should
bending and breakage. Depending on warhead include the following items:
size and design, the thickness of the end plates (1) Total Weight
will vary from about 0.125 to 0.375 inch. In (2) Design and Installation Drawings
annular warheads, weight can be saved by (3) Explosive
eliminating the central portion of the plate. (a) Material
Additional weight and simplicity can often be (b) Weight
achieved by combining end plates and warhead- (4) Charge-to-Metal Ratio
to-missile attachment fittings. Rod pairs are (5) Rods
generally joined at opposite ends of arc welds (a) Length and Cross Section
or resistance welds so that the rod blanket (b) Expanded Rod Diameter
consists of a double layer of rods. The outer (c) Material
rod usually contains a small tab at each end (d) Weight
for attaching the rod blanket by welding the (e) Initial Rod Velocity (Static)
tabs to the end plates. The inner rods are (6) Location of Center of Gravity
grooved at each end to accept 360° cutoff tubes. (7) Method of Mounting
The so-called cutoff tubes are located at both
ends of the warhead between the ends of the 4-5.3. References
rod bundle and the end plates, as shown in
Figure 4-49a. The function of cutoff tubes is to 4-5. a "Guide to the Design of the Continuous
release the rods from the end plates during Rod Warhead", M. L. Kempton, Report No.
detonation by collapsing and forming a modified NMIMT/RDD/T-922, New Mexico Institute of
shaped charge effect to sever the end tabs Mining and Technology, ASTIA AD 90709,
from the rods. Fuzing and booster provisions March 1956.
must be made as well as provisions for handling 4-5.b "Effectiveness of Talos Continuous Rod
and installing the warhead in the missile com Warhead (Revised)", P. M. Whitman, APL/JHU
partment. CF-2111A, December 1953.
It is to be noted that facilities at the New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology are 4-5.4. Bibliography
utilized for most rod warhead testing.
(1) "Supplement to Effectiveness of Talos
Summary of Fuzing Requirements The fuze design- Rod Warhead", P. M. Whitman, APL/JHU CF-
er needs design information to design a fuze 2111B, May 1954.
that is compatible with the missile system and (2) "Comparison of Different Warheads
warhead. He will have access to the same for the Hawk Missile Against the IL 28-2 and
92
.DIA
Design Details
Design Details
Gross weight 394 |b
Explosive wt. (C-4) 109 lb Gross weight 171 lb
Rod size 1/4x1/4 in. Explosive wt. (C-4) 41 lb
End plates 1/8 in. Rod size 3/16x1/4 in.
Booster Tetryl End plates 3/8 in.
Booster Tetryl and C-3
Warhead Performance
Warhead Performance
Initial rod vel. 4500 ft/sec.
Rod vel. at Initial rod vel. 4700 ft/sec.
90 ft radius 3000 ft/sec. Rod velocity at
Max. opening 71 ft radius 3200 ft/sec
radius 120 ft Max. opening
radius 71 ft
Figure 4-49b. Continuous Rod Warhead Desi gns Figure 4-49c. Continuous Rod Warhead Desi gns
93
Design Details
Gross weight 178 lb
Explosive wt (C-4) 59 lb
Rod size 1/4x 1/4 in.
Design Details
or 3/16 x 1/4 in.
End plates 1/8 in. Gross weight 64 lb
Booster Tetryl Explosive wt. (C-4) 18 lb
Rod size 3/16x3/16 in.
Warhead Performance End plates fore 3/16 in.
Initial rod vel. 4700 fps aft 1/8 in.
Booster Tetryl
1/4 x 1/4 in- rods:
Warhead Performance
Rod vel. at 63 ft R.3600 fps
3/16 x 1/4 in. rods: Initial rod vel. 4600 fps
Max. opening R. 84 ft Rod vel. at 32 ft R. 4000 fps
Rod vel. at 84 ft R.3200 fps Max. opening R. 32 ft
Figure 4-49d, Continuous Rod Warhead Designs Figure 4-49e. Continuous Rod Warhead Designs
94
I«- 55 DIA
Design Details
Gross weight 45 |b Design Details
Rod size 3/16x3/16 in. Gross weight 137 lb
End plates fore 1/4 in. Explosive wt. (C-4) 53 lb
aft 3/8 in. Rod size 3/16x1/4 in.
Booster Tetryl End plates 1/8 in.
Booster p_n
Warhead Performance
Warhead Performance
Initial rod vel. 4200 fps
Rod vel. at 24 ft R. 3600 fps Initial rod vel. 5000 fps
Max. opening R. 24 ft Rod vel. at 57 ft R. 3700 fps
Figure 4-49f. Continuous Rod Warhead Desi gns
Figure 4-49g. Continuous Rod Warhead Designs
95
Design Details
Design Details
Gross weight (C-4) 60 lb
Gross weight 210 lb Explosive weight (C-4) 15 lb
Explosive wt. (C-4) 65 lb Gross weight (B) 64 lb
Rod size l/4x 1/4 in. Explosive weight (B) 19 lb
End plates fore 1/8 in. Rod size 3/16 x 3/16 in.
aft 1/4 in. End plates 3/32 in.
Booster P-11 Booster MK 44 Aux. Det.
Warhead Performance Warhead Performance

Initial rod vel. 5000 fps Initial rod vel. 4500 fps
Rod vel. at 71 ft R. 3500 fps Rod vel. at 41 ft R. 3700 fps
Max. opening R. 71 ft Max. opening R. 41 ft
Figure 4-4%. Continuous Rod Warhead Designs Figure 4-49i. Continuous Rod Warhead Designs
96
KfDIA.
Design Details Design Details

Gross wt. 57 lb Gross weighx 40 lb
Explosive wt. (C-4) 17 lb Explosive wt. (C-4) 11 lb
Rod size 3/16 x 3/16 in. Rod size 3/16 x 3/16 in.
End plates 3/32 in. End plates aft 3/8 in.
Booster P-11 Booster MK 44 Aux. Det.
Warhead Performance Warhead Performance

Initial rod vel. 4500 fps Initial rod vel. 5000 fps
Rod vel. at 41 ft R. 3700 fps Rod vel. at 23 ft R. 4500 fps
Max. opening R. 41 ft Max. opening R. 23 ft
Figure 4-49j. Continuous Rod Warhead Designs Figure 4-49k. Continuous Rod Warhead Designs
97
B-29 Aircraft", W. Taylor Putney, Ed S. Smith
and G. Trevor Williams, BRL Memo. Report
905, July 1955.
1 * *. • ■« > 1 (3) "Guidebook to Antiaircraft Guided
j
. • \ * 3 Missile Warheads, Coordination of Fuze and
4 « *>
Warhead", Philip M. Whitman, APL/JHU CF-

.« • «r i
2419, undated (about 1955).
I
4
■W-l (4) "Guidebook to Antiaircraft Guided
Missile Warheads, Effectiveness of Rod War-
•>••• heads", Philip M. Whitman, APL/JHU CF-
I * * . * n
, 4
- • ' 2486, February 1956.
« * * 4 *|
• 4 1 ■
5
' 16 4-6. CLUSTER WARHEADS
1
« * * • 4-6-1. Detail Design Steps
H
\ « 4)
\ M I ' 3 Step
\« ' ■ . > 14-
1
1
4
4 No. Detail Design Step
i
. » ■«
1.
Estimate the Optimum Pattern
* « ' «
/' ' 1
2.
Select the Type of Submissile
« ' I
, 3.
Select the Ejection Method
,4
.'» * 4.
Determine the Maximum Number of
I 4
3 Submissiles
4 7
8
,•'•«•* 5. Design in Detail the Ejection System
6. Design in Detail the Submissile
■•i''
4 *
■ilj
V
V
7. Design in Detail the Support Structure
1
ii i' 8. Design in Detail the Retention System

k
S ■'.V*J^N. 1 9. Design in Detail the Obstruction Re-
\ ^■^0.0.
2 moval Device
10. Prepare Summary of Fuzing Design
i . DIA. Data
r 1 «J
11. Prepare Summary of Design Data
The exact order of the design procedure
may vary depending upon the viewpoint of the
designer and, even more, on the military re-
Design Details quirements which often fix certain parameters
Gross weight 42 lb in advance.
4-6.2. Detail Design Data
Rod size 3/16x3/16 in.
End plates 3/8 in.
Booster P-l 1 Optimum Pattern Cluster warheads are ideally
designed to eject a series of submissiles from
Warhead Performance the warhead compartment in a pattern such that
the probability of one or more submissiles
Initial rod vol. 5000 fps striking the target is a maximum. In one design
Rod vel. at 23 ft R. 4500 fps of antiaircraft warheads, for example, the sub-
Max. opening R. 23 ft missiles are arranged in rows around the pe-
riphery of the warhead compartment and are
ejected radially. Upon ejection the submissiles
form a radially expanding circular pattern.
Figure 4-491. Continuous Rod Warhead Designs
98
Table 4-8 Summary Chart
Metal Wt.
Total (Less Fins HE
Weight and Fuze) Weight Diameter Length
Designation pounds pounds pounds inches inches General Shape Results of Penetration Tests
T-214 With 4.20 2.30 1.35 2.00 14.2 Cylinder with Good - 80 obliquity
Windshield ogive nose 1/2 in. 75 S-T6
Penetration Good with 30 yaw
T-214 Without 4.20 2.25 1.35 2.00 12.5 Cylinder with slight
Windshield ogive and flat nose
Gimlet 4.00 2.25 1.20 2.00 11.0 Cylinder with Break up at 80° obliquity
ogive nose 1/2 in. 75 S-T6
Sprite Sparrow 4.00 1.60 1.40 Keystone 11.5 Keystone cross Break up at 70 obliquity
to section; tapered 1/4 in. 75 S-T6
<o
longitudinally with
folding fins and
flat nose
Sprite Talos 5. 00 2. 60 1.40 Keystone 11.5 Keystone cross

section with folding
fins, flat nose
Edgewood E91 Types 2.82 to 9. 88 to Tear drop with Break up on ground impact due
3.44 15.00 fixed fins to light case, therefore poor
target plate penetration likely
Dart 1.33 .25 .98 19.0 Cylinder with Good - 70° obliquity
ogive and fins 3/8 in. 75 S-T6
11 It
Dart 1.70 .36 .98 22.4
It tl
Dart 3.90 1.00 1.58 23.5
Aeroflak 5.6 2.75 2.80 5.5 Short cylinder Good - 70° obliquity
with ogive 3/8 in. 75 S-T6
generally with the submissiles in one or more more severe drag forces during its flight to the
rings. The pattern is moving toward the target target.
at missile speed and expanding radially at ejec- The stabilized submissile is used in the
tion speed. The initial velocity of individual event that an "all-waysfuze"isnotapplicable.
submissiles is the vector sum of the missile This enables the designer to specify a lighter
and ejection velocities. (See Figure 4-50.) and simpler fuze which detonates the submis-
The striking velocity is the vector difference sile after penetration of the target. This in turn
between the final actual submissile velocity and requires a smaller amount of explosive since
the target velocity. The radius of the pattern the blast is internal. However, this type of sub-
at any instant is a function of the time of flight missile requires a structural nose, usually
after detonation and the average radial velocity. made of steel and a stabilization mechanism,
It is desirable to keep the flight time to a min- each of which tends to increase the submissile
imum to reduce submissile slow-down due to weight.
aerodynamic drag forces, to reduce the effect In present designs, stabilization is accom-
of gravitational forces and to reduce the effec- plished by use of a drag tube, drag plate, drag
tiveness of evasive action of the target. Cluster chute, fixed fins or collapsible fins. The selec-
warheads are usually designed to produce a tion and design of these mechanisms is dis-
circular submissile pattern whose radius is cussed later. The stabilization mechanism
slightly greater than the standard error of must be stowed with the submissile which ob-
guidance of the missile system at the instant viously increases the weight and volume and,
the plane of the submissile circle reaches the even though the charge is less, the net effect for
target. Flight times of from .3 to .75 seconds a fixed total warhead weight is fewer submis-
with ejection velocities from 200 to 400 feet per siles as compared to the unstabilized type.
second are consistent with guidance errors (or Packaging of stabilized submissiles becomes
pattern radii) of 40 to 200 feet. difficult and, if a stabilizer release mechanism
is included, it must be of a rugged design to
Types of Submissiles The submissiles used in withstand the ejection accelerations and aero-
the cluster warhead are of two general types: dynamic forces.
stabilized and unstabilized. Typical examples
of each type are shown in Figures 4-51 through Ejection Methods The function of the ejection
4-56. The unstabilized type requires the use of system is to impart a velocity to the submis-
an "all-ways fuze", one which insures detona- sile in a direction normal to the missile axis.
tion of the submissile regardless of its orien- Current systems utilize gas pressure gener-
tation when striking the target. It is suggested ated by the burning of a suitable propellant.
that the fuze designer be consulted to determine Gas pressure systems may also be divided into
the adaptability of this type of fuze to the partic- two general categories: the gun tube and the
ular warhead design under consideration. If the blast type. Both types have been successfully
"all-ways fuze" can be utilized, the optimum used in developmental missiles.
type of submissile is generally the unstabilized The major difference between the two ejec-
one. The unstabilized submissile has certain tion systems is as follows. In the blast type the
advantages over the stabilized type.It is easier explosion emanates from a central source or
to manufacture and assemble, andrequires less chamber and the resulting pressure is either
volume because no stabilization devices are directed through ports or openings to act on
necessary. Therefore a larger number of sub- the submissile or acts directly on the submis-
missiles can be incorporated in a given war- siles. In the "integral gun type" each submis-
head volume. On the debit side, the unstabilized sile is fired by a charge acting in an individual
submissile, in addition to requiring the afore- gun chamber. The blast type will therefore have
mentioned "all-ways fuze", is subjected to the advantages of a minimum space require-
100
« -»•-
ment and a simplified firing mechanism since and resulting in high ejection velocities. In
individual submissile firing mechanisms are this design, the gun chambers may also be uti-
eliminated. On the other hand, use of the inte- lized as a structural part of the parent missile
gral gun type results in a more uniform sub- (Reference 4-6.d)
missile pattern. An alternate means of sub-
missile ejection is to depend upon aerodynamic Blast Types Figure 4-60 shows a blast system
forces to launch the submissiles from the mis- applied to one submissile. The same method
sile after the missile skin has been severed. can be adapted to many submissiles in a com-
Figures 4-57 through 4-62 illustrate typ- plete warhead. The source of energy for ejec-
ical ejection systems used on current war- tion is a propellant contained within the confines
heads. A brief description of the illustrated of a pressure tube, known as a backup tube. A
systems follows. liner of predetermined breaking strength sepa-
Gun Types The gun ejection system shown rates the propellant from the submissiles. This
in Figure 4-57 is of the integral ignition type. liner fits the inside diameter of the backup
The ejector guns are separate units screwed tube snugly.
into the backup ring, which serves as a struc- The backup tube contains three orifices
tural member. They are actuated electrically per submissile. Upon ignition the propellant
and each submissile has its own primer and gas expands, thereby creatingpressure against
dispersal charge. The submissiles are placed the inner surface of the liner. This expansion
over the ejector gun tubes, and are packed in causes failure of the liner and permits the gases
rings around the warhead. The burning of the to impinge upon the base of the submissiles.
propellant in the gun generates pressure that The force so created causes the submissiles
acts on the ejector tube which is part of the to be ejected laterally from the backup struc-
submissile, and imparts a force to the submis- ture (Reference 4-6.b).
siles. The device shown in Figure 4-61 is of the
The gun ejection system shown in Figure blast ejection segmented chamber type. It uses
4-58 is an example of the central ignition type. the segments that surround the propellant cav-
This type is similar to the integral ignition sys- ity as sabots for the submissiles. This provides
tem except that the ignition of the gun charge good control of both the submissile pattern and
is effected by firing a central source of powder individual submissile velocity. At present little
instead of individual igniters. The ring con- is known concerning the ejection transients in-
taining the powder acts as a structural member herent in this method. Selection of this type
and absorbs the ejection forces. The powder would call for extensive tests to determine its
charge is simultaneously fired by several feasibility (Reference 4-6.c).
primers located around the chamber. The method illustrated in Figure 4-62 ap-
Another variation of the gun type ejection pears to be one of the better methods devised
system is known as the piston type, shown in to date in that a convoluted expanding liner
Figure 4-59. In this system a dispersal gun is around a ported chamber acts as a gas seal
used which consists of two gun chambers con- during the initial phase of ejection. This liner
nected by a steel igniter tube. The gun is fired also offers some protection to the fins of sta-
electrically at one end. When the propellant is bilized type submissiles from the high pressure
ignited, the hot gases expand in the chamber and gases, and distributes the ejection forces more
actuate pistons which eject the submissiles. equally over the submissile body. Another ad-
Ignition of the charge in the front chamber is vantage is that the ported chamber can be used
caused by hot gases from the rear chamber as a structural part of the parent missile
flowing through the igniter tube. Each piston (Reference 4-6.c).
is equipped with an "O" ring to minimize gas Number of Submissiles When designing an opti-
leakage, thus giving rise to higher pressures mum cluster warhead without regard to missile
101
Average velocities are proportional to distances
R = r
"I
V S
m
m
p». . _. 500
V Dispersal Time =
R =40 1800
1800 500
= 0.278 sec
V
R= 144 ft/sec.
vM
1
▼v.
r = 40'(RADIUS
OF PATTERN)
S= 500'-
Figure 4-50. Resolution of Velocities
space and weight limitations, the number of In the case of the unstabilized submissile de-
submissiles is determined by the number need- signed for detonation external to the target,
ed on a kill probability basis. Hence, one as- the majority of antiaircraft warheads built to
sumes the mission of the missile is to provide date have used from two to three pounds of HBX
a specified kill probability, and generally starts explosive per submissile, depending on the tar-
with the necessary number of submissiles on get. The two pound charge may be assumed
the conditional probability that a hit is a kill. satisfactory for a small target (such as fighter
However, if the warhead is being designed for aircraft), and the three pound charge may be
an existing missile, the following different used when the target is larger (such as a
approach can be used. bomber). In the case of either stabilized sub-
The maximum number of submissiles that missiles or unstabilized submissiles designed
can be installed in a cluster warhead is a func- for target penetration, most antiaircraft war-
tion of the space and weight available for the heads built to date have utilized from one to two
warhead and backup structure, and the size and pounds of HBX, again depending on the target.
weight of the individual submissiles. For some These lower values are effective due to the
configurations, it is evident that a number of fact that the submissiles that penetrate the tar-
lightweight submissiles may fill up the avail- get require less explosive to produce equal
able warhead space, but the warhead will be damage. A more complete discussion of blast
lighter than the allowed weight. For other con- effects is given in subchapter 4-2. After as-
figurations, the allotted space in the warhead suming the weight of the explosive per submis-
will be so great that the weight allowed will be sile, the designer can determine the number of
reached, but the warhead volume will not be submissiles that can be utilized.
completely filled. However, each submissile To properly determine the number of sub-
must contain enough explosive to be effective. missiles, one must calculate the allowable
102
number on both a weight and volume basis. The on a target would be greater with a single ex-
values of the number of submissiles from the panding circle of submissiles. This can result
two sets of calculations should be compared, in cases where the average bias due to air drag
and the smaller integral number chosen as the on the submissiles brings the single circle
maximum number of submissiles which can be closer to the center of area of the target than
utilized, since this number satisfied both the if the submissiles are distributed over a num-
weight and volume requirements. ber of circles.
No set form can be presented to assist the Because of practical considerations, the
designer in the determination of the maximum number of steps of the external and internal
number of submissiles that can be obtained. diameters of the submissiles should be kept to
The designer must work around his set values, a minimum. The lengths (fore and aft) of the
such as weight of warhead, center of gravity of cases should also be a minimum value, and
warhead, and available space in the parent mis- should be kept equal for all submissiles.
sile for warhead structure and submissiles. Where there are several similar rows of
From this, the problem resolves into one of submissiles all ejected at the same velocity,
geometrical relationships and, once a shape is it is advisable to stagger the angular location
decided upon, the number of submissiles can of the submissiles in the successive rows, so
be determined. as to provide the most even distribution of the
The approximate number of submissiles ejected submissiles around the circles in
determined should be checked at the completion space.
of the warhead design by laying out the entire
unit. The location of the warhead may be such Design of Ejection System
that it lies in the ogive or tapering section of Gun Tube Method In the gun tube method of
the missile, with a difference of several inches ejection, the submissiles are ejected by the
or more between the fore and aft diameters of burning of a black powder propellant in a steel
the section. In this case, to obtain the maximum gun tube, mounted radially on a fixed central
number of submissiles, they must be arranged support structure, and projecting into a closed
in rows, with the diameters increasingprogres- steel ejection tube (Figure 4-64) which is an
sively by steps. A number of trial solutions integral part of the submissile as shown in
must be investigated to obtain the optimum Figure 4-65.
number of submissiles, bearing in mind that The radial ejection velocity depends upon
the design total weight of the warhead must not the pressure generated by the propelling
be exceeded and that the location of the center charge, the area of the ejection tube bore, the
of gravity of the warhead must be adhered to. weight of the submissile and the length of trav-
If the total length of the warhead is such that el. Since the gun length is necessarily short,
six or more rows of submissiles will be prac- a propellant must be used which will build up
tical, consideration should be given to varying peak pressure very rapidly and fall off rather
the ejection velocities progressively in the slowly.
rows, thus producing a pattern of submissiles It is very likely that the submissile will
ejected in space, consisting of concentric cir- have to be restrained until peak pressure is
cles of different diameter as shown in Figure built up so that the full length of travel along
4-63. This is generally preferable to having a the ejection tube can be used to best advantage.
cylindrical pattern of submissiles spaced very The equation of motion of a submissile
close together. However, a noteworthy excep- during acceleration is
tion is a case in which an analysis similar to
(4-6.1)
that used in the design of continuous rod war-
heads shows that the expected number of hits where, in consistent units,
103
projectile mass = wp/g Since the structural analysis of the gun
projectile acceleration tube is more or less unfamiliar to the average
AD = bore area warhead designer, a standard method of anal-
Pv(x) pressure producing velocity (this ysis follows. The gun tube or barrel must with-
pressure being a function of the stand an internal pressure of P 0. The maximum
distance traveled) stresses at the inner surface are therefore
For purposes of analysis it is assumed that the
submissiles are restrained until a peak pres-
sure, P0 , is obtained and that upon release of °a - Pr. = Tangential Tension
the submissiles the pressure drops linearly to r
o'- i' I (4-6.6)
zero at x = /, where / is the total travel.
This simplifying assumption is quite obviously
not strictly true due to the fact that there is or - P0 - Radial Compression (4-6.7)
normally a positive pressure present at x - I,
and the resulting equation will indicate lower I 2
submissile ejection velocities than will actually r- P. Shear (4-6.8)

be obtained. However, the developed equation
is indicative of what can be expected of the gun
where:
tube design. It is further assumed that a 12 per
cent pressure loss will be encountered. Under
r
the above assumptions o = outside radius and r. = inside radius.
x
P (x) -) (4-6.2)
1.12 1
(Reference 4-6.g) Letting K
Substituting in equation 4-6.1 1 + K2

P x (4-6.9)
oS 1 - K>
(1 ) (4-6.3)
1.12 W /AB 1
Equation 4-6.3 can be integrated to give r-= p

1 - K» (4-6.10)
;2„Jfo£ *, +c (4_6>4)
1.12 V/p/Aß 21 Assuming that the tube is made of 4130
steel heat-treated to 200,000 psi (UTS), and
If the following boundary conditions are applied, using a safety factor of 1.5 based on yield
ac x = 0 x = 0 stress, equations 4-6.7, 4-6.9, and 4-6.10
become
ac x «= / x-VR.
the following expression for the radial velocity =

165,000 p (4-6.11)
O 9
at the end of travel is obtained: 1.5
r08! 165,000,. p 1 + K2t

W{ (4-6.5) (4-6.12)
1.12 V/p/AB 1.5 1- K2
For convenience, values from equation 4-6.5 and 115,000 l

r = P_ (4-6.13)
are plotted in Figure 4-66 with Wp/AB as one 1.5 1- K*
parameter.
104
where: ejected by the explosive charge contained in an
165,000 psi = tensile yield stress of the aluminum tube in the center of the warhead as
material shown in Figure 4-70. A plot of charge-to-
115,000 psi = ultimate shear strength of metal ratio (c/m) versus initial velocity of the
the material submissile is shown in Figure 4-71. This can
be used to obtain a rough approximation of the
charge required for a given velocity of the sub-
For convenience, values fromequations4-6.12 missile. The velocity control has been found to
and 4-6.13 are shown graphically in Figure 4- be quite sensitive to the standoff distance be-
67. tween the charge and submissile. The c/m
Since only one ejection need be considered, ratio in this design is based on an individual
and that of short duration, stresses up to the ring of submissiles and the explosive core di-
yield stress of the gun tube material may be rectly inside the individual ring.
used. Similar curves for 4130 heat-treated to Figure 4-72 shows the submissiles ar-
180,000 psi are shown in Figure 4-68, and for ranged in a prototype T-46 warhead. Figure
aluminum 61ST in Figure 4-69. These latter 4-73 indicates the typical flight pattern of these
curves do not include the l^rsafety factor. submissiles directed at the target for a static
firing of the warhead. It can be seen that the
Blast Method In blasyrfpe ejection the sub- velocity of the individual submissiles varies
missiles are ejected dÄictly by the explosion between 200 and 40j) feet per second.
of the propellant. Thajjmajor difference in this Altlf^^^HBpiston-cylinder type has been
method as comparecrto the gun tube method is proven JP^HjHn adequately, it isnotfavored
the use of a central blast chamber requiring by many i^Piis field as its high weight is unde-
only one safety and arming mechanism, with sirable äK the close manufacturing tolerances
conservation of weight by the elimination of needed are highly unfavorable to large scale
backup structure. With ejection methods uti- production.
lizing this central blast chamber, accelerating The most promising method developed to
forces are applied to the submissiles over a date, but as yet unproven in an actual warhead,
short distance of travel; therefore, in order is the modified ported chamber with a convo-
to achieve reasonable ejection velocities, large luted expanding liner.
accelerating forces are necessary.
There is little analytical information a- Design of Submissiles
vailable in this area. The short period of time Unstabilized Submissiles One illustrative
that blast ejection warheads have been studied type of unstabilized submissile consists of the
and the very large number of variables involved trapezoidal case, which carries two internally
in the design have thus far made it impossible threaded rings, the ejection tube, the fuze, and
to develop formulas or graphs from which to de- the filler cap or plug, the last two items being
sign the ejection configuration in a relatively screwed into the two rings.
simple manner. The thickness of the case is primarily de-
The simplest blast ejection method is to termined by the structural requirements to
eject the submissiles as if they were, in effect, withstand the ejection forces. It has been found
large preformed fragments. This method was that, for an overall weight of approximately 5
developed by the Rheem Manufacturing Com to 6 pounds and initial ejection velocities up to
pany for use in the T-46 Cluster warhead and 350 fps, the case can be made of 5052-H34
the results are reported in Reference 4-6.h. aluminum alloy sheet of .064 thickness with
The submissiles consisted of spherical balls the sheet drawn to the wedge-shape and the
weighing approximately 4.4 pounds each, ar- outer cylindrical face welded or fused into
ranged in rings around the warhead. They are place. The mounting rings for fuze and filler
105
cap are usually made of aluminum and are weld - for the same weight and size of surfaces, far
ed into this face. The filler cap and fuze cap superior to the other devices. However, other
also can be made of aluminum. investigations have shown theoretically that,
The ejection tube is usually made of steel, with a well designed drag tube or drag plate,
has a closed outer end and is provided on the adequate aerodynamic stabilization is possible.
other end with a flange external to, and attached No experimental evidence supporting or dis-
to the inner face of the submissile. This flange proving this was found.
serves to transmit the force of the explosion to The shape of the submissile body is gov-
the inner face of the submissile. An "all-ways erned by its penetration characteristics and its
fuze" (for unstabilized submissiles) is pro- adaptability to efficient packaging in the war-
vided for arming, detonation, and self-destruc- head space available. However, since the
tion. clusters are generally limited by weight rather
The filling of the explosive charge is ac- than volume, the problem can be resolved into
complished through a filler cap screwed into one of determining the best penetration charac-
its mounting ring. The ejection tube, fuze and teristics. On the basis of firing test data on
filler cap and rings project into, and subtract warheads under development, theT-214rocket
from, the inside space of the case with the warhead appears to have superior character-
remainder of the case filled with the charge. istics. As shown in Table 4-8, the test data
This charge is generally of the HBX type. indicates that the T-214 will penetrate typical
Another illustrative type of unstabilized aircraft structure at high obliquity angles even
submissile consists of a spherical case, shown when yawed as much as 30 degrees (Reference
in Figure 4-74, which is fastened directly to the 4-6. c). The range of striking velocities over
warhead structure by a Dzus fastener. which the high obliquity penetration tests were
The thickness of the case is determined conducted was between approximately 700 and
both by the structural requirements to with- 2700 feet per second. Other warhead types are
stand the ejection forces, and the necessity for also shown for comparison.
penetrating the target structure. The submis- Typical calculations on the use of drag tube
sile weighs approximately 4.42 pounds and is and dragplate stabilized submissiles are shown
4.24 inches in diameter. Ejection velocities in detail in Reference 4-6. a. These two methods
range up to 400 fps. The entire submissile is are recommended on the basis of being likely
made of steel, and it utilizes an "all-ways to perform with minimum developmental effort.
fuze". The charge used is of the HBX type. The referenced analysis indicates that both the
drag plate and the drag tube are capable of
Stabilized Submissiles The optimum design aerodynamically stabilizing the submissile.
stabilized submissile is a directionally stable The question of whether the stability thus pro-
body capable of rapidly damping the ejection duced is adequate depends on the following
angular transients to a relatively small magni- factors: (1) the maximum yaw at collision with
tude, and one whose shape is compatible with the target capable of being tolerated by the
packaging restrictions imposed by the warhead submissile fuze, (2) the yawing influences pre-
compartment. The submissile and stabilization sent at ejection, (3) the fact that the drag plate
device must also be strong enough to with- or drag tube is in the turbulent wake which
stand the ejection forces. A number of aero- was neglected in the analysis and (4) the sub-
dynamic arrangements have been considered missile slow-down in velocity caused by the
and sketches of them with the investigators' drag configuration. Experimental verification
remarks are shown in Figure 4-75 (Reference is needed before any definite predictions can
4-6. c). be made on this type of stabilization.
As indicated in Figure 4-75, the fixed fin Since fixed fins which would be ideal for
plus viscous damped elevon combination was, the submissile stabilization are difficult to
106
package, the use of folding fins has been con- field. An attempt has been made to show the
sidered. An extensive development program work done to date and to provide the designer
was conducted by the Armour Research Foun- with a reasonable basis on which to proceed
dation Reference 4-6. d on the use of folding with his particular warhead. At the present
fin type submissiles, called Sprites, for the state-of-the-art of stabilized submissile de-
Sparrow I warhead. The referenced report sign an extensive test program must be con-
represents the most complete investigation to ducted to prove the reliability of any type of
date, and contains a thorough analysis of the stabilization system selected.
entire development program.
The final design evolved in the Armour Design of Support Structure Regardless of the
program is shown in Figure 4-76 and has been method of ejection used, a central structure
proven highly satisfactory on sled tests. Tests for carrying the submissiles must be incor-
under actual operating conditions have not yet porated. This structure must be capable of
been performed. The design makes use of a withstanding the radial reaction forces of the
folding fin with a single axis of rotation, and submissile ejections and also the fore and aft
having the following properties: (1) when folded, inertia forces acting on the submissiles during
the fin lies flush with the submissile surface; the launching of the missile.
when unfolded the fin forms part of a con- The most economical configuration for this
ventional configuration, i.e., one in which the structure is a tubular form, strengthened
surfaces of the various fins intersect on a locally at each row of submissiles. This tube
common line; and (2) the axis of rotation is should contain fittings at both ends for attaching
such that ejection setback forces are sufficient the warhead to the actual structure of the
to open the fins with extreme rapidity. There- missile, preferably in such a way that the
fore, no springs or other devices are needed entire warhead assembly can be readily as-
to actuate the fin. A detent fin lock, shown in sembled to or disassembled from the missile,
Figure 4-77, is used to lock the fins in the and transported as an assembly.
open position after submissile ejection. The Since this structure is so important to the
fin rotational velocity prior to locking can be success of the missile it should be carefully
controlled by the use of a soft aluminum washer analyzed for its structural integrity. For any
under the nut on the pivot pin in conjunction tubular structure the following equations may
with locking the nut to the fin post as shown in be used:
Figure 4-77. Rotation of the pin thereby causes Maximum Bending Moment Between Loads:
the nut to screw further onto the pivot pin, and
extrudes the aluminum washer. The energy ab- MB = V2 FRn ( 1 1
sorbed by the washer results in a slower fin sin 9 . - —
0, > (4-6.14)
rotational velocity and provides more positive
locking. The amount of energy absorbed can be Maximum Tangential Compression Between
controlled by varying the initial nut torque. Loads:
Welding has been found unsatisfactory for
T p
the manufacture of the sprites, but an invest- B =% (ir)
sin 0
(4-6.15)
ment casting process using frozen mercury I
patterns and AISI 410 steel has given good
results. Tool steel, heat-treated to300,000psi Maximum Bending Moment at Loads:
has been found satisfactory for the detents.
No conclusive work of a comparative
MA -% FRG (cot 0,-L) (4-6.16)
nature is available in the stabilized submissile
107
MISSILE WARHEAD AND
SUBMISSILE ARRANGEMENT
UNSTABILIZED SUBMISSILE
SUBMISSILE AND EJECTOR ARRANGEMENT
Figure 4-51. Unstabilized Submissiles - Typical Arrangement

(Gun Tube Method)
108
Total Tangential Compression at Loads: a typical installation utilizing this method,
which can be used for retaining both stabilized
TA = y2 F cos Oj (4-6.17) and unstabilized submissiles.
where: F = force in pounds, Design of Obstruction Removal Devices In order

R
G = radius of centroid of tubular cross that the submissiles may have an uninterrupted
section and path once they have been ejected, certain ob-
9j= 1/2 angle between forces. stacles have to be removed prior to ejection.
See Figures 4-78 and 4-79. These can include the skin of the parent
If the design does not readily lend itself missile around the warhead compartment, any
to conventional structural analysis, one re- longitudinal stringers, longitudinal ribs or fins
liable method of determining the actual external to the missile skin, electric wiring
stresses which will be developed is by the use carried fore and aft inside the skin or in ex-
of "Stresscoat", a nondestructive brittle coat- ternal ribs, and piping carried in a similar
ing which cracks perpendicular to the maximum fashion.
principal stress in the coated surface. This In some cases the missile skin may be
method has been successfully employed in the thin enough to be blown away by the force of
past, and is completely described in Reference the ejected submissiles without a substantial
4-6.d. decrease in velocity, but generally it is ad-
visable to have a positive method of skin
Design of Retention Systemlt is necessary to re- removal, particularly with the thicknesses used
tain the submissiles in place, both in actual when the skin forms a structural member.
flight of the parent missile, and in handling This removal can be accomplished most ef-
and transport of the warhead assembly. Various fectively by arranging a harness of linear
methods have been investigated and used. These shaped charges as shown in Figure 4-81, which
consist primarily of shear pins and retaining act to cut the skin circumferentially at the
bands. The shear pin method involves the use fore and aft ends of the warhead compartment,
of shear pins in a conventional manner, and re- and longitudinally into several sections. The
quires no explanation here. explosive is contained in brass channel sections
A simple and satisfactory method of re- and retained therein by adhesive tape. Deto-
tention is by means of a steel strap arranged nators and boosters are arranged at each
tightly around the outer faces of the submis- junction of the channels, and are initiated
siles of each row. This strap may be of a com- simultaneously with the ejection firing of the
mercial type used for banding crates. Tests submissiles.
conducted for the Nike I missile by Aircraft One of the disadvantages of the use of
Armaments, Inc., found a strap size of 3/8 x linear shaped charges is that the internal
.010 was sufficient to withstand an ultimate missile components are subject to damage
load factor of 50 g, with a submissile weight from the back blast unless adequate shielding
of 4.6 pounds. The removal of thisstrapis ac- is employed, or proper techniques used in
complished by the ejection forces on the sub- designing the explosive charge. The blast is
missiles. About 1 to 2 per cent of the peak essentially unidirectional, but the back blast
firing pressure was utilized to break the strap. plus side spray and metallic fragments are
It is therefore apparent that no means other sources of damage to improperly protected
than missile ejection need be supplied for equipment. This back blast effect can be re-
strap removal. This method is by far the duced by retaining the charge, on the side away
simplest and least expensive to fabricate, and from the surface to be cut, with foam plastics,
is highly recommended. Figure 4-80 illustrates foam rubber or solid rubber.
109
Detonating cord can also be used for cutting by the temperatures encountered.
the missile skin, but its pressure pattern ap-
pears to cause damage over a wider area than Summary of Fuzing Requirements Once the design
the linear shaped charge. However, stringers is final, a summary data sheet should be pre-
and external ribs or fins can be cut and blown pared for the benefit of the fuze designer to
away more easily by firing lengths of detonating permit him to effect a fuze design which will
cord attached adjacent to the objects to be cut. be compatible with the warhead. The following
The designer must make provisions to shield data is required:
and protect any equipment in the area of these A. Warhead Fuze
charges. (1) Initial Ejection Velocity of Sub-
Ribs or fins that are bolted externally to missiles
the surface of the missile can be removed by (2) Number and Pattern of Submis-
using explosive bolts for attachment. These siles
bolts are hollowed out and a standard detonator (3) Type of Ejection System
inserted. When fired, the bolt fails and the (4) Type of Ejection Charge (Blast)
parts will separate. Control of the point at (5) Detail Design Drawings (War-
which the bolt fails may be obtained by under- head)
cutting. The blast damage may be reduced by B. Submissile Fuze
the use of a sleeve around the bolt. (1) Type of Submissiles
For severing piping and electric wiring (2) Weight of Charge
detonating cord may be used, but if the piping (3) Type of Charge
or wiring is large, the use of a guillotine for (4) Detail Design Drawings (Submis-
cutting has been proved satisfactory. The guil- sile)
lotine consists of a hardened knife operated by (5) Type of Fuze Action Required
an explosive charge that is initiated at the time Summary of Design Data At the Conclusion of the
of warhead detonation. The guillotines are design procedure one should prepare a sum-
used at only one end of the cabling or piping. mary of all the pertinent data evolved. This
The blast from firing this type of device is should include the following items:
small, and with proper orientation will cause (1) Total Weight
no damage to other components. Figure 4-82 (2) Detail Design and Installation Draw-
is an illustration of the top of a missile with ings
the fairing removed showing the installation (3) Explosive
of the guillotine. Figure 4-83 illustrates the (a) Material
type of cutting action obtained with the guil- (b) Weight
lotine. (4) Charge-to-Metal Ratio (c/m)
If the charge is placed against an outside (5) Submissiles
skin of the missile, the designer must consider (a) Number
the possible skin temperature during flight. (b) Total Weight
Some types of explosives will begin to fume at (c) Individual Weight
low temperatures (e.g. RDX detonating cord at (d) Design Size and Shape
325°F), and since the speed of the missile is (e) Initial Velocity
sometimes great enough to raise the skin (f) Pattern
temperature a substantial amount, considera- (g) Casing Material and Thickness
tion must be given to preventing the charge (6) Ejection System
from pre-igniting. This can be accomplished (7) Backup Structure
either by use of an insulator, by making the (8) Mounting System in Missile
charge stand off from the surface a short dis- (9) Intended Operation of Weapons System
tance, or by selecting an explosive not affected (10) Location of Center of Gravity
110
4-6.3. References (6) "T-46 Cluster Warhead Progress Re-
4-6.a "Preliminary Design of a Cluster War- port", Rheem Manufacturing Company, ASTIA
head for the Bomarc Guided Missile", Armour AD-75 209, August 1955.
Research Foundation, ASTIA AD-46 907, No- (7) "T-46 Cluster Warhead", Rheem
vember 1954. Manufacturing Company, ASTIA AD-91 463,
4-6.b "Development of a Cluster Type War- January 1956.
head for the Bomarc Missile", Aircraft Arma- (8) "T-46 Cluster Warhead", Rheem
ments, Inc., Report No. ER-337, August 1955. Manufacturing Company, ASTIA AD-85 169,
4-6.c "Feasibility Study of a Stabilized Sub- November 1955.
missile Cluster Warhead for Nike I", Bell (9) "T-46 Cluster Warhead", Rheem
Telephone Laboratories, ASTIA AD-81 337, Manufacturing Company, ASTIA AD-88 823,
May 1955. December 1955.
4-6.d "Development of a Guided Missile War- (10) "Single Shot Probabilities for Bomarc
head", Armour Research Foundation, ASTIA Cluster Warheads", R. L. Simmons, BRL
AD-50 251, October 1954. Memo, Report No. 800, ASTIA AD-42 517,
4-6.e "Development of a Cluster Type War- March 1954.
head for the Nike B Missile", Aircraft Arma- (11) "Single Shot Probabilities for Nike
ments, Inc., Report No. ER-442, July 1954. Cluster Warheads", R. L. Simmons, BRL
4-6.f "Cluster Warhead for Nike Missile", Memo, Report No. 797, ASTIA AD-43 060,
Aircraft Armaments, Inc., Report No. ER-301, May 1954.
August 1953. (12) "Design and Development of Fuze
4-6.g "Effectiveness of a Cluster Type War- Type T-1412 for Cluster Warheads", Reming-
head as an Antiaircraft Weapon", Aircraft ton Rand, ASTIA AD-82 201, August 1955.
Armaments, Inc., Report No. ER-173, October (13) "Survey of Guided Missile Warheads",
1952. Haller, Raymond and Brown, Inc., Report No.
4-6.h "T-46 Cluster Warhead", Rheem Manu- 91-R-5, September 1956.
facturing Company, ASTIA AD-88 823, Decem-
ber 1955. 4-7. SHAPED CHARGE WARHEADS
4-6.4. Bibliography 4-7.1. Detail Design Steps

(1) "Final Report, Cluster Warhead for
Nike I Missile", Aircraft Armaments, Inc., Step
Report No. ER-388, August 1955. No. Detail Design Steps
(2) "Feasibility Program Cluster Type 1. Establish the Penetration Required to
Warhead for the Bomarc Missile", Aircraft Enter the Target.
Armaments, Inc., Report No. ER-676, October 2. Determine the Allowable Weight and
1955 Envelope.
(3) "Final Report, Cluster Warhead for 3. Establish the Type of Confinement
Nike B Missile", Aircraft Armaments, Inc., (determined by the structure of the
Report No. ER-865, June 1956. delivery vehicle).
(4) "The Selection of the Optimum Charge 4. Choose the Explosive with the Highest
to Metal Weight Ratio for Warheads for Anti- Detonation Pressure (Comp. B as of
aircraft Missiles", U. S. Naval Ordnance Lab- 1958).
oratory, ASTIA AD-24 429, October 1953. 5. Choose the Length/Diameter Ratio.
(5) "Feasibility Study of Bomarc Sub- 6. Design the Liner.
missile Fuze", Remington Rand, ASTIA AD-27 7. Prepare Summary of Fuze Data.
828, January 1954. 8. Prepare Summary of Design Data.
Ill
MISSILE WARHEAD AND
SUBMISSILE ARRANGEMENT
STABILIZED SUBMISSILE
SUBMISSILE AND
EJECTOR ARRANGEMENT
Figure 4-52. Stabilized Submissiles - Typical Arrangement
112
DRAG TUBE STABILIZER
( OPENING SEQUENCE )
DRAG PLATE STABILIZER
Figure 4-53. Drag Tube and Drag Plate Stabilizer
113
FINS OPENED
FINS FOLDED
Figure 4-54. Folding Fin Stabilizer
Figure 4-55. Drag Chute Stabilizer Figure 4-56. Fixed Fin Stabilizer
114
GUN TUBE
EJECTOR PROPELLANT PRIMER
SUBMISSILE
BODY
| BACKUP
® 'RING EJECTOR ELECTRICAL
FUZE TUBE CONNECTION
SECTION A-A EJECTOR DETAIL
LONGITUDINAL
STRINGER,
NSTALLATION
SUBMISSILES AND SUPPORT
BRACKET
MISSILE
SKIN
Figure 4-57. Integral Ignition System

(Gun Tube Method)
115
559-728 O - 74 - 9
IGNITER PROPELLANT
TUBE IGNITER TUBE
GUN TUBE
SUBMISSILE
BODY
EJECTOR
FUZE EJECTOR TUBE
SECTION A-A EJECTOR DETAIL
STRINGER
NSTALLATION
AND SUPPORT
STRUCTURE
SUBMISSILES
MISSILE
SKIN
Figure 4-58. Central Ignition System

(Gun Tube Method)
116
PROPELLANT
AFT
SUBMISSILE
PISTON
IGNITER TUBE
CENTRAL
SUPPORT
TUBE
BOTTOM OF BOX
PROPELLANT
LINER
FORWARD
SUBMISSILE
CROSS SECTION OF STEEL CASE

Figure 4-60. Blast Ejection - Intermediate Liner
Figure 4-59. Piston Type Ejection
PROPELLANT SABOT BAND PROPELLANT PORTED

CAVITY CAVITY CHAMBER
SABOT
CONVOLUTED
LINER
21 SUBMISSILES El SUBMISSILES
SHOWN IN CLUSTERS OF THREE SHOWN IN GROUPS OF THREE
Figure 4-67. Blast Ejection - Segmented Chamber Figure 4-62. Blast Ejection - Convoluted Liner
117
C
C
■s
o
■ 2) Os
m
o •
<r> o
z s? m w>
c
3 o H n II
■n c •»
>
C 2 3)
H m
o
O >
z 3- O- o
O 0 -n
o °- Q
3 OJ
3'
3
a. o
O 3)
Q m
PQ-MAXIMUM CHAMBER PRESSURE-PSI CHAMBER PRESSURE-PSI

PQ-MAXIMUM
«s (x 1000) (X 1000)
c
■s — — ro ro ro oi oi
en
o
■u.
0) A
Ol
s CD 0)
-si
corocno-bcorocn o
Os
J>. C
< 2:
l5 VR =
w -vR. l20-lrVR =
a
a
X
o p-t Os °-^r- -VR = 200-
1 '300
<r> 3 Os m
J\L
c z
c c z
3 3 // /k_
t1 //I
H H
H > C X //
c CD
o- ■■■ m TO <? O
//
/Xi
O . «A .
* <r> •A '
O a m 3]
o o- £
-si
cn 5 \ >
< t >52
m . o . m r /
3 e >2H"
« O — * o
8 0
!<co /
3-
3)
-< u
sL I "
O
l
+|i.
3
1 com/
52/
«1 w o /
■ -*
m O X
m
a'2-
c // /
< CD I'D
'1
**" w» //
II
z /
/>
r
CO
d> cn-& U> cn o -t»

3 H
m
U>
o cn
1 " 1
) )
180 BACK-UP STRUCTURE SPHERICAL SUBMISSILE
4130 HT 180,000 Steel -165.000 psi (Tensile yield stress)
160
140
1 1 1 1
£ >0 i 165000 Lg
LÜ 120
cc
CO
CO
LÜ
100
a:
a.
-PoSlOoOOOd-K*)
a
ÜJ
80
CD
2
< 60 MISSILE: SKIN CHARGE
o
2
40 Figure 4-70. Spherical Submissile Warhead
2
x
< 20
.4 .6 .8 1.0
GUN TUBE GEOMETRY, K = -£-
Figure 4-68. Maximum Allowable Chamber Pressure

Vs. Gun Tube Geometry
36 61S"r Alurr inum Alloy - 35.00C psi (Tensile yield stress)

27.00C psi (shear stress)
32
| |
28
CO
0.
i -P0i 35000^ 0.032
LU
cc 24 o
z>
CO (TENSILE STRESS IS
CO
CRITICAL FOR KiO.55) cc
LU
20
^ 0.024
cc
LU
16
1 1 1 l-
LÜ
£
CD
2 yP0 s 270001 l-K*)
< P
Lu 0.016
o 12 o
cc
2
3
<
i
2 8 o
x
< 0.008
2
n
.8 1.0 100 200 300 400 500
L
GUN TUBE GEOMETRY, K = 7 INITIAL VELOCITY (FT/SEC.)
igure 4-69. Max imum Allowable Chamber Pressure Figure 4-71. Charge-to-Metal Ratio Vs. Velocity for
Vs. Gun Tube Geometry T-46 Cluster Warhead
119
Sfc-
z>
Fixed Base:
Poor inherent
Damping.
Figure 4-72. T-46 Prototype Warhead
2>
Fixed Fins with
Damped Elevon:
Most promising.
JD
Combination:
Needs further study.
Figure 4-73. Typical Submissile Flight Pattern 13

Fixed Fins:
Excessive
area required
for damping.
METAL LINER
FUZE
J
ACID-RESISTANT
PAINT (2 COATS)
Drag
Stabilization:
Poor inherent
damping.
Figure 4-74. Spherical [Rheem) Submissile Figure 4-75. Types of Stabilization
120
Figure 4-76. Fin Stabilized Submissile
Figure 4-79. Tube Analysis
NUT
RETAINER
NUT
PIVOT
PIN
FIN PLATE
STEEL STRAP
SUBMISSILE
Figure 4-77. Fin Lock
SUBMISSILE STRUCTURE
OF PARENT
MISSILE
Figure 4-78. Support Structure Figure 4-80. Submissile Retention
121
CHARGE PACKED IN END RINGS
' AND STRINGERS RETAINED WITH TAPE.
DETONATOR NO CHARGE IN THESE RINGS
Z//////7///7////7/ /■; -015 BRASS
1/8
\
ÊXPLOSIVE
///////.■/////mm
3/16
Figure 4-8J. Skin Removal Harness
KNIFE EDGE SHEARED WIRE

WIRE BUNDLE BUNDLE
SHEARED TUBE
BUNDLE
EXPLOSIVE CONTAINER
TUBE BUNDLE
Figure 4-82. Guillotine Installation Figure 4-83. Guillotine Effect
122
The exact order of the design procedure CHARGE DIAMETER TARGET
may vary depending upon the viewpoint of the
CHARGE
designer and, even more, on the military re-
CONE LINER
quirements which often fix certain parameters
in advance. CONE LINER
ANGLE
4-7.2. Detail Design Data [
,CONE LINER
n>/i///t///rr/ii//r'/l THICKNESS
Liner Design The design of the shaped charge
warhead liner is most important. (See Figure V
4-84 for shaped charge nomenclature.) The
variables to be considered in the design of the CHARGE LENGTH
Y
STANDOFF
liner are (1) liner diameter, (2) liner material,
(3) liner profile, and (4) thickness of liner
Figure 4-84. Shaped Charge Nomenclature
material. The performance of the warhead
against various targets is primarily dependent steel, zinc, lead, and glass. Most designs use
upon an intimate interrelationship of these copper, aluminum, or steel. Oxygen-free elec-
variables among themselves and with standoff. trolytic copper is considered the best choice
The upper limit on liner diameter is ob- when maximum penetration is desired at small
viously established by the diameter of the war- standoffs. When choosing between alloys and
head compartment, which is determined by the grades of aluminum and steel, note that the
missile system designer. The performance of a most ductile will yield maximum penetration.
given diameter copper cone measured in terms Copper liners will give the greatest penetration
of its penetration of armor steel, with all other of steel targets at standoffs of from 1 to 3
variables being optimum, is given by the em- charge diameters. See Figure 4-87. The opti-
pirical relationship: mum standoff for aluminum liners against
(Reference 4-7. b) steel targets is larger than for copper liners,
i.e., about 5 to 7 charge diameters. See Figures
7+2
(4-7.1) 4-88 and 4-89. The optimum standoff for alu-
minum liners against steel and concrete targets
is similar to that for copper liners, that is 1 to
Where D = cone diameter in inches 3 charge diameters. See Figures 4-85 and
T = thickness of armor in inches 4-86.
The above equation does not necessarily de- The utilization of the warhead is a deter-
scribe the overall optimum performance a- mining factor regarding the liner material to
gainst armor because the optimum standoff use. If maximum penetration is desired at
condition cannot usually be realized. The pene- short standoff, the liner material should be
trating ability in terms of the cone diameter copper. However, if the warhead has greater
for various steel lined cones against concrete penetration than is required, it would be wise
as a function of standoff is presented in Figure to consider the use of an aluminum or a lami -
4-85 and Figure 4-86. Shaped charges fired nated liner of two metals. By using either of
against aircraft at long standoff distances of the these types of construction, there will be a
order of 100 to 150 feet should have a diameter small loss in penetration, but, behind the target
of at least 6 inches to severely damage the penetrated, the lethal effects will be increased
target. (Reference 4-7. e). due to special incendiary conditions. If the
The choice of liner material involves one of target is an aircraft, the best material to use
the basic decisions in shaped charge design. for the liner is aluminum, since the greatest
For short standoffs, the order of penetration amount of damage to low density targets will
ability for liner materials is copper, aluminum, occur with low density liners. The relative
123
i
60° AND .016 CONE
r
DIAMETERS—h
in or
tr 100° AND .024 CONE UJ
ui
>- DIAMETERS \-
UJ
Ul
2
< <
a o
UI UJ
z z
o o
o
< Con« Material: Steel <

(- Cone Angle: At Indicated a:
UJ
z Cone Thlcknen: At Indicated
UJ
UJ
a.
REFERENCE 9-7.g
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

STANDOFF CONE DIAMETERS
STANDOFF CONE DIAMETERS
Figure 4-85. Penetration Vs. Standoff; Cone Angle Figure 4-86- Penetration Vs. Standoff and Cone
and Cone Thic kness Against Concrete Thic kness Against Concrete
penetration capabilities of various liner mate- recommended for small standoff against sur-
rials on a unit density basis, taken from refer- face targets. Ample experimental data show
ence 4-7.a is presented in Table 4-9. For Table improved penetration at long standoffs for large
4-9, the standoff distance was large enough so cone angles; i.e., 80 to 120 degrees or more.
that the copper jet was beyond maximum pene- The relationship between cone angle and pene-
trability. tration at long standoffs cannot be precisely
Cone apex angles between 40 and 60 de- predicted. However, it is generally accepted
grees give good performance at the standoffs that, as the cone angle increases, standoff must
usually associated with surface targets; i.e., also increase to achieve optimum penetration.
2 to 4 cone diameters. This range of cone angles Some investigators believe that this increase
is used in both spin compensated and nonspin in standoff is a linear relationship, but see
compensated warheads. In spin compensated Figures 4-90 and 4-91a through 4-91d.
warheads at low rates of spin, experimental For use against aircraft at standoffs on the
data indicate that a cone whose opening angle order of 100 feet, cone angles from 80°to 120°
changes provides better penetration at shorter are recommended. (Reference 4-7. e.)
standoffs than single-angle cones. Cone thickness for best performance is
Increased penetration of surface targets primarily a function of cone apex angle and
can be achieved by well made cones utilizing charge confinement, although other parameters
smaller cone angles of 20 to 30 degrees at play a lesser role. The optimum cone liner
standoffs below about two cone diameters. At wall thickness increases with increasing cone
best, however, the improvement in perform- angle and with increasing confinement of the
ance achieved from the smaller cone angles charge. Generally, the optimum liner wall
is only moderate. This small performance thickness varies between 2 and 4 per cent of
advantage is usually outweighed by a tightening the base diameter. However, some experiments
of manufacturing tolerances. Therefore, cone indicate that thicknesses greater than this are
angles less than 30 degrees are generally not acceptable. Work has been done using cone
124
Table 4-9 —I 1 1 —I
Relative Penetration Capabilities Cone angle 45° (No confinement!
of Various Liner Materials Cone material: Copper
in
EC Thickness of cone wall noted.
UJ
Cone Material Relative Penetration 1-
(In Mild Steel) 2
<
a
UJ
Aluminum 1.10 z
o
z
Copper 1.00 z
Steel .75 (E
1-
z
Zinc .65 UJ
Lead .50
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Glass .40
STANDOFF IN CONE DIAMETERS
thicknesses of 5, 6 and as high as 18 per cent.

Thicknesses of about 6 per cent are generally Figure 4-87. Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild
used in warheads that are fired against air- Steel Target
craft at long standoffs.
Liner walls thinner than the optimum are
characterized by excessive variation in pene- Other explosives which have been used to a
tration from round to round, and an overall lesser degree include 77/23:HBX/TNT, Com-
decrease in penetration. Liner walls thicker position A-3, and Composition C-3.
than optimum also show a decrease in pene- The explosive loading of the warhead must
tration although (1) it is slight for moderate also be considered. The charge should be as
increases in thickness and (2) the variation homogeneous as possible, and should be free
in round to round penetration is small. See of accidental voids and foreign matter. It is
Figures 4-92 and 4-93. necessary to incorporate any booster and wave
shaping wells while casting or pouring the ex-
Explosive Charge L>es.y.i In general, penetration plosive. The loading in the region of the cone
and hole volume increase with increasing base is the most critical. The explosive in this
charge length, and reach a maximum at about region must be uniform in density and homoge-
2 or 2.5 charge diameters for heavily confined neity.
charges, and at about 4 charge diameters for The presence of voids in the charge is often
lightly confined or unconfined charges. The responsible for loss in penetration. Despite the
usual effects of less than optimum charge attempts usually made to exclude them, they are
length are lowered average penetration and often present in some form. Sometimes the
reduced hole volume. voids take the form of axially positioned pipes
The explosive selection is important ir which are believed to have wave shaping effects.
shaped charge design. Explosives with high det- These axial pipes have been used to explain ab-
onation pressure and velocity are the most de- normally large penetrations sometimes en-
sirable (see Appendix). The three explosives countered in test work. No known techniques
used most commonly in shaped charge ammuni- have been developed for intentionally incorpor-
tion are Composition B, Pentolite, and RDX. ating wave shaping voids in charges.
125
ical segments. These have been positioned in
the charge just forward of the booster, with the
Cone angle 45° spherical surface toward the cone.
Cone material: Aluminum It is not necessary for the detonation wave
a:
UJ Thickness of cone wall noted. to go around an inert filler in order to accom-
I-
LJ
S plish wave shaping. It is possible, with properly
<
o designed fillers in which the thickness and
Ld
Z
o
shape are adjusted, to allow the wave to pass
o right through the filler with suitable delay for
2
wave refraction, and thus produce useful wave
o
shaping that shows considerable improvement
<
in penetration, without loss (or even with slight
Ld
z gain) in the hole volume. Explosive fillers that
have been used for wave shaping include Bara-
tol and TNT.
Peripheral initiation is one method of wave
12 3 4 shaping which can be used to improve penetra-
STANDOFF IN CONE DIAMETERS tion. However, the actual improvement attained
varies considerably with the liner material
Figure 4-88. Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild used. Also, hole volume may be increased by
Steel Target as much as 50 per cent by the use of periph-
eral initiation. When small asymmetries exist
anywhere in the system, penetration will de-
Wave shaping offers one means of im- crease. Although performance from carefully
proving shaped charge performance. The pur- designed and accurately manufactured periph-
pose of the wave shaper is to invert the detona- erally initiated rounds is superior to that ob-
tion wave and cause it to strike the cone wall tainable from point-initiated rounds, the latter
at decreased angles of obliquity. All wave method of initiation yields more consistent re-
shapers are cylindrical and symmetrically sults and also the point-inititated rounds are
placed between detonator and liner. Useful easier to manufacture.
wave shaping might be accomplished by any of
the following methods: inert fillers, other ex-
plosive fillers, voids in the explosive charge Warhead Casing Design The case is designed to
(pipes), (bee Figure 4-94.) A warning should retain the charge before detonation and to con-
be given that, as of 1958, the application of fine the charge during detonation. The strength
wave shaping to shaped charges is still a dif- of the case required for confinement of the
ficult matter. charge during detonation is practically nil in
Inert solid cone-shaped fillers of glass or warheads where the length to diameter ratio of
steel have produced a 20 per cent improvement the charge exceeds about 4. As the L/D of the
in penetration performance without loss of hole charge is reduced, the case strength required
volume. Cone shaped inert fillers with abase- to confine the charge increases. Unfortunately,
to-altitude ratio of two have performed well, the casing thickness usually cannot be designed
with little apparent degradation in performance for optimum confinement. This is because in
for slightly different ratios. The base of the guided missile applications weight limitations
wave shaper is generally located immediately will force the designer to use a lighter-than-
behind the apex of the cone, its diameter being optimum case while, for projectiles, set back
only slightly less than that of the charge. forces will impose the use of a thicker-than-
Some inert fillers have taken the form of spher- optimum casing.
126
Cone angl s45°
Cone thickness = .023 cone diameters
Cone angle 22
Thickness of cone wall noted. to
to CE Cone material noted.
or UJ
I-
UJ
LlJ .076 CONE DIAMETERS
5
036 C ONE DIAMETERS
i 3 <t
a
z
o
o
z
2
f, V
o
o IRON
ALUMINUM
<
V* >8 CO ■JE DIA METE RS
<
Z
UJ
/
7 COPPER
Q_
EFER 9-7. (
REFERENCE 9-7 . a
1 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 5 6
STANDOFF IN CONE DIAMETERS STANDOFF IN CONE DIAMETERS
Figure 4-89. Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild Figure 4-91a. Penetration Vs. Standoff Against
Steel Target Mild Steel Targets
7.5
Cone thickness = 023 cone diameters
Cone material: Steel
Cone angle 44'
Cone thickness: 019 cone diameters to
6
CO Cone material noted.
Standoff: 1.5 cone diameters Ul
E 7.0 i-
i 5 1
5
< Q
^COPPER
Q
UJ 6.5 LÜ
z Z 4
o O
O
IR0 \J
Z
•3
6.0 z
o
d. 2 — /\LUMIN JM
LU /
5.5 z
UJ
n l
R iFERENCE 9-7. g
R EFEREI*JCE 9-7 ■ a
5.0 n
20 40 60 80 100 12 3 4 5 6
CONE ANGLE-DEGREES STANDOFF IN CONE DIAMETERS
Figure 4-90. Penetration Vs. Cone Angle Against Figure 4-91b. Penetration Vs. Standoff Against Mild
Concrete Steel Targets
127
11 PENETRATION IN CONE DIAMETERS
a PENETRATION IN CONE DIAMETERS
c C
-i -i
re o
4X
NO o o n o o o
a. 8a 99 SO § 3A rt3
It
t-> L-l
angle 66
3 2.
material
thicknes
-D ■a
0 it a <9. ö It it CO \
K\
3 co 3
0 H
n H
> D CD U
~— It >
Z ^\ o U
-H □ Z \
-*a <o II Q
o
\ \
Q
o
O
b U3 -n \\ \\ 3 "
lO
0 3
T|
Tl
a. ro It 3 \ 2
a- ö
w
N w w
■*
Kl < > \. n Vi
< z \
sa
«s
Z
V,
• o
r o VI
• o
c o
o S m
Q.
LO
5 -*
CO
z >\
II
X
m 3} m Q
a 3 Q
3
— m —
"n <D "n
m
c \ ; 3
o g 2 \
0.
o >
m A
/ A
-*.
X
m
M R
z z / w
5
\* 2 c /
1
m z m ">
J>
U3
3
Q
-t
m
Xt
to
o
m >o
Q
m
"NJ
h
/ ° //<">o
1 "■ , m / "0
Vi
-* \/ o
' "0
O
£ 2
0. ST
to
oo
PENETRATION-CONE DIAMETERS CONFINEMENT
'CROSS-SECTIONAL CHARGE WEIGHT
, CROSS-SECTIONAL CASING WEIGHT
a en en 01 CD
c
-i en b en b en It en
IB o b b b b
■*>.
Jk I
NO
NO INJ
Co
O
o
<-> TJ o * • « z
o o L) • * 2
It
3 z
m
A
O) s «a» s°
IB It
■*
o >
t» ■^ -I 03
O ^ Q
a I
lO
o
o ?!
^XJ> ■
o o £
o *
It o
3 z m
b- < m
ooN
"2 < m
to
CO co o c
Q «C O n m
3 n
o
n
o
z
8^
o § I o
3
It z
o
■Nv 3 m b It O n /
o It m *— 1a in ■*.
CD
>
o
3
O
■H
3-
2
m u. i
n a.
^P
*« 3
CO
m
n m m A A
z o
It
*- 1 -
It 3
It
(A
-I
m
33
co
2 o
co
9: 3
Q ~
If >
m
Vi <l
3 H
3 m
□
3 tu
0. o CD
It
)
Summary of Fuzing Requirements The fuze designer
needs design information to design a fuze which
is compatible with the missile system and the
warhead. He will have access to the same mis-
sile system data as does the warhead designer.
In addition to this, the fuze designer will need
the following information relating specifically Cone Shaped Filler
to the warhead:
(1) Drawing of Warhead
(2) Standoff Distance
(3) Wave Shaping Used
Summary of Design Data At the conclusion of the

design procedure, a summary of engineering
data relating to the warhead should be prepared.
This should include the following items:
(1) Total Weight Voids
(2) Design and Installation Drawings
(3) Explosive
(a) Material
(b) Weight
(c) Wave Shapers
(d) Density
(4) Liner
(a) Material recommended manu-
facturing method Spherical Segment
(b) Thickness
(c) Geometry
(5) Design Standoff Distance
(6) Center of Gravity Location ^
(7) Intended Performance
4-7.3. References
4-7.a "Critical Review of Shaped Charge In-
^
formation", Edited by L. Zernow, BRL Report
Peripheral Initiation
905, ASTIA AD 48 311, dated May, 1954. "Liner
Performance", John E. Shaw.
4-7.b "Critical Review of Shaped Charge In-
formation", Edited by L. Zernow, BRL Report
905, ASTIA AD 48 311, dated May, 1954. "The
Unfuzed Warhead", Hugh Winn.
4-7.c "A Theoretical Discussion of Penetra- EXPLOSIVE
tion by Shaped Charge Jets with Some Experi-
mental Results", J.B. Feldman, Jr., BRL "The
Ordnance Corps Shaped Charge Research Re- Explosive Insert
port" No. 3-55, July, 1955.
4-7.d "The Effect of Shaped Charges at Long Figure 4-94. Explosive Charge Wave Shaping
Standoff Against Aircraft", R. G. S. Sewell, L.
129
N. Cosner, and J. Pearson, "The Ordnance ical warhead fields is generally more highly
Corps Shaped Charge Research Report", No. classified than this pamphlet, and is very close-
4-55 ASTIA AD 83 088, October, 1955. ly controlled and administered by the Army
4-7.e "Studies of Damage to Aircraft Struc- Chemical Corps, Edgewood, Maryland. Fur-
tures by Shaped Charges at Long Standoffs", ther, chemical and biological warheads are not
NAVORD Report 2018, ASTIA AD 14162, March, designed as the primary warhead for a missile
1953. system, but rather are alternates. Thus the
4-7.f "Manual for Shaped Charge Design", chemical and biological warhead designer will,
R. A. Brimmer, NAVORD Report 1248, August, in almost every case, find that the missile sys-
1950. tem data is firmly established and that the ma-
4-7.g "Penetration of Shaped Charge Jets into jority of the warhead detail design direction will
Concrete Targets", G. H. Jonas, BRL Tech. be provided by personnel at Army Chemical
Note No. 939, September, 1954. Center, who will supply at least the following
data:
4*7.4. Bibliography (1) Number of Bomblets
(1) "Collection and Arrangment of (2) Bomblet Configuration and Weight
Shaped Charge Data", Arthur D. Little, Inc., (3) Type of Bomblet Ejection System
Interim Report, October, 1955. (4) Bomblet Ejection Altitude
(2) "A Correlation of Explosive Proper- (5) Environmental and Storage Limita-
ties with Shaped Charge Performance", NAV- tions
ORD Report 2721, January, 1953. (6) Leak-Tightness Requirements
(3) "Minutes of Shaped Charge Commit- (7) Handling and Inspection Requirements
tee", Picatinny Arsenal, Shaped Charge Com- (8) Tactical Utilization
mittee, February, 1954. With this in mind, this subchapter of the pam-
(4) "Multiple Fragment Effects in Shaped phlet is written in narrative form rather than
Charge Penetration", NOTS, BRL Report 837, as a step-by-step design procedure. It is in-
November, 1951. tended to acquaint the warhead designer with
(5) "Test of Multiple Shaped Charge chemical and biological warhead design tech-
Terrier Warhead", University of Utah, Insti- niques in a general way.
tute for the Study of Rate Processes, Feb- 4-8.2. Cluster-Type Warheads The cluster-type
ruary, 1956. warhead is basically a container loaded with
(6) "Fundamentals of Shaped Charges", agent-filled bomblets which are randomly
CIT, Final Report, October, 1954. distributed over a given target area. It consists
(7) "Shaped Charge Performance with of a compartment filled with bomblets, a bomb-
Various Explosive Loadings", NAVORD Re- let ejection system and fuze, and when neces-
port 2767, February, 1953. sary a means of maintaining the agent within
(8) "Preliminary Evaluation of Tests of specified environmental temperature limits.
the T-42 Type Shaped Charge Warhead", S. This type of warhead is generally located in
Wise, BRL Tech. Note 1079, June, 1956. the nose section of the missile, although occa-
(9) "Some Remarks on the Performance sionally the mid or after sections are used.
of High Explosive Plastic Projectiles Against
Armor Plate", F. I. Hill, BRL Memo. Report Bomblet Compartment and Structure The function
519, December, 1950. of the warhead structure is dependent on its
installation within the missile system. There
4-8. CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARHEADS are two basic types of warhead installation
4-8.1. Introduction Development, design, test, to be considered. The first of these is the case
and evaluation work in the chemical and biolog- in which the warhead comprises a complete
130
EJECTION
ALTITUDE
Figure 4-95. Bombtet Dispersion Patterns
compartment of the missile, terminated by a center of the warhead to the inner surface of
forward and rear bulkhead, and the second is the case. These webs are integrated in the
the case where the warhead is installed within warhead structure or they may be part of the
a compartment of the missile. The major de- bomblet ejection system. The bomblets are
sign considerations on the former are that the manually placed in these compartments ac-
warhead case is the aerodynamic skin of the cording to loading patterns best suited to the
missile, and that the warhead structure is an bomblet and compartment configuration. The
integral part of the missile structure and is bomblets may be loaded into the warhead
usually detachable from the forward and rear through the forward or rear bulkhead. When
missile components. For the latter installation, the forward or rear bulkheads cannot be re-
the missile skin must be removed to prevent moved, a transverse cut is made which divides
interference with the warhead ejection mech- the compartment into two halves. These two
anism. In either instance, both the installation halves are then loaded separately and assem-
and handling systems will influence the design bled.
and location of the main structural members
of the warhead. Bomblets Early development of cluster-type
The bomblet ejection pattern from the war- warheads was directed toward utilizing the cyl-
head is intended to be equally distributed around indrical type bomblets which had been devel-
the perimeter of the warhead. To accomplish oped for use in clustered bombs. The dispersion
this, the bomblet compartment or compart- of these bomblets depended primarily on the
ments are divided into longitudinal segments variation of manufacturing tolerance, and the
formed by placing longitudinal webs from the ground patterns obtained were too small to
131
559- 728 O - 74
4-95. The Fletners are randomly distributed
throughout an annular ring as shown in Figure
4-95, and therefore must be ejected in groups
of bomblets, each of which releases its indi-
vidual units at a predetermined altitude in order
to accomplish complete ground coverage. Ini-
tial investigation indicates that the delta wing
gliders disperse themselves in a manner sim-
ilar to the Fletner bomblets, but normally
form a larger annulus as shown in Figure 4-95.
Ejection Systems The development of self-dis-

persing type bomblets has simplified the re-
quirements of the ejection systems consider-
ably. A direct result of this has been the elim-
ination of the elaborate forceful ejection mech-
anism required on other bomblets. The self-
dispersing type bomblets must be so removed
from the warhead compartment as to clear the
s after-body of the missile in order to prevent
J damage to the bomblets.
The uniform distribution of bomblets with-
in the impact pattern for the sphere configu-
s ration allows the release of the warhead bomb-
let load at one predetermined altitude. Because
of structural and loading considerations longi-
Figure 4-96. Ejection Sequence, Spheres tudinal webs are sometimes inserted between
longerons, 180° apart. A 120° cone is placed on
fully utilize the agent contained. An attempt was the rear bulkhead. Detonating cord is inserted
then made to increase the dispersion by force- between the warhead skin and the longerons to
ful ejection of the bomblets from the warhead. provide for skin removal prior to the bomblet
An increase in pattern size was realized but ejection. The forward and rear edge of the skin
this was still unsatisfactory for warheads pay- panels are not permanently fastened at the for-
loads of 1000 pounds or more. Recent develop- ward and rear bulkheads. In this type system
ment has been directed toward self-dispersing the fuze ignites the detonating cord at the pro-
bomblets. Three basic configurations have been per altitude, and the blast of the detonating
developed and are currently undergoing ex- cord and the air drag forces blow the skin
tensive testing. These configurations are a panels away from the warhead structure. Aero-
ribbed sphere approximately 4-1/2 inches in dynamic forces then push the bomblets toward
diameter, a Fletner, and a delta wing glider the rear bulkhead cone and the spheres slide off
with a vertical fin. Examples of these shapes the cone and away from the missile structure.
have been previously presented in Figure 1-34. This operation is illustrated in Figure 4-96.
The development of these self-dispersing The annular distribution pattern for the
configurations has eliminated the need for a Fletners and gliders requires ejection of
separate ejection system. The dispersion pat- groups of bomblets at more than one altitude
tern obtained from the sphere is essentially to obtain complete coverage over the impact
circular, with random distribution of spheres pattern as shown in Figure 4-97b. For purposes
throughout the circle as illustrated in Figure of illustration, the warhead is assumed divided
132
into four longitudinal trapezoidal compart- 4-8.3. Massive-Type Warheads The massive-type
ments as shown in Figure 4-97. These com- warhead is basically a single container loaded
partments are loaded with bomblets and at- with raw agent which is released immediately
tached to, and held in place by a gun tube which following impact with the target. It consists of
is an integral part of the missile structure. the agent, container, and the agent dissemi-
A high volumetric expansion, low pressure nation mechanism and fuze.
charge in the gun tubes ejects the compart- This type of warhead is ordinarily limited
ments with sufficient velocity to clear the mis- to missile systems whose payload capacity is
sile structure. The compartments incorporate approximately 500 pounds or less. These war-
a barometric fuze which ejects the contents of heads are capable of producing an extremely
each compartment at a different altitude as high agent concentration in the immediate vi-
shown in Figure 4-97. For each altitude at cinity of the impact area and are, therefore,
which a cluster of bomblets is opened, an annu- well suited for use where relatively small
lar pattern is produced on the ground as pre- concentrated type targets are the objective.
viously explained. The summation of these pat- The guidance accuracy required of the missile
terns gives the complete ground coverage system for this type of warhead should be with-
shown in Figure 4-97. The largest annulus is in the capabilities of guidance systems of pres-
obviously produced by the bomblets released at ent missiles in this payload range. The most
the highest altitude, and the maximum diameter critical design feature of the massive-type
of each annulus is proportional to the ejection warhead is the leak-tightness required of the
altitude. warhead case.
Environmental Requirements The warhead 4-8.4. Agents The chemical agents are chemical
compartment environmental temperatures substances whose toxic properties are such that
must be consistent with the specified bomblet they kill or incapacitate humans, domestic an-
environmental temperatures. It is therefore imals, or livestock through inhalation, inges-
often necessary to supply some means of tem- tion, or absorption of agent through the skin.
perature control within the warhead. Insulation Some of these agents can kill or incapacitate
may be inserted between the warhead load and within a very few minutes following exposure
the warhead skin for this purpose. When an ade- and are therefore well suited for tactical pur-
quate amount of insulation cannot be installed poses. These agents are separated into physio-
within the warhead to maintain the required logical effect groupings of nerve, blister, blood,
temperature, heating or cooling units must be choking, tear and vomiting gas. Nerve gas is
used. A simple and efficient design for a heating the most toxic of the above agents.
unit utilizes the missile electrical power, and The biological agents are live disease or-
consists of electrically heated wire embedded ganisms or their toxic products. These agents
in insulation which is sandwiched between two can kill or incapacitate humans, domestic an-
perforated sheets of light gauge metal. In a imals, or livestock and can also destroy crops.
similar manner, cooling coils connected to an The incubation time on biological agents varies
electrically operated refrigeration unit can be from a few days to several months and, except
used. This type of unit can readily be preformed for those agents with a very short incubation
to the internal configuration of the warhead time, their employment is limited to strategic
case. An additional advantage of these units is applications. Biological agents include fungi,
that they may be operated from an external bacteria, viruses, rickettsiae, protozoa, and
power source when the missile electrical sys- toxins. For some of these agents, satisfactory
tem is not in operation. immunization has not yet been developed.
133
Table 4-10 Characteristics of Existing Service Warheads
BLAST
Total Size
General Weight Length I Diameter
Type Target lb inches | inches Status Designation c/m Remarks Missile
Surface- Light 3000 72 30 Active T3E3 3.46 Matador

to- Structures Nominal
Surface and
Material
Surface- Structures 1500 43.0 29.47 Active T2021 4.25 Honest John
to- Susceptible
Surface to Blast
Surface- General 1460 62.0 20.0 Inactive T23E1 1.16 Has natural Corpora]
to- Ground ±30 fragmentation
Surface Targets
CONTINUOUS ROD
Total Size Rod

General Weight Length Diameter Expanded
Type Target lb inches inches Status Designation c/m Number Size, inches Ring Radius Missile
Surface- Aircraft 300 17.3 21 Develop- Con

Continuous
tin . 800 800 3/16 x 1/4 x 16 1/2 100 feet Bomarc
to-Air mental Rod(B ■c) approx.
Surface- Aircraft 405 21.9 23.3 Experi- EX14 .673 534 0.250x0.250x20 125 feet Talos (6b)
to-Air mental Mod 3
Surface- Aircraft 180 20 12 Develop- EX19 .722 274 1/4x1/4x18.3 65' (max.) Advanced
to-Air max. max. mental Terrier
Surface- Aircraft 115 13.5 12 Develop- EX20 372 3/16 x 3/16 x length 55' radius Tartar
to-Air max. mental Mod 1 90° from
W/H
Air-to- Aircraft 63 14.001 8.000 Develop- EX21 .735 242 .187 x .187 x 10.3 27 feet Sparrow III
Air mental Mod 1 (effective rod (maximum
length 7.3) theoretical)
DISCRETE ROD
Air-to- Aircraft 54 15 6.073 Experi- EX1 120 0.45x0.33x3.875 Sparrow 1

Air 7.596 mental Mod 0
Air-to- Aircraft 40 10 Inactive 145E 60 0.375x0.50x4 Oriole

Air
134
Table 4-10 (Continued)
FRAGMENTATION
Total SI ze
General Weight Length Diameter Fragments
Type Target lb Inches Inches Status Designation c/m Number Size, Inches Missile
Surface- Aircraft 100 - - Develop- XM-5 2.66 1600 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/4 Hawk
tn-Alr mental approx.
Air-to- Aircraft 49 11.9 7. 279 to Develop- EX 5 .741 1624 .375 x .375 x .3925 Sparrow 11
Alr 7.240 mental Mod 1
Surface- Aircraft 218 21.835 13. 500 to Active, Mk 5 1.58 536 Size (a) 3/8 x 3/8 x 3/4 Terrier
to-AIr 10.412 Production Mod 3 4056 Size (b) 3/8 cube
Surface- Aircraft 218 21.835 13. 500 to Active, Mk 5 - 550 Size (a) 3/8 x 3/8 x 3/4 Terrier
to-Alr 10.431 Production Mod 6 4200 Size (b) 3/8 cube
Alr-to- Aircraft 44 ± 1 15 7-5/8 to Production Mk 7 .944 1315 0.312x0.401 x0.4 Sparrow I

Alr (without 6-1/8 Mod 0 approx.
fuzing)
Alr-to Aircraft 25 13-1/2 5 Active Mk 8 1.82 1300 - Sidewinder

Air Mod 0 approx.
Surface- Personnel 1345 ± 20 33.79 22.45 Interim T25E1 .181 58000 .150 x .150x 2.70 Corporal
to-Surface (without max. max. approx.
fuzing)
Surface - Aircraft 11.75 6.393 5.1b Active T26E4 - 600 - Nike 1

to-Air ± .25 max. max. approx.
Surface- Aircraft 176.75 21.36 11.7 Active T37E3 1.19 6615 .3125 ± .003 cube Nike 1
to-Alr i .25
Surface- Aircraft 121.25 21.4 11.0 Active T38E3 .698 4416 .3125 ± .003 cube Nike I
to-Alr t .25
Surface- Personnel 1345 i 20 - - Develop- T40 .083 500,000 .090 dia. x 1.25 lg Corporal
to-Surface (without mental
fuzing)
Surface- Aircraft 1116 max. 27.10 29.24 Develop- T45 - 18,902 .414 cube Nike
lo-AIr 1096 mln. mental Hercules
Alr-to Aircraft 63 14.000 8.000 Superseded EX2 .542 1486 .375 x .375 x .516 Sparrow III
Air by tX21 Mod 3
Surface- Aircraft 350 15.920 26. 280 to Inactive EX7 2.18 620C 3/8 cube Talos (6a)
to-Air 23.640 Mod 1
Surface- Aircraft 145.76 - - Superseded T22E4 1.94 9140 (design) .2525 cube Nike I
to-Alr 9117 (on test
model)
Surface- Aircraft 405 21.920 26.3 to Superseded EX17 2.20 7650 3/8 cube Talos (6b)
to-Air 23.6 by Contlnu- Mod 1
ous Rod
Warhead
Alr-to- Aircraft A = 31.07 10 Inactive 145 A = 1.03 Natural Natural Oriole

Alr B = 26.92 A,B, B=0.74 Frag- Fragmentation
C = 35. 70 C,D C=1.33 men-
D =41.24 D - 1. 67 tatlon
135
Table 4-10 (Continued)
CLUSTER
Total Size Submissile

General Weight Length Diameter Weight of Weight Charge Missile
Type Target lb inches inches Status Designation Type Number Submissile per Submissile
Surface- Aircraft 300 10.4 32.2 Develop- Cluster Un stabi- 48 4. 2 (appro 2.9 Bomarc
to-Air Bomber mental Warhead lized including
(Bomarc) fuze
Surf ace - Aircraft 156.14 Develop- Cluster Unstabi- 28 4.56 2.9 Nike I
to-Air mental Warhead lized
(Nike I)
Center
Cluster
Surface- Aircraft 127.04 Develop- Cluster Unstabi- 21 4.56 2.9 Nike I

to-Air mental Warhead lized
(Nike I)
After
Cluster
05
Surf ace - Aircraft - Develop- T-46 Unstabi- - 4,42 Nike Hercules
to-Air mental lized
Air-to- Aircraft 60.39 26.25 ~ Experi- Dispersal Fin 16 — 1.4 Sparrow I

Air to mental Warhead Stabilized
57.89 (Sparrow I)
SHAPED CHARGE
Cone Liner
Total Size Apex Wall Base
General Weight Length Diameter Angle Thickness Diameter Missile
Type Target lb inches inches Status Designation Degrees inches Material inches
Surface- Tanks and 10.60 15.15 - French Copper 6.48 French SS10
to-Surface Armored SS10
Vehicles
Surface- Bunkers 500 81.2 20.5 Develop- T34 40" 0.25 Copper 14.25 Lacrosse
to- and Forti- approx. max. mental
Surface fications
)
■■y:-.-^-_
v ■ .-■'■: ■■:r.->: - <
Figure 4-97.Ejection Sequence,Fletners and Gliders
137
4-8.5. Bibliography 4-9. CHARACTERISTICS OF SERVICE WARHEADS
(1) "Chemical and Biological Agents Pertinent Information relative to existing

Chart for Guided Missiles", ATI No. 455, service warheads for guided missiles is in-
July, 1946. cluded in this subchapter for reference pur-
(2) "Development of Special Chemical poses. It was obtained from "Survey of Guided
Heads for Rockets", Arthur D. Little, Inc., Missile Warheads", Haller, Raymond and
ATI No. 131213, January, 1952. Brown, Inc., September, 1956, Report No.
(3) "Launching of HVAR Heads", Hughes 91-R-5. It is to be noted that many additional
Aircraft Co., ATI No. 136846 and 136847, service warheads have been developed or put
April and May, 1950. in production since the publication of the above
Survey.
138
Chapter 5
WARHEAD EVALUATION
5-1. EVALUATION PRINCIPLES targets under specified conditions by specified

warheads.
5-1.1. Introduction Whenever any warhead has Except for evaluation techniques which
been developed, it is necessary to know the involve the firing of actual warheads against
adequacy of this warhead relative to the original actual targets, and the subsequent assessment
requirement to which it was developed; that is, of the damage inflicted thereto, the methods
final evaluation of the warhead must be made. used and discussed in this chapter are based
In order to have this evaluation be more than on mathematical analyses. The principles in-
an opinion, it must be based on factual data as volved are mentioned, as well as some specific
nearly as possible. nomenclature, etc., but it is not the purpose of
A reliable evaluation of a specific warhead this pamphlet to provide the reader with a basic
against a specific target can be obtained by knowledge of the theory of probability. For the
conducting an adequate number of tests where latter, the reader is directed to standard texts
the warhead is employed in the given guided in the field such as those listed under the
missile system against the target and under Bibliography, 5-6, entries 13, 14, and 15.
conditions closely approximating actual en-
gagement conditions. Such tests, carried out 5-1.2. Overall Kill Probability The overall proba-
using remotely controlled or stationary tar- bility of inflicting a specified kind of damage
gets are generally useful, reliable and suf- (called "overall kill probability") upon a
ficiently accurate, although expensive. Al- specified target under specified conditions by
though the evaluating of a warhead in a com- a specified missile system having a.specified
plete missile system is a highly complex warhead is equal to the product of the following
problem, the warhead designer can, without probabilities:
conducting these elaborate tests, arrive at
approximate evaluations which are usable for Pr = the probability of detecting and/or
comparative purposes. Such approximate eval- recognizing the target
uations give the warhead designer an insight
into the relative efficiency of proposed designs Pc = the probability that the missile
as well as a method of ranking these proposed system will launch the missile (con-
designs in order of their adequacy of meeting version)
the original requirements for which they were
developed. P d = the probability that the missile will
There are several ways to present the deliver the warhead to the target
evaluations of specific warheads employed
against specific targets. Chief among these P/=the probability that the fuzing
and the one treated in this pamphlet is that of system will function and that the
giving probabilities of inflicting specified kinds warhead will have a high order det-
of damage (called "kills") upon the specified onation
139
p
k = the probability of inflicting the ing the specified damage (kill) provided the
specified damage (kill) provided the target is detected (and/or recognized), the
target is detected (and/or recog- missile system functions, the warhead is de-
nized), the missile system func- livered to the target, and the fuzing system
tions, the warhead is delivered to functions. This conditional kill probability is
the target, and the fuzing system the means whereby the warhead designer may
functions (called "conditional kill evaluate the relative effectiveness of proposed
probability") warhead designs and rank these designs in
Thus, if P s = overall kill probability (success), order of their adequacy of meeting the original
then requirements for which they were developed.
Ps-Pr'Pc'Pd-Pf-Pk. (5-1-1) In terms of effectiveness the warhead with the
maximum conditional kill probability, P k. m** >
This overall kill probability is of interest is the best.
to the warhead designer in that he should know The conditional kill probability, P& of a
how his design fits into the overall missile warhead is a function of the following:
system. However, the warhead designer has no 0(G) = frequency distribution of the guid-
control over recognition (detection), conver- ance error
sion, and delivery. He has little control over
the fuzing reliability. y(F) = frequency distribution of the fuzing
It is to be noted that from an economic or error
supply standpoint the "expected fraction
v
killed" of an area target with a given number m = velocity of the missile which carried
of shots is of interest in order to determine the warhead, measured in the di-
the weapon to be used. However, in the battle- rection of travel of the missile in
field, of primary concern is the high proba- feet per second
bility of obtaining a given level of kill; e.g.,
90% confidence of killing at least 50% of an area vt = velocity of the target measured in
target. It is to be further noted that improve- the direction of travel of the target
ments in reliability of guided missiles are in feet per second
generally of more importance than increases
in their single shot kill probability P4. 0 = angle between the missile trajectory
As can be seen by equation (5-1.1), the and the target trajectory
warhead designer can contribute to the overall
kill probability, Ps. by maximizing asmuchas h = altitude of engagement
possible the conditional kill probability, P k>
over which he does have control within the ' (m) = lethality of the missile warhead
limits of the parameters given him. Thus, if
V
Pk. is the conditional kill probability for the <T) = vulnerability of the target.
i'th warhead design, the maximum Pk- (i.e. Thus, (5-1.2)
Pk max ) would be the criterion for use in
Pk -I \j>(G>' V (F)> v
m- Vt, 0, h, l(m), Vm]
determining the warhead design which would
be most adequate relative to the original re- The frequency distribution of the guidance
quirements for which the warheads were de- error, <f>(G), is discussed in Section 5-1.4.
veloped. The frequency distribution of the fuzing
error, y(F). is discussed in Section 5-1.5.
5-1.3. Conditional Kill ProbabilityThe conditional The velocity of the missile, vm., the veloc-
kill probability, P4, which is of concern to the ity of the target, Vt, and the altitude of en-
warhead designer is that probability of inflict- gagement, h. are normally specified and may
140
be treated as constants. However, the warhead in Figure 5-1.
designer has the responsibility of recommend- Figure 5-1 shows the relative positions of
ing that a missile with inadequate payload or the target and missile at some specific time
speed advantage over the target be superseded. just prior to the time of impact. In this picture
The angle, 0, between the missile and it can be seen that the guidance system has
target trajectories is generally a variable that accounted for the velocity-vector relationship
must be considered in the evaluation of a war- of the missile and target so that the aim-point
head. However, 9 can be held constant so that is that point where the geometrical center of
several warheads may be evaluated and com- the target was expected to be at the instant the
pared at a specific engagement aspect. missile intersected the path (trajectory) of
The lethality of the missile, / (m), is a the target center.
function of the warhead type and of the variables Now, if a plane normal to the missile
over which the warhead designer does have trajectory is drawn through the aim point, the
control within the design parameters. For x-axis of this plane is in the direction of the
antiaircraft warheads, the speed ratio Vm/Vt is yaw of the missile and the y-axis is in the
extremely important. These variables are direction of pitch of the missile, both with
treated in the individual warhead design sec- origin at the aim-point. This is illustrated in
tions. Figure 5-2.
The vulnerability of the target, V(T), de- Figure 5-2 also shows az-axis originating
pends upon its shape, size, location, structure, at the aim-point and normal to the x,y plane.
toughness, motive power, maneuverability, Fuzing error is distributed along the missile
payload, special distinguishing characteris- trajectory which is along or parallel to the
tics, attack time, whether it is singly or multi- z-axis. The distribution of fuzing error is
ply vulnerable to the warhead considered, and treated in Section 5-1.5. Assuming that fuzing
other descriptive data. error (i.e. error in the z direction) is inde-
pendent of guidance error (i.e. error in the
5-1.4. Distribution of Guidance Error Guidance x, y plane), and analysis of the distribution of
error is defined as the perpendicular distance guidance error is reduced to a two-dimension
from the aim point to the missile trajectory. problem.
The aim point is defined as that point where Now, if a great number of missiles were
the missile warhead would detonate if the fired at the aim-point, due to random errors in
guidance system and the fuzing system were the guidance system (human, mechanical, and
to function in an ideal manner. Because of electronic) the missile trajectories could in-
human and mechanical factors, neither guid- tersect the x, y plane at any points as shown
ance nor fuzing function perfectly and therein Figure 5-3. If the frequency distribution of
fore guidance and fuzing error have frequency these points were known, one could calculate
distributions. Assuming there is no overall the probability that a single missile will inter-
bias, then these errors are taken to be distrib- sect the x,y plane within any defined area.
uted around the aim point. As can be seen in Figure 5-3, the guidance
In order to gain an insight into the dis- error of the i'th missile is &.;, and A, has a
tributions of these errors, one must first component on both axes, *; and y,-, where
become oriented to the velocity vector re-
W- (*7~>~y7 (5-1.3)
lationship of the missile and the target. This
can be approached by first looking at the It is assumed that the x and y are inde-
special case where the target is an aircraft pendent. Thus the frequency distributions of x
and the aim point is the geometrical center and y may be analyzed independently. Con-
of the aircraft. Thus, with perfect guidance and sider first the frequency distribution of x. It
perfect fuzing the attack would occur as shown is generally assumed that guidance errors are
141
random occurences and that the axis component specified damage when x - ± 30 feet and the
of these errors follow the so-called normal given ax ** 30 feet, then the probability that a
(Gaussian) curve of error. In this case the random shot with the specified warhead will
frequency distribution of x is mathematically inflict the specified damage on the specified
defined by target is .68, neglecting possible errors in the
— x1 y and z coordinates.
e 2a
<t>(*)-71rk
Or J-7? * (5-1-4)
Let t = —- (5-1.6)
°x
where °x = standard deviation of the * from
the origin (aim-point). Then the normal frequency function <f>(t) is
The frequency function <f>(x) can be thought l
/j
of as a distribution of ratio of occurrence of 4><t) e ' - or <f> (x) (5-1.7)
each xi when a very large number of missiles far
is fired. If N is the total number of missiles and is illustrated in Figure 5-6.
fired and "xi is the number of these missiles A table of the areas between •( and ( for
whose x component of error lies between *,• and .01 steps of the deviate t is given in Table 5-1,
*,- + ^xi , then, asAxj+o, for the convenience of the warhead designer
H . (5-1.5) in evaluating proposed designs. These areas
#*{>• N may also be found in any standard book of
A graph of the normal frequency function, mathematical tables under the title of "Areas
4>(x), is given in Figure 5-4. of the Normal Curve of Error". (Reference
The probability that any random occur- 5-b)
rence of x is between any two given values, Since y is an independent variable and
say * °x, is the area between the normal fre- assumed to be normally distributed, its fre-
quency curve and the x-axis. In this case the quency distribution function is
probability is equal to .68 and is illustrated in
Figure 5-5. <£ (y) ^=. e~y2/* V (5-1.8)
The standard deviation, °x, is a function
ay Vü7
CT
of the guidance system over which the warhead where V = standard deviation of the y from
designer has little or no control. Therefore,
it is assumed here that this value is given to
him by the missile system designer. Thus, if it
is known that a specified target will be given a
AIM POINT
..y ]]—y\.
GEOMETRICAL CENTER
OF TARGET (AIM POINT)
•*
Figure 5-/. Attack with Perfect Guidance and Per' Figure 5m2> Orientation of the Axes
feet Fuzing
142
the origin (aim-point). The reader should note area, and if there is a known probability of
the similarity of this function to equation kill provided the area is hit, pc, then the
5-1.4. Thus, if conditional kill probability, p k, is the product
t — (5-1.9) of Pc and the probability of a hit, p\ on the
°y area, i.e.,
then the normal frequency function is identical p
k'pc'ph (5-1.11)
to equation 5-1.7, i.e.,
Thus, to find p'k' the problem is reduced
<j> (t) - — e ''''I = „ y <j> (y) (5-1.10) to finding, Ph, the probability of hitting the
fl^ area and multiplying this by pc.
p
and Table 5-1 may be used to find the proba- b can be thought of as the ratio of the
bility that a random shot will givea>7 between number of shots which hit within the perimeter
any specified y (plus and minus). Once again, of the area to the total number. If this area is
°y is to be considered as being given. oriented as shown in Figure 5-7 so that it is a
2a x 2b area with the x and y axes oriented at
Probability of Hitting a Rectangular Area If fuzing the center, Ph is the product of P'a the proba-
is perfect, if the target is a known rectangular bility that the x component of a hit is between
±a, and ph, the probability that they component
of a hit is between ±b, i.e.,
P,=P (5-1.12)
h a
Assuming known and independent normal

distributions in the directions of both axes,
then vx and °y are known. p a is the area of the
normal curve of area and can be found by letting
t ■— , and P e -2- dt (5-1-13)

fTn
and finding the area. Table 5-1.
In a similar manner, Py can be found by
letting
t =— (5-1.14)
°y
and finding the area from Table 5-1.
Figure 5-3. Random Guidance Errors
♦ <*>
i
0.5
0.4.
/ 0.3-
/ 0.2-
^s' 0.1 -
1 1 1 1 1 1
-3o-„ -Z<rx -<rx 0 <rx 2(J-X 3<7-x
Figure 5-4. The Normal Frequency Function Figure 5-5. Area Under Normal Frequency Curve
143
Thus, if fuzing is perfect and P , o and values were furnished by the Computing Labo-
Oy are known for a given rectangular target ratory of the Ballistic Research Laboratories.
2a x 2b, then the conditional kill probability is
P The phrase "Elliptical Normal Distribution"
k-pc-pa-pb (5-1.15)
is generally used to describe the distribution
Circular Normal Distribution With normal dis- of the radial density function in a two-dimen-
tributions in x and y and ox o , the proba- sional, non-circular, normal distribution.
bility that a missile will hit the %, y plane
within a circle of radius, A, from the aim-point Miss DistanceOne definition of miss distance is
is the shortest distance between the center of the
-As warhead burst and the geometrical center of the
1- e
2a, (5-1.16)
target. The miss distance is a combination of
guidance error and fuzing error.
In many instances the aim-point is other
where °G = linear standard error of guidance than the geometrical center of the target. Each
and determines the frequency distribution of particular combination of missile, guidance
A. In this case % = ° V system, warhead, and target would have its
Letting, own unique solution relating miss distance to
u =— (5-1.17) guidance error. This solution can be found
through analytic geometry. No standard devia-
the probability of a hit within a circle of a tion of miss distance is a valid estimate of °Q,
radius of u standard errors of guidance is the standard error of guidance, unless it has
first been subjected to this analysis.
PA =1-
(5-1.18) In addition, due to the limitations of the
capabilities of electronics measuring devices,
A graph of P^ is shown in Figure 5-8 and a in many cases the so-called "miss distance"
table of values of P^ for .01 steps of the deviate tabulated from test missile firings against
w is given in Table 5-2. drones is not the same as the miss distance
defined previously. Instead, this "miss dis-
Elliptical Normal Distribution With normal distance" is the shortest distance between the
tributions in x and y and ax ^ °y. theni>Ri the missile trajectory and the perimeter of the
probability that a missile will hit the *-y plane target if the measuring device is mounted in
within a circle of radius R can be read directly the missile, or between the device's antenna
from Table 5-3 and Figure 5-9 for values of y
m and R/ The
°y / °x ° m in A* max. ° max. tabulated
-2-10123
Figure 5-6. T/ie Normal Curve of Error Figure 5-7. Orientation of Rectangular Target Area
144
Table 5-1 The Areas Under The Normal Curve Of Error (included Between t and -t)
t .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09
.00 .000 .008 .016 .024 .032 .040 .048 .056 .064 .072
.10 .080 .088 .096 .103 .111 .119 .127 . 135 .143 .151
.20 . 159 . 166 .174 .182 .190 .197 .205 . 213 .221 .228
.30 .236 .243 .251 .259 .266 .274 .281 .289 .296 .303
.40 .311 .318 .326 .333 .340 .347 .354 .362 .369 .376
.50 .383 .390 .397 .404 .411 .418 .425 .431 .438 .445
.60 .451 .458 .465 .471 .478 .484 .491 .497 .503 .510
. 70 .516 .522 .528 .535 .541 .547 .553 .559 .565 .570
.80 .576 .582 .588 .593 .599 .605 .610 .616 .621 .627
.90 .632 .637 .642 .648 .653 .658 .663 .668 .673 .678
1.00 .683 .688 .692 .697 .702 .706 .711 .715 .720 .724
1.10 .729 .733 .737 .742 .746 .750 .754 . 758 .762 .766
1.20 .770 .774 .778 .781 .785 .789 .792 .796 .799 .803
1.30 .806 .810 .813 .816 .820 .823 .826 .829 .832 .835
1.40 .838 .841 .844 .847 .850 .853 .856 .858 .861 .864
1.50 .866 .869 .871 .874 .876 .879 .881 .884 .886 .888
1.60 .890 .893 .895 .897 .899 .901 .903 .905 .907 .909
1. 70 .911 .913 .915 .916 .918 .920 .922 .923 .925 .927
1.80 .928 .930 .931 .933 .934 .936 .937 .939 .940 .941
1.90 .943 .944 .945 .946 .948 .949 .950 .951 .952 .953
2.00 .954 .956 .957 .958 .959 .960 .961 .962 .962 .963
2.10 .964 .965 .966 .967 .968 .968 .969 .970 .971 .971
2.20 .972 .973 .974 .974 .975 .976 .976 .977 .977 .978
2.30 .979 .979 .980 .980 .981 .981 .982 .982 .983 .983
2.40 .984 .984 .984 .985 .985 .S86 .986 .986 .987 .987
2.50 .988
2.60 .991
2.70 .993
2.80 .995
2.90 .996
3.00 .997
location and the perimeter of the missile if the were both normal guidance and fuzing without
device is located in the target. It is readily bias.
seen that this measured distance is frequently As explained in Section 5-1.4, human,
less than the defined miss distance by a figure mechanical and electronic factors cause the
between the minimum and the maximum dis- fuze to function imperfectly and result in fuzing
tances between the e.g. and the target peri- error. Assuming no bias in fuzing, these errors
meter. With a large target such as a bomber are distributed around the point where the x-y
this difference could be a hundred or more feet plane of Section 5-1.4 intersects the missile
and would be highly significant. At best, the trajectory and along the missile trajectory.
measured "miss distance" requires conver- These errors would then have z components.
sion before it could be considered or used Thus, fuzing error can be considered as being
where the defined miss distance is called for. distributed along the ^-axis and around the
Because of these shortcomings, difficulties, aim-point. Figure 5-10 shows random fuzing
and ambiguities, the term "miss distance"has errors in a missile with random guidance
purposely been avoided in this pamphlet. errors. As shown, the z± may occur on either
side of the x-y plane.
5-1.5. Distribution of Fuzing Error Fuzing error is If the frequency distribution of these er-
defined as the shortest distance from a plane rors were known, one could calculate the proba-
normal (perpendicular) to the missile trajec- bility that a single fuze will detonate the war-
tory and passing through the aim-point to the head within any given distance from the x-y
point of actual detonation of the warhead. The plane.
aim-point, as defined previously, is that point It is generally assumed that fuzing errors
where the missile warhead would burst if there are random occurrences and that they follow
145
Table 5- 2 The Probabilities of a Hit, Pm, Within a Circle of Radius u Standard Errors
.00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09
0.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .002 .002 .003 .004
0.10 .005 .006 .007 .008 .010 .011 .013 .014 .016 .018
0.20 .020 .022 .024 .026 .028 .031 .033 .036 .039 .041
0.30 .044 .047 .050 .053 .056 .059 .063 .066 .070 .073
0.40 .077 .081 .085 .088 .092 .096 .100 .105 .109 .113
0.50 .117 .122 .127 .131 .136 .140 .145 .150 .155 .160
0.60 .165 .170 .175 .180 .185 .190 .196 .201 .206 .212
0.70 .217 .222 .228 .234 .239 .245 .251 .257 .263 .268
0.80 .274 .280 .286 .292 .297 .303 .309 .315 .321 .327
0.90 .333 .339 .345 .351 .357 .363 .369 .375 .381 .388
1.00 .393 .399 .406 .412 .418 .424 .430 .436 .441 .448
l.!0 .454 .460 .466 .472 .478 .484 .490 .496 .502 .507
1.20 .513 .519 .525 .531 .537 .542 .548 .554 .560 .565
1.30 .571 .576 .582 .587 .593 .598 .603 .609 .614 .620
1.40 .624 .630 .635 .640 .645 .650 .655 .661 .666 .671
1.50 .675 .680 .685 .690 .694 .699 .704 .708 .713 . 718
1.60 .722 .726 .731 .735 .739 .744 .748 .752 .756 .760
1.70 . 764 .768 .772 .776 . 780 .784 .788 .791 .795 .798
1.80 .802 .806 .809 .813 .816 .819 .823 .826 .829 .832
1.90 .836 .839 .842 .845 .84S .851 .854 .856 .859 .862
2.00 .865 .868 .870 .873 .875 .878 .880 .883 .885 .888
2.10 .890 .892 .894 .896 .899 .901 .903 .905 .907 .909
2.20 .911 .913 .915 .917 .919 .921 .922 .924 .926 .928
2.30 .929 .931 .932 .934 .935 .937 .938 .940 .941 .943
2.40 .944 .945 .947 .948 .949 .950 .951 .953 .954 .955
2.50 .956 .957 .958 .959 .960 .961 .962 .963 .964 .965
x
2.60 .966 .967 .968 .969 .969 .970 .971 .972 .973 .973
2.70 .974 .975 .975 .-936 .977 .977 .978 .979 .979 .980
2.80 .980 .981 .981 . 982 ^ .982 .983 .983 .984 .984 .985
2.90 .985 .986 .986 .986 .987 .987 .988 .988 .988 .989
3.00 .989
i.O where °z = standard error of fuzing.

For a discussion of this distribution, see
0.9
;^D—I—i — Section 5-1.4 and note the similarity between
o.e u.-A- equation 5-1.19 and equation 5-1.4. Now let
0.7 (5-1.20)
0.6 Then the normal frequency function is
-t'
PA 0.5
<f>(t) (5-1.21)
0.4 >(2T
0.3 and this frequency function is illustrated in

0.2 Figure 5-6.
The areas between -t and /for .01 steps
0.1 of the deviate / given in Table 5-1 can be used
0.0 in finding P z, the probability of fuzing within
any given z of the x-y plane. That is,
Figure 5-8. Probability of a Hit, P. within a Circle
of u Standard Errors
<j> (t) dt (5-1.22)
the normal curve of error. In this case the \|~27
frequency distribution of thez. 4> (z), is defined
by ! 5-1.6. Damage Classification The purpose of any
<j>(z) 2CT„ (5-1.19)
oMn missile system is to help prevent enemy use
146
Table 5-3 Cumulative Bivariate Normal Distribution Over Circles Centered At The Mean
IT MIN./o- MAX.
.4 .5
-1 .080 .044 .024 .016 .012 .010 .006 .007 .006 .006 .005
.2 .159 .134 .088 .063 .048 .039 .033 .026 .025 .022 .020
.3 .236 .221 .174 .132 .104 .085 .072 .062 .055 .049 .044
.4 .311 .301 .263 .214 .174 .145 .124 .108 .095 .085 .077
.5 .383 .376 .348 .300 .253 .215 .186 .163 .144 . 130 .118
.6 .4SI .446 .425 .385 .336 .291 .255 .225 .201 .181 . 165
.7 .516 .511 .49.6 .463 .417 .370 .328 .293 .263 .238 .217
.8 .576 .573 .590 .535 .494 .44 7 .403 ■ .363 .323 .299 .274
.9 .632 .629 .619 .599 .565 .521 .476 .433 .395 .362 .333
1.0 .683 .680 .672 .657 .629 .590 .546 .503 .462 .426 .393
1.1 .729 .727 .720 .708 .686 .652 .612 .569 .527 .489 .454
1.2 .770 .768 .763 .753 .736 .708 .671 .631 .569 .550 .513
1.3 .806 .805 .801 .793 .779 .757 .725 .687 .647 .608 .570
1.4 .838 .837 .834 .828 .817 .799 .772 .738 .701 .662 .625
1.5 .866 .866 .863 .858 .849 .835 .813 .783 .749 .712 .675
1.6 .890 .890 .887 .883 .877 .866 .848 .823 .792 .757 .722
1.7 .911 .910 .909 .905 .900 .891 .877 .856 .829 .798 .764
i.a .928 .928 .926 .924 .920 .913 .902 .885 .851 .833 .802
1.9 .943 .942 .941 .939 .936 .931 .922 .908 .839 " .864 .836
2.0 .954 .954 .953 .952 .949 .945 .939 .928 .912 .890 .865
2. 1 .964 .964 .963 .962 .960 .957 .952 .944 .930 .912 .890
2.2 .972 .972 .972 .971 .969 .967 .963 .957 .946 .931 .911
2.3 .979 .978 .978 .977 .976 .974 .972 .967 .958 .946 .929
2.4 .984 .984 .983 .983 .982 .981 .976 .975 .968 .958 .944
2.5 .988 .988 .987 .987 .986 .985 .984 .981 .976 .968 .956
2.6 .991 .991 .990 .990 .990 .989 .988 .986 .982 .976 .966
2.7 .993 .993 .993 .993 .992 .992 .991 .990 .987 .982 .974
2.8 .995 .995 .995 .995 .994 .994 .993 .992 .990 .986 .980
2.9 .996 .996 .996 .996 .996 .996 .995 .994 .993 .990 .985
3.0 .997 .997 .997 .997 .997 .997 .997 .996 .995 .993 .989
3.1 .998 .998 .998 .998 .998 .998 .998 .997 .996 .995 .992
3.2 .999 .999 .998 .999 .998 .998 .998 .998 .997 .996 .994
3.3 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .998 .997 .996
3.« .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .998 .997
3.5 1.000 i.ooo 1.000 1.000 .969 .999 .999 .999 .999 .999 .998
3.6 1.000 I.OO0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .999 .999 .998
3.7 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .999 .999
3.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .999
3.9 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 l.OOO 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
4.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 l.OOO 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Values from the Computing Laboratory, Ballistic Research Laboratories.

of force-in-being or potential force by making Aircraft Kills
one or more components of these forces the KK-damage is immediate catastrophic dis-
target of the missiles system and by inflicting integration of the target, thus
damage on these components. The target of a completely eliminating this com-
particular missile therefore may or may not ponent of the enemy's force,
be part of an attacking force. An included K-damage is damage which completely de-
purpose is to inflict attrition on the enemy's feats the target "immediately"
force and thus weaken his capability for attack. (usually interpreted as within 10
In some cases it is important to inflict seconds), thus eliminating this
attrition-type damage which will add to the component of the enemy's force
burden of repairs at the enemy's base. This immediately as a target,
may be true in a long air campaign in which A-damage is damage which completely de-
enemy effort is limited by aircraft availability feats the target within 5minutes,
rather than by weapon or target availability. thus allowing this component 5
In general, this is not important for naval appli- minutes of potential use before it
cations where short campaigns are more is eliminated from the enemy's
common. However, it might enter to some force.
extent in major amphibious operations. B-damage is damage which completely de-
These various types of damage are col- feats the target within 2 hours,
lectively called "kills" even though the word thus allowing this component 2
literally describes only part of the cases. To hours of potential use before it is
differentiate between various types, a special- eliminated from the enemy's
ized nomenclature has developed. The most force,
commonly used categories are: C-damage is damage which prevents the
147
CUMULATIVE SIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
(OVER CIRCLES OF RADIUS R CENTERED AT THE MEAN)
4 5 8
°"WilN/aMAX
Figure 5-9. Cumulative Bivariate Normal Distribution (Over Circles of Radius R Centered at the Mean)
148
target from carrying out its pri-
/j
mary mission. Thus, this compo- •a.(mV -bf (5-1.23)
nent of the enemy's force may bk
still be employed in a secondary
use or may be re-employed in its where m and V are the mass and velocity of the
primary mission after a period striking material and the constants a, b, and n
of time. It may also require re- are tabulated for the personnel involved ac-
pairs before re-employment in cording to their duties and time-to-incapaci-
its primary mission. tate.
D-damage occurs when more than a given To approach a realistic figure of target
number of man hours is required vulnerability for warhead evaluation purposes,
for repair of damage inflicted to the desired level of damage must be decided
the target before it can be re- upon. This decision is influenced to a large
employed by the enemy. degree by the missile to be performed by the
E-damage is damage which prevents the target. For example, defense against a Kami-
target from being available for at kaze attack requires KK-damage to the attack-
least the next scheduled mission. ing aircraft, while A-damage to a bomber
It should be noted that at least C-damage is would be considered sufficient if the bomber
always desired. were over five minutes from the bomb release
point. A bridge being used by an enemy force
Kills On Armored Vehicles may require A-damage while B-damage would
The classification of kills on armored be sufficient to an industrial installation, say
vehicles is made on a different,basis than for an oil refinery.
aircraft. For the details of standardization,
reference may be made to the reports of the 5-2. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
Fourth Tripartite Conference on Armor. 5-2.1. The General Concept As shown by equa-
Briefly indicated, the following kills are used: tion 5-1.2 the conditional kill probability which
K-damage Complete destruction of vehicle. is of concern to an evaluator of warhead ef-
F-damage Loss of fire power. fectiveness is .
f5
M-damage Loss of mobility.
Pk-f l<f> (G), <P (F), Vm Vt, e, b, l(m), V(T) ]
Kills Against Personnel It remains to be shown how each of the above
The criteria for incapacitation of nor- factors affect P k.
mally clothed but otherwise unprotected troops Each warhead type has a unique method
are considerably more complicated than for of inflicting damage on a target. The blast
machinery and, as may be expected, suffer warhead depends upon a shock wave with high
from a lack of experimental determination. The impulse and overpressure. The fragment war-
most recent fundamental work is contained in head emits a front of small, high-velocity pro-
reference 5-hh. These criteria depend on the jectiles; the rod warhead, a front of steel bars.
duties of the troops involved and the time re- The cluster warhead emits expanding rings of
quired for incapacitation. Older criteria such submissiles that damage like other types of
as the German one; namely, 58 ft-lb of energy warheads, usually blast. The incendiary uses
in a shell or fragment being lethal and criteria heat. The shaped charge warhead is essentially
based on penetration depth in the body have a gun which shoots out an extremely high-
been superseded. The probability of incapaci- velocity molten metal mass. The chemical
tation, Phk, is now expressed as warhead uses toxic chemical substances and
149
the biological depends on live disease orga- Now, pi is dependent only on guidance and
nisms or their toxic products. fuzing errors. Thus,
In every case the evaluator wants to know
for a randomly fired missile; (1) the proba-
bility that the damaging agent reaches the
*>• = /
'K
4> (G), ■// (F) (5-2.3)
Also, Pf,i is dependent only on the remain-

target, (2) what are the characteristics of the ing factors given in equation 5-2.1 and can be
damaging agent when it reaches the target, and expressed by
(3) how effective are those characteristics in
inflicting the desired damage.
When missiles are fired at a target, their
-/
['■ v.,
/■
']
0, h, l(m), V(T)\ (5-2.4)
Thus, the effects of <f>(G) and if>(F) on Pk

warheads will burst at various positions around have been shown and separated from equation
the target and some may even hit the target. 5-2.1 by the geometry of the centroids. It now
A picture showing six such bursts distributed remains to show how the factors in equation
simultaneously around an airplane target is 5-2.4 affect kill-probability. These effects are
given in Figure 5-11. different for each warhead type.
Assuming perfect functioning of the war-
head, the reason these bursts occur away from 5-2.2. Blost Warhead With a blast warhead,
aim-point is that there are guidance and fuzing the evaluator is concerned with what over-
errors in the missile system. These errors pressure and impulse are applied on the target.
were discussed in Sections 5-1.4 and 5-1.5. The effective overpressure and impulse may be
Once the evaluator knows the distributions of determined by knowing the initial values and the
these errors, he can determine the probability distance the shock wave must travel to reach
that the warhead will burst at any particular the target.
position. The shock wave moves at supersonic
For each position there is a definite velocity. Even so, the time of travel of this
probability of effecting a kill. This probability shock wave is appreciable. This time is used
depends upon the characteristics of the dam- along with that due to the target velocity (in
aging agent when it reaches the target and the the case of an airborne target) while the target
effectiveness of these characteristics against
the target.
P k can now be expressed in terms of the
probabilities of bursts at N various positions;
i.e., centroids of units of volume equally likely
v\k/,
to contain a burst, and the probabilities of kill
when warheads burst at these positions. Mathe-
matically this is
Pi Pki (5-2.2)
where:
p
i - probability of bursting at the i'th
position (centroid of unit of volume
equally likely to contain a burst) =—
n
°ki~ probability of kill given a burst at

the i'th position. Figure 5-10. Random Fuzing Errors Combined with
Random Guidance Errors
150
moves to intercept the blast wave. The evalu-
dV
ator needs to calculate the distance, d, between
- CD Pa A Vx (5-2.5)
the burst-point and the target at time of inter- dt
cept of the blast wave as illustrated in Figure
5-12 for an aerial target. Once this distance is
determined he may then modify the original setting dV
dV >
lethality in terms of overpressure and impulse
dt x dx
to effective lethality in terms of effective
overpressure and effective impulse. one obtains -C
DPC
The effect of these modified values is V (5-2.6)
determined by the target vulnerability. The
latter varies with the target and its parts. where CD, A, and M refer to the fragment
The tail is usually most vulnerable. A blast- ballistic drag coefficient*, presented area and
kill envelope is usually made for each target mass respectively. Equation 5-2.6 describes
and charge weight. the downrange velocity of fragments launched
with dynamic velocity V d. If consistent units
5-2.3. Fragment Warhead With a fragment war- are used, the exponent cD pa A x j „is dimen-
head, the evaluator is concerned with the num- sionless.
ber, size and velocity of the fragments that hit *This is one -half the drag coefficient commonly
the target. These values vary according to the used in aeronautical work.
distance, d, between the burst point and the In order to define a convenient coordinate
position of the target at the time the fragments system, one may use a plane which contains
intercept it. This is shown in Figure 5-13. the path of the target and the burst point of the
The lethality of a fragment depends con- warhead. The path of the fragment will also lie
siderably on its striking velocity, V , at the in this plane. As soon, therefore, as the various
target and, therefore, a knowledge of v s is velocities which contribute to vd (i.e., those
important. It is related to the initial dynamic due to the explosion plus warhead motion) are
ejection velocity of the fragment, v d, the rate resolved, the problem is reduced to two dimen-
of slow-down, the distance, y, and the target sions.
velocity, V(. (See Figure 5-14.) Consider first, V,, the initial velocity of
For the treatment below the following the fragment relative to the missile, provided
usually adequate approximations are made, by the detonation. This velocity is composed
most of which are based on the fact that the of two components, V R radially and V longi-
flight-time of the fragment is generally less tudinally. The sum of vg and the missile
than one second: velocity, V , then give the fragment velocity
Assumptions along the missile axis, which need not lie in the
1. The air density, Pa, is a constant. plane described. Introducing 0 , the angle at
2. The path of the target is a straight line. which the fragment is ejected (measured from
3. Gravitational effects are neglected. the missile axis), the steps are:
4. The drag coefficient, cD, of the frag-
ment is constant. vR m Vf sin es (5-2.7)
A small error will exist due to assumption four
(5-2.8)
if the fragment passes through the sonic speed
region during the flight. ^V +
(Vg+ Vm? (Vector sum) (5-2.9)
Before discussing the geometry of the
situation, the velocity history of the fragment The velocity V d must lie in the above-
with respect to the air should be given. described plane. This fact determines d .
From the basic force equation The problem now appears as shown in Figure
151
5-14, where the velocity of the fragment (in equation (5-2.6) to solve for Vxs and in equation
free air) during its approach to the target is (5-2.17) to get Oj. The values of xs and 0d are
coplanar with the target path and given by then substituted into equation 5-2.10 to obtain
equation 5-2.6 . the relative striking velocity V .
The initial distance tc and angle ß are For a more accurate approximation of the
known, as is the target velocity Vt. The final velocity vector relationships, see Reference
desired value is the resultant striking velocity, 5-gg, which .provides an averaging (approxi-
V which is found by using the Law of Sines: mation) for different longitude angles all around
the warhead, taking the axis of the warhead in
(5-2.10)
■^(Vxs Cosed.Vt?+(Vxs sin 6^ the Vm direction as the polar axis in terms of
the terrestrial sphere.
In addition, for intercept, the flight time of the
target and fragment must be equal. Thus 5-2.4. Rod Warhead With rod warheads, the eval-
uator is concerned with how many bars of what
(5 2 n)
T---^ "- size hit the target at what effective velocity.
where V is the aver age velocity of the fragment These values vary according to the distance,
in free air. This is obtained by taking the time d, between the burst point and the position of
integral of equation J5-2.6) over the range the target at the time the bars intercept it as
*s and dividing by xs/v' Thus shown in Figure 5-15.
it m V,
a at, x.$ I
C
DAPa The method is the same as that used for
V wner (5-2.12) fragment warheads. The main differences are
e - 1 that, from the rod warhead, the number of pro-
The geometry of the attack provides the follow- jectiles is smaller, they are moving at a lower
ing relations (Figure 5-14): velocity, and their rate of slow-down is some-
J 2 what different than for usual fragments (de-
y + z = */ (5-2.13)
pending on the fragment mass and shape).
y2 + U1 ~w2 (5-2.14) Because of these lower velocities, the velocity-
z - xs cos ed (5-2.15) vector relationships are of greater signifi-
cance. These velocity-vector relationships are
u " w cos ß (5-2.16) dependent upon vm> v(, e, and the design
The situation may be summarized as characteristics of the warhead.
follows: The known parameters are V d. V{, y
and ß • There are eight unknowns; namely, 5-2«5. Cluster Warhead In evaluating a cluster
V
xs' Vs' V' xs' ®d' "• w> and z- Corresponding warhead with submissiles equipped with an
to these are eight equations; namely, equations "all-ways fuze", one is concerned with whether
(5-2.6) and (5-2.10) through (5-2.16) which to- or not one or more of the submissiles hit the
gether enable a solution for V to be obtained. target. If a submissile does hit and fire, it is
The four geometrical relations reduce to assumed that there is a kill. However, it is to
be noted that submissile fuzes have a lower
sin ß = x sin Q , (5-2.17)
reliability, in general, than warhead fuzes. If
and equation (5-2.11) may be rewritten, using no submissiles hit, then there is no kill except
the geometrical relations, as in the case of submissiles using time or prox-
imity fuzes, in which case a hit of the sub-
.u,1 sin2 ß missile on the target is not necessary for a kill.
ß +v xs* (5-2.18)
The former situation is illustrated in
Figure 5-16. The distance, d, between the
The combination of 5-2.18 and 5-2.12 gives position of missile burst and the position of the
x
s. The value of is obtained can be used in target at the time of the submissile pattern
152
intercept is much larger than for other types and fortifications must be evaluated much more
of warheads. As with the fragment and rod carefully. There are two main judgements to
warheads, the time of travel over distance, d, be made. First, did penetration of the pro-
is important. Knowing this time, the target is tective shell occur. If not, then in most inci-
moved from its position at time of missile dences only minor damage has been suffered.
burst (shown in outline) to its position at time If penetration has occurred, then it must be
of submissile intercept (shown in solid). determined what effect the spall and hot gases
Having obtained (by the technique de- have had on the target occupants and the soft
scribed in Section 5-2.3) the modified position components of the target interior. Damage to
of the target along with information on the sub- these components is usually done by small
missile pattern, the evaluator may thendeter- fast moving flakes of wall material which pro-
mine the hit probability of at least one sub- duce holes in hydraulic lines, communications
missile. This in turn is equal to P/tl for per- equipment and personnel. A close examination
fect submissile fuze operation. by the evaluator is generally required to
In the case of time or proximity fuzed determine the extent and class of kill.
submissiles, the evaluator must determine the
distance from each submissile burst to the 5-3. APPROXIMATE EVALUATIONS
target and then determine the effective lethality 5-3.1. General DiscussionThis subchapter pres-
in terms of effective overpressure and effective ents simplified evaluations for certain types of
impulse. The results are then determined in a warheads against aerial targets. In a step by
manner similar to that used for blast warheads. step process the reader may pick each impor-
tant parameter and proceed to an approximate
5-2.6. Shaped Charge Warhead The jet of metal value of kill probability. The data which has
from a shaped change must, of course, strike been used in compiling this graphical material
the target directly. Against ground targets this was gathered from a large number of refer-
generally means that the warhead detonates on ences as indicated in each subchapter section.
contact with the target surface. Against air Reference 5-ee is typical of these. There are,
targets, the detonation may occur at distances of course, a number of ways in which the basic
so large that standoffs are of the order of a parameters may be combined into variables and
hundred feet. In this case, the axis of the war- plotted; the particular steps shown are not
head must be aligned critically to intersect the unique.
target. Since the jet of metal travels at speeds Because sufficient data is unavailable in
of Mach 10 to20, the target velocity V , missile the present state of the art for other types of
velocity Vm, and distance traversed by the jet warheads, only external blast, internal blast,
are relatively unimportant (provided the latter and fragment warhead approximate evaluations
is in the range of effectiveness of the weapon) are included. These are given in Figures 5-18
for computing whether the jet intercepts the through 5-30. To use these graphs, one simply
target. (For such targets and long standoffs, starts with the warhead weight and follows
the "jet" becomes more like a strung-out and through the set until he arrives at an approxi-
wide spray of rapidly moving metal particles.) mate evaluation interval.
There are corresponding differences in It should be desirable to have sufficient
evaluating damage, once a hit has occured. The data to follow this approach for all types of
effect of a large shaped charge jet on aircraft- warheads against both land and aerial targets.
type structure, see Figure 1-31, is so violent It is hoped that future evaluation work will
that a hit on the fuselage or wings, with the supply these data.
possible exception of the extreme tips, is
generally considered to produce A, if not K, 5-3.2. External Blast Warhead* The approximate
damage. On the other hand, damage to tanks evaluations of external blast warheads against
153
some aerial targets are found by using Figures Section 5-1.2 and set down in equation 5-1.2.
5-18 to 5-22. These are based on the assump- Besides the techniques of full-scale or ap-
tions of perfect fuzing and a circular normal proximate evaluation, it is possible to construct
distribution of guidance error as discussed in mathematical methods for determining the ef-
Section 5-1.4. The basic information was ob- fectiveness of warheads. Since the physical
tained from References 5-c through 5-1 and phenomena on which warhead actions depend
Reference 5-ff. contain many random variables, it follows that
An equivalent method to using Figures 5-18 these mathematical methods are based on the
to 5-22 may be found on page 25, Figures 8 and theory of stochastic processes and are espe-
9 of reference 5-gg. Use of Figures 5-18 and cially designed for handling statistical prob-
5-19 is essentially the same as use of the em- lems; some in fact are aided by graphical or
pirical relationship —^- where n varies be- mechanical assists such as random number
tween .4 and .5 and where the former value cor- tables, card files, dice, and so forth.
responds to the large bomber. Dr. P. Whitman Some of the fundamentals of these tech-
of APL-JHU found that n - .5 holds for point niques are described below in general terms.
targets. However, there is sufficient variability between
evaluation problems that the discussion should
5-3.3. Internal Blast Warheads Approximate eval- be considered as a guide only and the particular
uations of internal blast warheads against some format of evaluation employed is usually tai-
aerial targets are found by using Figures 5-23 lored to the problem.
through 5-26. These are based on information The component parts of the conditional kill
from References 5-1 through 5-v. Perfect probability are discussed in general in Section
fuzing and a circular normal distribution of 5-1.3. As shown in that section, the conditional
guidance error are assumed. kill probability is
p
k - / [ 4>(G). $ (F). Vm. Vt. 6. h, I (m), V(T) ]
5-3.4. Fragment Warheads Approximate evalu-
ations of fragment warheads against some where:
aerial targets may be found by using Figures
5-27 through 5-30. These are based on infor- 4>(G) - frequency distribution of the guid-
mation obtained from references 5-w through ance error
5-gg. Perfect fuzing and a circular normal dis-
tribution of guidance error are assumed. <p(F) = frequency distribution of the fuzing
error
5-4. EVALUATION METHODS
vm = velocity of the missile
5-4.1. Analytical Method Basically, the evalu-
ation problem is to determine as well as possi- vt = velocity of the target
ble the adequacy of a developed warhead rela-
tive to the original requirements to which it was 0 = angle between missile and target
developed. This is done by determining the con- trajectories
ditional kill probability, Pk; i.e., the proba-
bility of inflicting specified damage (kill) upon b = altitude of engagement
a given target provided that the target is de-
tected, the missile system functions, the war- l(m) = missile lethality
head is delivered to the target, and the fuzing
V
system functions. The relationship of this con- (T) = target vulnerability.
ditional kill probability to the overall kill prob- The problem now becomes one of analyzing
ability of the missile system is discussed in the above factors and relating them to P..
154
p
The conditional kill probability can also be b - probability that the y is between ±b
written as the product of other probabilities;
i.e., and by using Table 5-1 to find Pa and P v
P, m p, . p . p . p ,
Thus, for a rectangular presented area, the
k b c z a (5-4.2)
conditional kill probability is
where:
p
P.-P
k a • P,b ■ P c - P z . P a,. (5-4.3)
h= probability of a hit on some specific
area normal to the missile tra- If the area is circular of radius, m , from
jectory the aim point then
p
^-pA (5-4.4)
c= probability of kill provided that area
is hit where:
p =
A probability of hitting within a circle
p
z= probability of fuzing within a dis- of radius m.
tance, z, of the aim point
If it is assumed that' °x " ay " °G (cir-
p
d= probability of a kill provided the cular normal distribution), then PA is given
warhead fuzes within a distance z. by equations 5-1.16 and 5-1.18 or P^ can be
found by using Figure 5-8 or Table 5-2.
Where it is desired to obtain the conditional Depending on the type of weapon delivery
kill probability for a salvo or multiple bursts of system, guidance, and other factors, the stand-
any type, it is of course necessary to sum the ard deviations in the x and y directions, ox
probabilities over the various burst volumes. and °y may or may not be equal. Where these
There are, in fact, many additional complex- are even approximately equal, one can use the
ities which may arise in a particular situation. "circular" deviation
A typical one would be the joint kill probability >G " Apv
which arises for P c in the case of a multiply- V
vulnerable target where the kill due to a hit on It is assumed that °x f °y (elliptical nor-
a pilot may depend on whether there has also mal distribution) and the difference is large,
been a hit on the copilot. Many similar situ- then P A can be found by using either Table 5-3
ations may be cited. or Figure 5-9.
The probability P£„ of killing a target with Thus for a circular presented area, the
" bursts of individual kill probability Pk is, conditional kill probability is
p
in general, kn $ 1 " O-P'k)n. . The upper p
k-p^ -pc- p
z- p
d- (5
"4-5)
limit is approached as the complexities have
less effect. The fuzing probability for a particular
The probability of a hit on a specified area fuze type is discussed in Section 5-1.5, is
is covered in Section 5-1.4., Distribution of given by equation 5-1.22 and is found by using
Guidance Error. It is usually assumed that Table 5-1.
guidance error is distributed normally and in- This now leaves two of the factors of
dependently in the x and y directions. If this equation 5-4.2 unknown, P'c and p j. The prob-
assumption is made and the area is rectangular ability of kill provided the area is hit is
in shape, then Pk is found by equation 5-1.12;
i.e.,
p
c - A [ W, vm. Vt, e, h, l(m), V(T) ] ■ (5-4.6)
P Pu and the probability of kill provided the warhead

k~Pa
fuzes within a distance, z, of the plane through
where: the aim point and perpendicular to the missile
probability that the x is between ±a path, is
155
When the light rays or gamma rays are
P [ W V V h l(m) V(T
d • /, > m' f °' > - > 1- used, the evaluator is mainly interested in de-
where: (5-4.7) termining the number of hits on the presented
fl and f2 are different functions of the area; i.e., whether the rays touch the target.
same variables. He finds the probability of kill for the area hit.
The relationships of these variables to Using the frequency of hits, he estimates the
P and P , are not usually amenable to mathe- probability of a hit there. The conditional kill
matical expression. As a result, methods have probability is the average product of these two
been developed to estimate Pc and Pj, such probabilities for many trials.
as "Simulated", "Graphical", and "Overlay".
These methods are discussed in the following 5-4.3. Monte Carlo and Lotto Methods The Monte
sections. Carlo technique is a mathematical tool which
was developed during the 1940's for performing
5-4.2. Simulated Method Frequently it is impos- analyses of physical phenomena which obey the
sible to obtain the actual targets against which laws of random processes. Principal among
the warhead is to be evaluated. Often, even if these are problems in neutron diffusion and
the actual targets may be obtained, it is unde- other atomic effects. But any phenomena which
sirable or too expensive to evaluate on the occur according to a known distribution func-
basis of actual test firings. For these reasons tion may be examined by a similar scheme.
the "Simulated Method" has been devised to In the Monte Carlo technique, one does not
aid in estimating the evaluation. examine each individual event but instead one
Basically, the simulated method amounts generates mathematically a "typical" sample
to building a model of the target, using a ran- of an assembly of events (such as for example
dom process to determine approximately a the location of bursts in a salvo). These samples
hundred (in some cases many more) firings,
computing the kill probability for each of these
firings, and then using these data to arrive at U\
conditional kill probabilities. For low values
of Pk a relatively large number of "experi-
ments" are required to obtain accurate values,
since the number required varies inversely
with the value of Pk.
The random process most frequently used
to determine the path of the missile, fragment,
rod, shaped charge, or submissile is based on
the "Monte Carlo" Method or the "Lotto"
Method. These methods are discussed in Sec-
tion 5-4.3.
The devices that have been used to project
the path to and/or through the target are many.
Some of these are rods, light rays, and gamma
rays. When rods are used, they are placed in
the position of the path and touch the model.
If they pass through a vulnerable component
without first hitting a shielding component, then
a hit or kill is recorded dependent upon the
lethality of the object presumably following
the path and the vulnerability of the component. Figure 5-17. Random Warhead Bursts Around Target
156
are produced by using a table of random num- in calculations of weapon effectiveness against
bers or some mechanical device whose output multiply-vulnerable targets. Using the example
is distributed in the proper way. To suit the previously referred to, a random device or
problem at hand, proper corrections must be list is used to produce a statistic sample of
made for mean value, standard deviation and miss distances. Similarly geometric position
weighting, if necessary. of the sample miss may be obtained. Then by
Since a statistical sample serves to rep- examining a model of the target, the presented
resent the entire arrayof events, it is essential area of each vulnerable component may be de-
to know the fidelity of the sample. For binomial termined, e.g., for a fragmenting warhead.
distributions the standard error of the esti- Using the range and area, a table may be en-
mated probability which may occur is usually tered to determine the kill probability for any
vulnerable component. Finally another random
expressed as °p ~ \p (1-pYn where p is table may be entered to determine, from a yes-
no decision, if the component was actually killed
the estimated probability ot the event under by a fragment from the burst. This procedure
study and n is the number in the statistical can be carried out for a number of bursts and
sample. For normal distributions this error a number of vulnerable components, keeping
is expressed by score of that fraction of the total bursts which
°p = \|p (1-pVn-l ■ killed sufficient components to produce a kill
of the target or targets.
As Monte Carlo type data is applied to warhead Included in the Bibliography, Subchapter
evaluation, the desired accuracy is determined 5-6, is a list of references to the Monte Carlo
by use of the data. For example, in determining and Lotto methods and their application to war-
the relative merits of two very different types head testing.
of attack, low accuracy (and a correspondingly
small sample) may suffice. On the other hand, 5-4.4. Overlay Method The overlay method of
for comparison of similar weapons or the opti- evaluation involves basically reducing the tar-
mization of parameters, much larger samples get to two dimensions on a plane, laying over
are required—especially when the kill prob- this plane a grid with points, and evaluating
ability per attack is small. The size of the the damage at each point.
statistical sample together with the particular The original picture on the plane may be
problem determines the confidence which can obtained by photographing a target or a model
be placed in the result. of the target. If the target should be personnel
The Lotto method is an extension of the
Monte Carlo principle that is especially adapted
to the study of random phenomena as they occur
POSITION OF TARGET AT
TIME OF SHOCK WAVE
INTERCEPT
POSITION OF TARGET
AT TIME OF BURST
MOVEMENT OF TARGET
DURING TIME FRAGMENT-
FRONT MOVES OVER
DISTANCE, d.
MOVEMENT OF TARGET DURING TARGET AT TIME
TIME SHOCK WAVE MOVES OVER OF FRAGMENT-
DISTANCE, d
FRONT INTERCEPT
Figure 5-12. Critical Distance, d, for Evaluation of Figure 5-73. Critical Distance, d, for Evaluation of
Blast Warhead Fragment Warhead
157
of known distribution, circles may be randomly 5-5. REFERENCES
located by the Monte Carlo method to repre-
sent individual persons. 5-o "Armament", Harold Goldberg, pub-
The points on the overlay grid are deter- lished in "Principles of Guided Missile De-
mined from a known or predicted distribution sign", edited by Grayson Merrill, Van Nos-
and, sometimes, with the aid of the Monte trand, Princeton, 1956.
Carlo method. 5-b "Standard Mathematical Tables",
Chemical Rubber Publishing Co., Cleveland,
5-4.5. Graphical Method The Graphical Method Ohio, 1954.
is based on data gathered from tests and known 5-c ' 'Vulnerability of A-35 Aircraft to Ex-
or predictable distributions. It amounts to ternal Blast", E. Gilinson, BRL Tech. Note 277,
plotting on a set of graphs the points that have August, 1950.
been found, fitting curves to these points, and 5-d "Damage to Aircraft by External
then using these curves to effect the evaluation. Blast", W. E. Baker, BRL Report 741, October,
Some of the curves may be theoretical and 1950.
used in combination with test curves. This is 5-e "Damage to B-17 and B-29 Aircraft
basically the method used in the approximate by External Blast", W. E. Baker and O. T.
evaluation graphs of Subchapter 5-3. Johnson, BRL Memo. Report 561, September,
1951.
5-4.6. Geometrical Model Method The Geometrical 5-f "Vulnerability of B-29 Aircraft to 120
Model Method is one where the vulnerable com- M.M. Air-Burst Shell", Johns Hopkins Univer-
ponents of the target are defined by simplified sity, Project THOR, Tech. Report 3, February,
geometrical shapes and located in either a 1950.
Cartesian plane or Euclidian (3-dimensional) 5-g "Report on Tests of the Effect of Blast
space. These geometrical equations are then from Bare and Cased Charges on Aircraft",
fed into a computer where a random method is James N. Sarmousakis, BRL Memo. Report
used along with mathematically defined distri- 436, July, 1946.
butions for the warheads or their projectiles. 5-h "The Effect of Blast on Aircraft Recip-
This method lends itself readily when com- rocating Engines", Arthur Stein and Harry
puter facilities are available and adequate in- Kostiak, BRL Memo. Report 467, August, 1947.
formation is available to define geometrically 5-i "The Effect of Blast on Aircraft Fuel
the distributions and shapes. Tanks", Frances M. Hill, BRL Memo. Report
MOVEMENT OF TARGET DURING
INTERCEPT TIME ROD-FRONT MOVES OVER
DISTANCE, d
Vf
TARGET AT TIME
OF BURST
DETONATION
POINT
TARGET AT TIME OF
LOCATION OF TARGET ROD-FRONT INTERCEPT
IN FREE AIR AT TIME /
OF DETONATION
Figure 5-75. Critical Distance, d, for Evaluation of
Figure 5-14. Geometry for Fragment Striking Velocity Rod Warhead
158
509, April, 1950.
5-j "The Effect of Altitude on the Peak
Pressure in Normally Reflected Air Blast
Waves", A. Hoffman, BRL Tech. Note 787,
March, 1953.
5-k "Damage to B-47 Aircraft by External
Blast", O. T. Johnson and R. T. Shanahan.BRL
Memo. Report 736, October, 1953.
5-1 "The Effect of Atmospheric Pressure
and Temperature on Air Shock", J. Deweyand
J. Sperrazza, BRL Report 721.
5-m "The Effect of Blast on Aircraft",
Joseph Sperrazza and James N. Sarmousakis,
BRL Report 645, August, 1947.
5-n ' 'Vulnerability of the Type 39 Aircraft
to Internal Blast", James J. Dailey andSarkis
E. Giragosian, BRL Memo. Report 980, March,
Figure 5-17. Critical Angle, 6, for Evaluation of
1956.
Shaped Charge Warhead
5-o "Vulnerability of B-29 Aircraft to In-
ternal Blast", Joseph Sperrazza, BRL Memo.
Report 490, June, 1949.
5-p "Vulnerability of B-29 Aircraft to
Eight-Pound Bare Charges Fired Externally",
P. N. French and D. W. Mowrer, BRL Memo.
Report 942, October, 1955.
5-q "The Damage Effect of Small TNT Bare 20
Charges Placed Inside Standard and Modified 18

B-17 Fuselages", J. N. Sarmousakis, BRL
16
Memo. Report 442, August, 1946.
14
TARGET AT TIME
OF MISSILE BURST
12
10 For approximate evaluation: —

/
' (1) Use warhead weight. W —
8 /
(2| Find y value
' /
6 / [31 Proceed to Figure 5-19
MOVEMENT OF TARGET
DURING TIME SUBMISSILES /
TRAVEL OVER DISTANCE, d 4
TARGET AT TIME OF
SUBMISSILE INTERCEPT 2
500 1000 1500 2000

w
Figure 5-76. Critical Distance, d, for Evaluation of Figure 5-18. External Blast Warhead Evaluation-
Cluster Warhead Warhead Weight Variable
159
20
/
20 ™r
/ A
18 (1) Find value of y. Irom Figure 5-18 - For approximate evaluation:
/
16
(2) Use target type A A 20
III Find value of y from Figure 5-2 0
(31 Find y_ value A (21 Ute standard error of guidance, 0~r
14 (4) Proceed to Figure 5-20 /

/ 141 Proceed to Flaure 5-21
12 / 15 /
/ /
j
10 - HEAVY BOMBER - // crG = 30 /
//
MEDIUM BOMBER? 7
8 / 10
o-fi = 60
A / r
(T6 = 90
/
6 \A/ J
AY /
/ 0-6 = l2C
4 A/ 5
/ / ms
-''
/A LIGHT BOMBER / ^y
ti /
2 /} ' A /y
/ s«
J
Z*
0 > n k+
10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Figure 5-19. External Blast Warhead Evaluation- Figure 5-21. External Blast Warhead Evaluation-
Target Type Variable Standard Error of Guidance Variable
Figure 5-20. External Blast Warhead Evaluation- Figure 5-2 2. External Blast Warhead Evaluation-
Engagement Altitude Variable Kill Probability Intervals
20 1.0 K> *
7 For approximate evaluation
18
ror approximate evaluation:
/ .9 (1| Find value of Y4 from Figure 5-21 Vf S^
16
(1) Find value of V- from Figure 5- 19
(2) Uie engagement altitude /
/ JC
n
.8 1 **
\\
N^ I*
values of P. \
14
'3
, 4
y
.7 |
|
\\ ^
.\
b
12
4 f f •fir- an1
,x s
10 4 n ■P s - conTia«>ce L irrMl I.
|
'» 8 ^^ _i &
/ t ' ■
-»■
< V
»ülr
**■
/ *s n 1.0
z
o
6
/ /
/ '' s
s
^n /-r oco!^ O k\ v"
>>
N ote:
4 z
/S f^^'r,^ o
Ü
Effects of fuzing error and velocity
2 /, s ?p,o^-< V fc vector relationship* are not accounted
* <* *"\
0
t
/ ** ""■'
W>oo° )>
\
.—■
^
$ fc ^ fc
k\
I k
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 10 15 20 25
160
20 25 -... /
For QDDroximate evaluation: / For ( M)D mx imate evaluation:
/ (1) Find value of y, from

y
18 (1) Use warhead charge weight, c
/ /
|Z| use target type Figure 5-24 /
16 / 20 (2) Use standard error of 1
/
(3) Find y,value
(4) Proceed to Figure 5-24
14
(3) Find y, value
/
1 1 1 I 1 I I / /
15 (4| Proceed to J
12
_• — _~
r igure i-<:o
f
/
y. 10 6 —
f n-. = ?n
J
10 / </,r o-.=^n
,' - 0- =IU7 G
Crr-_=dn
- 6
/
^<,_ »«..»„ / r—
.»■
/ *y / -^ >y
.f / S' / »' ^ -"* <- —' 1
/ ys A / / y -"■
/ y ^- — -"■
*
-G=50 -
\
\
i\
/ /, /
/ A / / s ^ j& .—
4 & ss
-*■ 0-G = 60
(* tt 10 12 14 16
1 1 1
18 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
2c
Figure 5-23. Internal Blast Warhead Evaluation- Figure 5-25. Internal Blast Warhead Evaluation-
Target Type Variable Standard Error of Guidance Variable
Figure 5-24. Internal Blast Warhead Evaluation- Figure 5-26. Internal Blast Warhead Evaluation-
Engagement Altitude Variable Kill Probability Intervals
20 1.0
For approx mate evaluation: For approximate evaluation Kf?
18 (l| Find value of y. from Figure 5-23
yr
y
.9 (1)
(2|
Find value of y, from Figure 5-25
Find approximate upper and lower
L
/^V\
11 ^
A ^
n
i* jd
16 y °- .8
(31 Find y, value values of P. ks
>-" >>
(4) Proceed to Fiaure 5-25
14
12 wiw
A s\
CD
<
8a. "6 N
l
*\y^sZcFP^\ "
> a.
\\j
10
8
?<rtf£
ePs-r^
<y»
\v §
l N
-
f t*y
y
tf / / 80,000 FT N^
6
\/' 9 .3
-
}, fa 9
f/t 7 o
o
i Äs
^y
Note:
E fleets of fuzing error and velocity
IV y ,j ^ vector relationships are not accounted

T* >> S § J1
fc S $ & / 'k
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 10 15 20 25
161
-
20 I-I""r~r—x—r-r—ir r—i tLT)
For ODsroximate evaluation: /
(ALTITUDE = 30,000 FT) /
18 (1) Find value 0) y, from Figure 5-28
/'
/
16 20 (3| Find y value
14
V'
12 ^' 15
,/
10 ,4 '
j
* For approximate evaluation:
= en ^
r (t) Ute warhead weight. W
T
- 6 "
_£T =<30
8 10 G -"
/ (2) Find y. value T
G = 5n
6 J' (3) Proceed to Figure 5-28
/
-G '«-"
5
/ 1 i i
1 1 1
2 /
/ (ALTITUDE = 30,000 FT) -
n _,
500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
w
h
Figure 5-27. Fragment Warhead Evaluation • War- Figure 5-29. Fragment Warhead Eva luatian - Stand-
head Weight Variable ard Error of Guidance Variable
Figure 5-28. Fragment Warhead Evaluation - Target Figure 5-30. Fragment Warhead Evaluation
Type Variable Kill Probability Intervals
20 1.0
§§
18
For approximate evaluation:
(1) ., from Flaure
Find value of v. . 5-27
J
/
r
/
/
/
/
/
.9
For approx imate evaluation
(1) Find value of y, from Figure 5-29
(2) Find approximate upper and lower vj
1
1 1 ^&
^
fc
r / / V
16 U! i- ina y2 value °- .8 values of P.
^v &
14
(4) Proceed to Figure 5-2! »
LIGHT JE T
/ ^
/
/
/
s'
/ >-"
DO
<
^
^| i
12 BOMBER
// r
/( / ' LIGHT
k
BOMBER a. r,A . cm
N\
10
^ ENGINE) _i
uannaence i_i
8 1 1 1 &
_l A
^HEAVY BOMBER - <
Z
6 (RECIPROCATING . 9 .3 (Altitude « 30.000 FT)-
ENGINE), 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1
o
4 A Ml z \ Note:
1 1 1 I 1 1 o
o E fleets of fuzing error and velocity
j
V W
0 | vector relationthips are not accounted
™ & \5 r
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
8 ^ fc & 10 15 20
k
25
y,
162
5-r "Vulnerability of F-84, F-86, F-94 and Bombers to Guided Missiles Having 300 Pound
F-6U Jet Aircraft to Internal Blast", W. E. Fragmentation or Blast Warheads", Ed S.
Baker, O. T. Johnson and R. T. Shanahan, BRL Smith, C. S. Mynes, and W.Stubbs, BRL Memo.
Report 848, October, 1954. Report 540, May, 1951.
5-s "Vulnerability of Aircraft to Internal 5-gg "Optimum Warheads and Burst Points
Blast", Irene M. Cooney, BRL Memo. Report for Bomarc, Phase II Guided Missiles", Ed
542, April, 1952. S. Smith, A. K. Eittreim, and W. L. Stubbs,
5-t "Internal Blast Damage to Aircraft at BRL Memo. Report 739, November, 1953.
High Altitude", BRL Memo. Report 605, April, 5-hh "New Casualty Criteria for Wounding
1952. by Fragments", Allen and Sperrazza, BRL
5-u "Vulnerability of B-47 Wing to Internal Report 996, October, 1956.
Blast", W. E. Baker and O. T. Johnson, BRL
Memo. Report 531, March, 1951. 5-6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
5-v "The Relative Internal Blast Vulnera-
bility of Some Simulated Aircraft Interspar (1) "The Monte Carlo Method and Its
Wing Sections", W. E. Baker and O.T.Johnson, Applications", M. Donsker and M. Kac, Inter-
BRL Tech. Note 557, November, 1951. national Business Machines Corp., New York,
5-w "Computation of Survival Probability of 1951.
a Multi-Component Airplane", J. I. Brown, (2) "Stochastic (Monte Carlo) Attenuation
NAVORD 3597, February, 1954. Analysis", H. Kahn, RAND Corporation Report
5-x "A Theory of Fragmentation", N. F. R-163, 1949.
Mott and E. H. Linfort, January, 1943. (3) "Methods of Reducing Sample Size in
5-y "Justification of an Exponential Fall- Monte Carlo Computations", A. W. Marshall,
Off Law for Number of Effective Fragments", Journal Operations Research Society of Amer-
H. K. Weiss, BRL Report 697, February, 1949. ica, Volume 1, Pages 263-278, 1953.
5-z "Consideration of the Effects of the Size (4) "The Monte Carlo Method as a Nat-
of a Projectile on the Efficiency of its Frag- ural Mode of Expression in Operations Re-
mentation", R. H. Kent, BRL Report X-58, search", Journal Operations Research Society
February, 1933. of America, Volume 1, Pages 46-51, 1953.
5-aa "Damage by Controlled Fragments to (5) "The Monte Carlo Method", N. Me-
Aircraft and Aircraft Components", Arthur tropolis and S. Ulam, Journal American Sta-
Stein and H. Kostiak, BRL Memo.Report 487, tistical Association, Volume 44, Pages 335-341,
February, 1949. 1949.
5-bb "Damage to Aircraft and Aircraft Com- (6) "Monte Carlo Method", National Bu-
ponents by Fragments of Known Mass and Ve- reau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series,
locity from Controlled Fragmentation Shell", Volume 12, 1951.
Johns Hopkins University Project THOR Tech- (7) "Modern Mathematics for the Engi-
nical Report 1, June, 1949. neer", E. F. Beckenbach, McGraw-Hill, New
5-cc "Vulnerable Areas of B-25 Pilot and York, 1956.
Copilot", BRL Memo. Report 538. (8) "Lotto Method of Computing Kill
5-dd "Single Shot Kill Probabilities of NIKE Probability of Large Warheads", F. G. King,
I for Two Fragment Sizes", Stanley Sacks, BRL Memo. Report 530, ASTIA ATI-94269,
BRL Memo. Report 627, October, 1952. December, 1950.
5-ee "Vulnerability of Light, Two-Engine (9) "A Simple Method for Evaluating
Bombers to Guided Missiles with 300 Pound Blast Effects on Buildings", Armour Research
Fragmentation Warhead", Ed S. Smith and C. Foundation, Chicago, ASTIA AD-38891, July,
S. Mynes, BRL Memo. Report 534, April, 1951. 1954.
5-ff "Vulnerability of Heavy Four-Engine (10) "On the Description of a Target Air-
163
iS9-728 Ü - 74 - 1Z
craft", Robert W. Cross, Purdue University Targets on the Ground", Herbert K. Weiss,
Statistical Laboratory Technical Note No. 1, BRL Report 800, January, 1952.
ASTIA AD-57542, November, 1954. (24) "Methods for Computing the Effec-
(11) "Description of a Lethal Area Com- tiveness of Area Weapons", Herbert K.Weiss,
putation Problem", Herbert K. Weiss, BRL BRL Report 879, September, 1953.
Memo. Report 723, ASTIA AD-21133, Septem- (25) "A Technique for Computing the Ef-
ber, 1953. fectiveness of Fragmenting Warhead Mis-
(12) "Warhead Size and Effectiveness", siles", F. S. Acton, Princeton University Tech-
H. H. Porter, Johns Hopkins University, Ap- nical Report 4, ASTIA AD-53412, Oct. 1953.
plied Physics Laboratory, CM-50, ASTIA ATI- (26) "Methods Used at R.A.E. for the As-
32179, May, 1945. sessment of the Lethality of Fragmenting Anti-
(13) "Mathematical Methods of Statis- Aircraft Munitions", J. K. S. Clayton and G.
tics", H. Cramer, Princeton University Press, C. A. Raston, Royal Aircraft Establishment
1946. (Great Britain) Technical Note No. G. W. 372,
(14) "An Introduction to Probability Theo- ASTIA AD-70860, June, 1955.
ry and Its Applications", W. Feller, John Wiley (27) "A Standardized Procedure for Com-
and Sons, New York, 1950. puting Vulnerable Areas Using I. B. M. Equip-
(15) "Statistical Theory with Engineering ment", Donald Freeland, Purdue University
Applications", John Wiley and Sons, New York, Statistical Laboratory Technical Report No. 5,
1952. ASTIA AD-57547, September, 1954.
(16) "The Design and Analysis of Exper- (28) "An Alternate Method for Computing
iments", O. Kempthorne, John Wiley and Sons, Vulnerable Area", Nick Vaughan, Purdue Uni-
New York, 1952. versity Statistical Laboratory Technical Re-
(17) "Statistical Tables and Formulas", port No. 3, ASTIA AD-57545, December, 1954.
A. Hald, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1952. (29) "A Mathematical Formulation for
(18) "On the Collection and Handling of Ordvac Computation of the Probability of Kill
Data", Alfred N. Bock, Army Chemical Corps of an Airplane by a Missile", M. L. Juncosa
Manual No. 1, ASTIA AD-10830, May, 1952. and D. M. Young, BRL Report 867, ASTIA AD-
(19) "Probability Functions Associated 17267, May, 1953.
With Measures of Vulnerability", J. R. Stein- (30) "The Use of Gamma Rays for the
hilfer, Columbia Research and Development Simulation of Warhead Fragment Damage",
Corp. Report No. 124-4, ASTIA AD-82736, H. R. Crane, University of Michigan, ASTIA
November, 1955. ATI-133952, December, 1951.
(20) "Random Sampling Numbers", M. G. (31) "Aircraft Vulnerability as a Function
Kendall and B. B. Smith, Tracts for Computers, of Fragmentation Penetration", C. F. Meyer,
2nd Series, No. XXIV, Cambridge University H. S. Morton and H. H. Porter, Johns Hopkins
Press, London, 1939. University, Applied Physics Laboratory, TG-
(21) "Mathematical Models In Large- 24, ASTIA ATI-26719, April, 1947.
Scale Computing Units", D. H. Lehmer, Pro- (32) "Effectiveness of Warheads for
ceedings Second Symposium on Large-Scale Guided Missiles Used Against Aircraft", Ed
Digital Calculating Machinery, 1949, Pages S. Smith, BRL Memo. Report 507, ASTIA ATI-
141-146, Harvard University Press, 1951. 75527, March, 1950.
(22) "Computation of Missile Trajectories (33) "A Study of the Effectiveness of a
in Three Dimensions", Clogett Bowie, Glenn Mother-Daughter Type Warhead for the Spar-
L. Martin Co., January, 1957. row Missile", Sperry Gyroscope Co., ASTIA
(23) "Methods for Computing the Effec- ATI-152369, May, 1950.
tiveness of Fragmentation Weapons Against (34) "Thumper Project-Study oftheProb-
164
k--.^w
ability of Destruction of Enemy Missile", H. (46) "Poisson's Exponential Binomial
Chestnut, General Electric Co., Report TR- Limit Tables", E. C. Molina, D. VanNostrand
45849, ASTIA ATI-2754, March, 1947. Co., Inc., N.Y.C., 1942.
(35) "Thumper Project - Approximate (47) "Offset Circle Hit Probabilities",
Methods for Determining Probability of Target RAND Tables 234.
Destruction", H. Chestnut, General Electric (48) "1500 lb Antipersonnel Warhead for
Co. Report TR-55302, ASTIA ATI 3892, April, the Honest John Rocket", Ed S. Smith et al,
1947. BRL Memo. Report 779.
(36) "The Effectiveness of Zeus and Re- (49) "Salvo Hit Probabilities for Offset
lated Missiles", ASTIA ATI-76522, December, Circular Targets", A. D. Groves and Ed S.
1949. Smith, BRL Tech. Note 1088.
(37) ' 'Test and Evaluation of the XKD24-1 (50) "Effectiveness of Bomarc 300 lb War-
Target PA", George M. Miller, Naval Air heads Against B-29 Type Bombers", Ed S.
Missile Test Center Technical Report 32, Smith et al, BRL Memo. Report 595, January,
ASTIA ATI-36922, September, 1948. 1952.
(38) "Development and Evaluation Testing (51) "A Comparison of the Effectiveness of
of KDH-1 Target PA", George M. Miller, Conventional Rifles with an Experimental
Naval Air Missile Test Center Technical Re- 'Salvo Weapon' ", Theodore E. Sterne, BRL
port 45, ASTIA ATI-52642, April, 1949. Memo. Report No. 951, January, 1956 (Formu-
(39) "Report of Evaluation Panel on Bum- lation for Salvo and determining o from hits
blebee Project", Johns Hopkins University Ap- within a given radius).
plied Physics Laboratory, ASTIA ATI-108855, (52) "Optimum Warheads and Burst Points
June, 1946. for Bomarc, Phase II Guided Missiles", Ed S.
(40) "Efficiency of Assumed Fuzings for Smith, A. K. Eittreim, W. L. Stubbs, BRL
Bomarc Phase II Guided Missiles", Ed S. Memo. Report No. 739, November, 1953.
Smith, et al, BRL Memo. Report 776, March, (53) "Multiple Bombing of Targets Having
1954. an Exponential Density Fall-Off", BRL Report
(41) "Procedures for Obtaining Binomial No. 895, Charles E. Clark, and G.Trevor Wil-
Probabilities Within Three Decimal Accuracy liams, February, 1954.
Universally", Ed S. Smith, BRL Report 718, (54) "Exposure to Airburst Warheads of
May, 1950. Men in an Artillery Battery and in Infantry
(41a) "Binomial Normal & Poisson Proba- Positions", Ed S. Smith, BRL Memo. Report
bilities", Ed S. Smith, Published and distrib- No. 1115, November, 1957. (Also see BRL
uted by Ed S. Smith, Box 279, R.D. 2, Bel Air, Memo. Report No. 1067.)
Maryland, 1953. Revision of BRL Report 718. (55) "Elementary Comparison of Antiair-
(42) ' 'Tables ofCumulativeBinomialProba- craft Warhead Types", HerbertK. Weiss,BRL
bilities", Ordnance Corps ORDP 20-1, Septem- Memo. Report No. 631, November, 1952.
ber, 1952. (56) "A Mathematical Formulation for
(43) "Theory of Probability with Appli- ORDVAC Computation of the Probability of Kill
cations", Henry Scheffe, NDRC A-224, OSRD of an Airplane by a Missile", M. L. Juncosa
No. 1918, 14 February 1944. and D. M. Young, BRL Report 867, 1953.
(44) "An Introduction to the Analysis of (57) "Tables of Probability Density Func-
the Results of Firing Trials", T. R.Gemmell, tion kxa e -bxc ", Charles E. Clark, BRL Re-
CARDE Report No. 288/52, September, 1952. port No. 1007, February, 1957.
(45) "Complex of Soviet Ground Targets on (58) "Table of Salvo Kill Probabilities for
a Stabilized Front", Wm. A. McKean (Lt. Col. Square Targets", National Bureau of Stand-
Inf.) and Ed S. Smith, BRL Memo. Report 855. ards, Applied Mathematics Series, 44, 1954.
165
(59) "Expected Coverage of a Circular (61) "A Class of Casualty Functions with
Target with a Salvo of n Area Kill Weapons'', Special Application to Circular Targets",
Arthur D. Groves, BRL Memo. Report No. Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
1084, July, 1957. Case 417.000, August, 1954.
(60) "The Effectiveness of Various Weap- (62) "A Concept Armament System for the
ons Used in Air Attack on Ground Troops", Main Battle Tank", D. C. Hardison andB. N.
M. Trauring, BRL Report No. 754, May, 1951. Goulet, BRL Tech. Note 1183, April, 1958.
166
Chapter 6
WARHEAD TESTING
6-1. INTRODUCTION A test program may then be planned to deter-

mine if these objectives can or have been
The warhead designer needs to know the achieved and to obtain basic information for the
philosophies and techniques associated with the development of the warhead design. Since it is
testing of warheads for missiles. Testing and entirely possible that some of the required
experimentation of some type is a basic re- information is already available, it is recom-
quirement during research and development mended that all possible reference sources be
leading to the successful design of a guided thoroughly investigated by the warhead de-
missile warhead. Component testing is re- signer prior to planning the test program.
quired to verify assumptions and to determine Once detailed development and testing has
unknowns which cannot be predetermined ana- begun, additional test requirements will proba-
lytically. With the exception of combat ex- bly become apparent. In many instances, these
perience, it is only through testing that the new requirements will originate during the
effectiveness and reliability of a warhead and testing of the various warhead components.
its weapon system can be defined. Therefore, Budgeting for a test program should therefore
consideration must be given by the warhead be flexible enough to allow for such additional
designer to the formulation and execution of an requirements.
adequate test program which will produce the
required data economically and at the proper 6-2.2. Outlining the Test Requirements The war-
time. head designer should first outline the basic
problems that must be investigated in the
6-2. PLANNING OF TEST PROGRAM development program. With this outline as a
guide, the test requirements can be established
6-2.1. Introduction The testing associated with and the necessary facilities, equipment, and
the development of a new warhead is a complex instrumentation can be determined. A typical
operation involving the coordinated effort of outline giving the basic parameters which the
many people, often over a considerable dura- designer would investigate in a test program
tion of time. The data generated by the test follows. A cluster warhead has been chosen
program is needed by the warhead designer at as an example, since the problems which are
particular times during the warhead develop- associated with this warhead are representa-
ment program. Therefore, careful planning of tive of the other warhead types.
the test program should be initiated as soon as
possible after the design requirements for the CLUSTER WARHEAD-
warhead system have been established. PARAMETERS OF INTEREST
The approximate extent of testing required
during the development period can be deter- I. COMPONENTS
mined by clearly setting forth the objectives A. Submissile
for the warhead and its associated components. 1. Aerodynamic Characteristics
167
2. Damage Mechanism Character- instrumentation setup becomes more complex,
istics the reliability decreases. This usually re-
3. Structural Integrity quires some duplication of instrumentation to
4. Number assure sufficient data output. It may be
B. Submissile Ejection System necessary to spend some time developing new
1. Ejection Velocity instrumentation if available equipment is un-
2. Submissile Damage satisfactory.
3. Adjacent Component Damage The availability of suitable test ranges
C. Skin or Fin Removal System must be determined and arrangements made
1. System Effectiveness for their use through appropriate channels.
2. Adjacent Component Damage Instrumentation and trained personnel are
3. Ejection Sequence available at most testing agencies. Organiza-
D. Warhead Structure tions having extensive test facilities usually
1. Structural Integrity have a standard procedure for scheduling test
E. Initiation System programs. This scheduling is done through an
office which assigns a priority to the program.
II. WARHEAD SYSTEM The warhead designer should expect some delay
A. Component Functioning during the scheduling phase. In addition, a
1. Static Conditions sufficient amount of time should be allowed
2. Dynamic Conditions for pre-test preparations. This could involve
B. Dispersion a few hours for a simple test or many weeks
1. Static Conditions for a more complex program. Certain pro-
2. Dynamic Conditions grams may require the construction of a
C. Specified Engagement Conditions special test facility. In some instances, delay
1. Potential Lethality may be caused by lack of coordination within
2. Reliability a test facility where several organizations are
contributing to the effort. One unit may be
loading the test item, a second building a
6-2.3. Establishing a Specific Test Program Once special test fixture, a third fabricating the
the general outline of the test program has been fuzing system, and still a fourth handling the
established, specific tests should be planned as instrumentation. Adverse weather conditions
far in the future as possible. Among the factors can also delay a program. After completion
to be considered when planning for these tests of the test, it may be costly and time consuming
are the availability of instrumentation, test to dismantle the test setup.
facilities and ranges. Safety may also be a An important factor to be considered in
vital problem. Methods of reducing and analyz- planning a test program is the availability of
ing the resulting data must be set up. Having the test item. Developmental material is nearly
reviewed his test requirements in view of the always costly. Also, it is not always possible
above factors, the designer should be able to to duplicate or repeat tests. It is very im-
decide on the most appropriate method of portant to consider every possible problem
securing the required data. when planning a program to test a develop-
Of primary importance in the planning of mental item. Tests should be carefully planned
a test program is the determination of the and the instrumentation should be thoroughly"
type and availability of the instrumentation checked before use.
necessary to secure the desired information. Safety is a prime consideration and every
Inherent reliability and ease of data reduction effort should be made during the planning stage
and analysis are major factors influencing the to insure a maximum consideration of safety
selection of instruments. Generally, as the before, during, and after the tests. Care must
168
be taken during the design of the test item to fragment impact points. Bad terrain will com-
insure that the detonators and initiators will be pound the difficulties, although tests of this
the last components installed in the test pack- type are usually conducted over cleared areas.
age. Personnel, the instrumentation and ad- However, it is difficult to keep these areas
joining installations must be protected from completely clear of underbrush. Sometimes the
stray fragments as well as blast damage. Test- wind will reverse, blowing the test items into
ing of incendiary warheads must be conducted wooded areas. Since many dispersion tests
in a location which minimizes the fire hazard. are conducted over sandy desert areas, it is
Wherever a fire hazard is present, some type possible for the test item to bury itself in the
of fire fighting equipment should be present. sand, making recovery difficult. The designer
The testing of CW and BW warheads presents should inspect these ranges and inquire about
special safety problems. All test facilities any local conditions which could hinder data
should have a safety officer who has the re- acquisition, such as rainfall or sandstorms.
sponsibility for reviewing and approving the It may be necessary to conduct the tests under
test program, and who is to be consulted when weather conditions less than ideal. This could
there are special problems. result in poor film exposures; these create a
particularly difficult problem if high speed
6-2.4. Data Reduction and interpretation The in- photography is involved.
strumentation and test facilities are important An important limiting factor in the taking
factors that affect the early stages of planning of data is instrumentation failure. This is
a test; however, the warhead designer should particularly a problem wherever a large
not overlook the later problems associated with amount of complex equipment is used. To pre-
data reduction and interpretation. These often vent a complete loss of data, dual or alternate
affect the selection of instrumentation and test instrumentation should be used. For example,
facilities. Where data-reduction organizations it is particularly important to duplicate high-
are available at the test facility, it is advan- speed cameras. The engineer, when planning
tageous to make use of them whenever possible. for instrumentation, should anticipate emer-
The warhead designer will find that there gencies so as to provide a sufficient number
are several limiting factors to an organiza- of alternate means for securingthe data. Then,
tion's ability to reduce and assimilate data. if there is an instrument malfunction, it may
Sufficient trained personnel and equipment may still be possible to reduce the remaining data.
not be available or may be too busy to take on During many testing programs, there are
additional work. If the organization is capable repeated instrumentation malfunctions. When
of accepting the work, there may still be the time and funding are important factors, the
problems associated with the inherent condi- warhead designer should insist that the mal-
tions of the test. These include such items as functioning equipment be replaced. It is better
poor film exposures and the use of instrumenta- to postpone a test and wait for adequate in-
tion which is less than optimum. In many strumentation, than to proceed with equipment
instances, the tested item does not function as which is not functioning properly. If there are
expected. For instance, a missile may fall so continued data reduction problems because of
far short of its target as to cause all of the poor instrumentation, the designer should in-
cameras to fail to record the impact point. vestigate alternate means and approaches.
The conditions under which the test is con- Weapon evaluation can be achieved by com-
ducted contribute to these problems. The paring the test results which the design ob-
dispersion of some types of warheads, such as jectives or with some previously established
fragment warheads, will cover a large area. performance criteria. If these criteria are not
This could mean that a considerable amount of available or are questionable, the warhead de-
time must be spent locating and plotting the signer may either accept the test results or
169
<UT
jo s;xnsaj aqx 'aduqs xo azis /Lire O; papjoui aq^jossauaAipajja aq} o;a;jB papnpuoo Anunsn
aq UBO Äaqj aouis ûaiuaAuoo 8JB sôojq asaqx axe Xaqx 'puaqxEM aq} jo ssauaAipajja pire
•Xpoq ireumq aqj jo s^jBd yos jo }Bift sa^Bui uoi^Bjado aq} a}BSi}saAin o} papnpuoo a,iB adÄ}
-pcOviddB uijBjaS jo Aoua^sisuoo aqx "sâSxei siq}jo s}sax 'spuaqxEAv a}ajduioo JLO fBuoipBJj
ireumq a^nuiis o} pasn saunjauios axe s^pojq JO 3ui}sa} saprqoui asuqd puooas aqx
urpjjao •sjui.iaiBui }aSje} .iaqô pire a^jd •sajissiuiqns ,ia}srqo
xomxe 'sjpiB; 'suoipas }ju.io.irB apnpui sâS-iB} pun spo.i 's;uain3Bjj uo papnpuoo si adA}
juoicLtx 'pasn aau sâS-iB} pa^Bjnuns 'ajqisuaj siq} jo 3ui}sax '}SBjq jo spajja pire 'uoi}i3,i}
pu si siqj uaq^ •suoijB.iado juquioo junpB UI -auad 's}iuin ATT^q^Î 'sajdurexa .ioj 'apnpui
pa.ia}unooua aq ppiOM qoiqM s;a3JB; aures aq} pa}i3Si}saAiii sjapurexBd! "unSaq si 3ui}sa} xo
ajB asaq} 'sasBO AUBUI iq "sâaje} pjoidÄ} }i3 SuiuSisap pâqJBAV areas aS-iBj Aire ajojaq auop
S}uaui3i3.ij jo sdnooS n^tus JO junpiAipui SUIJIJ si siqx •uisiireqoaui aäuurep puaqjeM papayas
Aq pauiuuaâp si Aîjuqâx ûauiStfjj stuswßojj aq} jo ssauaAipajja aq} AJIJBA o} pajmbaj
S}sa} sapnpui asuqd }SJIJ aqx 'sasuqd OM} 0}UI
6u{^«9^ uisjUDipayy a6DUiDg - ( asDijj *3*£-9 papiAip si 3ui}sa} pBaqxBAV uojjanpojjui 'i"£-9
•SAVonoj adÄ} puaqjUM S3nOINHD31 ONV $3ancl3DOad 1S31 '£-9

qoua q}pw paîoossB saonpaoojd pire sanbiu
-qoa} re}uauiijadxa aq} jo uoi}diJosap y rejja}ijo aoireuijoj
•paqsij -jad ajquiio^sanb aq} AJIJBA O} BIJ8}IJO AVBU
-qu}sa uaaq suq uisiireqoaui Supnpojd aäuurep qsipi3}sao}ure.iSojd9ui}sa}a}i3.ii3das B pnpuoo
•uoijnqujsjp puD UOJJDJI

-auad juauj6DJ^ Moqs puo pDaqjDM aqj UJOJ^ suoijDjuauo PUD saouDj
-sjp snouDA ;D pa6uDJjD QAD S|DU9JDUJ ja6jDMaqjopuDsajD|d |aajs
2WSS6 owqd lafojav
ä^*^'
■j^m^^^ä
avaHHVM
ORDP 20-290
BACK-UP PLUG |p BACK-UP DISC . ... . • ' . , . . ■
FRAGMENT'
° / (actuaUy a flechette)
VA .
Exploded View - Fragment plus Sabot Components
Barrel and Receiver - Fragment Gun

Figure 6-2. Fragment Gun and Sabot
firings are usually determined by visual ob- fragment being tested. It is then necessary to
servation of the blocks or photographs thereof. develop a powder charge which will impart the
Firing of fragments can usually be accom- desired velocity to the fragment. It is un-
plished with a modified gun. The gun chosen necessary to waste sabots when developing the
should be capable of being fitted with a barrel powder charge, since equivalent weight slugs
sufficiently large to accommodate the frag- of the correct bore diameter can be substituted
ments. It is necessary to contain the frag- for the sabot-fragment combination.
ments being fired in sabots which so support There are three methods by which frag-
the fragments that they may be properly ac- ment velocities can be measured. These are
celerated in the gun. Sabots are usually de- electronic, photographic, and penetration. Of
signed to separate from the fragment when the three, the electronic method is the most
leaving the barrel. Once a firing program of suitable for single firings. A counter chrono-
this type is decided upon, the test engineer graph is used to measure the fragment flight
must select or design a suitable gun and cart- time between two screens which are a known
ridge case, and also design a sabot for the distance apart. The screens are rigged in such
171
a manner as to have the fragment close an simulate the terminal velocity. The resulting
electrical circuit when passing through the information is best obtained by visual observa-
screen. A typical (make) screen would have tion. Particular emphasis is placed on pene-
two electrically conductive materials sepa- tration, the amount of structural damage, the
rated by an insulator. A fragment passing amount of equipment disabled, and after effects
through the screen would short the two con- such as fires.
ductors, thus sending an impulse to the chrono- In some cases, fragmentation submissiles
graph. As an alternate, the chronograph could are tested for fragment lethality in the same
be rigged to be triggered by having the fragment manner as are fragment warheads. The setup
break an electrical circuit. The circuit in this does not have to be as large, although the same
instance could be a series of wires stretched type of data is obtained (i.e., fragment size,
across the fragments' flight path. These two weight, velocity, and distribution).
methods are satisfactory when fragment ac- Testing is also required to determine the
curacy cannot be guaranteed. If the screens flight characteristics of both the stabilized and
are to be used over 100 feet from the chrono- the unstabilized submissiles. This can be ac-
graph, it may be necessary to use an amplifier complished by testing a model of the sub-
in the line to boost the signal. When more missile in a wind tunnel, firing it from a gun
accurate prediction of the fragment path is or dropping it from an airplane or tower. When
possible, lumaline screens can be used. These the submissile is dropped, the flight charac-
screens have photoelectric cells which give teristics are determined by tracking it with a
an impulse when a light beam is broken. The photo theodolite, a conventional movie camera
velocity can also be measured from high speed or a radar device. When the submissile is
movies of the fragment in flight, although this fired from a gun, it is necessary to determine
method is more difficult since the equipment both velocities and attitudes down range. At-
is not easily available and the data reduction titudes can be determined from microflash or
can be time consuming. shadow graphs, while flight attitude can be
Penetration into celotex is often used as determined from holes in yaw screens. This
indication of velocity. This is a crude method is accomplished by examining the hole shape
as penetration depth varies with both the angle the test sample makes in a paper screen at a
of impact and the consistency of the celotex. station along the line of flight. The submissile's
When the fragments are fired against sim- velocity, if high, may be determined from the
ulated targets, penetration can be used as a shadow graphs. If this is not feasible, velocities
criteria of the effectiveness of the fragments. can be obtained using a counter chronograph
This is especially true of aircraft structural and n + 1 screens for n velocity measurements
sections, electronic equipment, vehicles, and required.
infantry equipment. Infantry equipment used as
targets includes helmets, armored vests, etc. Rods The effectiveness against a typical target
of a particular size rod must be known before
Cluster Submissiles Testing of the submissiles it can be incorporated in a warhead. The war-
is required to determine their effectiveness in head designer is therefore interested in estab-
tactical use. Submissiles loaded with high lishing, first, the minimum degree of structural
explosives can be either the blast or frag- damage which must be inflicted upon a target
mentation type. They are tested by being shot to disable it, and secondly, in determining the
at or placed adjacent to obsolete aircraft, size, material composition, and terminal ve-
vehicles, equipment, and available components locity of the rod required to inflict this damage.
of new weapons likely to be targets. The sub- The degree of structural damage neces-
missiles are fired from a gun similar to that sary to disable a target aircraft can be deter-
used for fragment lethality tests, in order to mined by a progressive artificial severing of
the structural members in a typical aircraft
172
Lumaline screens containing light-sensitive cell which is activated
when fragment passes through the triangular portion of the screen.
Figure 6-3. Screen Used for Measuring Velocity
section which has been placed under a simu- type of gun are similar to those described in
lated flight load. Thus, when failure of the the section on fragments. When it is required
section occurs, the amount of structure which that the rods hit the target with random orien-
a rod must cut to disable the target will be tation, a suitable object is placed in the rod's
known. line of flight to cause the rod to tumble before
The rod size, composition and velocity striking the target. An alternate means of
required to produce the necessary structural propelling the rod is to place it in a heavy
damage can be determined experimentally by metal support structure with some high explo-
observing the terminal ballistics of rods im- sive. The high explosive, when detonated, is
pacting against typical targets. Only by firing contained in the metal structure so as to
rods of various cross sections and materials impart a high initial lateral velocity to the
into targets at various velocities and observing rod. -(See Figure 6-4.)
the resulting damage is it possible to determine A minimum of instrumentation is required
the optimum rod configuration. For example, for these tests to determine optimum rod
these targets may be scrapped aircraft sec- configuration. It is first necessary to establish
tions or typical aircraft structural members. the rod velocities. This can be done either with
The rods are propelled by firing them from high speed photography or (electronically) with
specially designed guns. In one application, a chronograph and screens. The terminal
the rods are supported in the barrel by a sabot ballistics of the rods can be determined visu-
which separates from the rod as it leaves the ally, by high speed photography or, if desired,
barrel. The procedures used to develop this with flash radiography.
173
NITIATING END
ROD PATHS
ROD CUTTING
BROKEN ROD
^
1
CELOTEX
BOTTOM PASSAGE 2*" TARGET BACKSTOP
CONFINING POSITION I
BLOCK
WELDED STEE ^ SHIELD
ROD GUN J-
I'/x'/2 COMPOSITION
VELOCITY SCREENS
C-3 COLUMN
MAY BE PLACED BE-
UNCONFINED - 2500 ft/sec FORE Ö AFTER TARGET
CONFINED- 3000 ft/sec
8" ROD, 9" COLUMN, WELDED TOP Ö BOTTOM
RODS GIVE BEST RESULTS
5 , l
/8 x /4"x4"R0DS FROM SIMILAR UNCONFINED C0NFIGURATI0N-I950 ft/sec
Figure 6-4. Individual Rod Test
6-3.3. Phase 11 - Warhead and Warhead Components The instrumentation used for the most part
in these tests is photographic. Both high speed
Fragmentation Warheads Two objectives are to be framing and smear cameras find applications
achieved when testing a fragmentation warhead. for determining fragment velocity. Visual ob-
First, these tests confirm or deny the assump- servation is sufficient for securing a large
tions the designer has made, and secondly, percentage of the data regarding dispersion and
they demonstrate the effectiveness and opera- fragment breakup. The dispersion of the frag-
tion of the warhead design. The parameters ments is determined by plotting the impacts
of interest to the designer of a fragmentation at different ranges with reference to a given
warhead are the same regardless of the type point. When a warhead is detonated over a
of fragment used. These are the number, mass water pit, photographs are taken of the splashes
and distribution of potentially lethal fragments. caused by the fragments hitting the water.
Most fragmentation warhead testing is The blast effects may affect the clarity of the
done in circular or semicircular firing arenas film in this kind of test.
with walls sufficiently thick to stop most of Unstabilized fragments can be either pre-
the fragments. Celotex is placed at suitable formed, such as spheres or cubes, or fire-
locations to insure a fair sampling of the formed. Fire-formed fragments are formed by
fragments. The warhead is hung in the center controlling the fragmentation of the warhead
of the arena on a gallows arrangement. As an casing. Although the casing design may be
alternate method, the warhead can be hung theoretically correct, testing is required to
over a sand or water pit. Armored shelters confirm its fragmentation. Under certain cir-
are used to protect the men and instrumentation cumstances, the test item may be scaled
from blast or fragment damage. down to facilitate the testing procedure. By
174
TARGETS
, SU**
FRAGMENT RECOVERY BOX WARHEAD . ;% " t 7'1 -•"T^'ZZ

r
~m '— - a »-"î?"*! 3£5« ssö
US. Army Photo
Field test set-up to determine down-range flight characteristics of
fin stabilized fragments.
Figure 6-5. Complete Fragmeni Warhead Test
detonation over a sand pit, it is possible to observed.

recover the fragments and observe fragment Fragment terminal velocity is often esti-
breakup. mated by penetration of depth of penetration
The initial fragment velocity depends pri- into celotex. When possible, high speed photo-
marily on the amount of high explosive used graphs of the fragments striking a target are
relative to the weight of fragment material. taken. This is accomplished by choosing a tar-
The fragment velocity can be measured by get material which produces a spark when
detonating scale model warheads havingdiffer- struck by the fragments. These sparks are
ent charge-to-metal ratios and by photograph- photographed and the time is then related back
ing the fragments at a distance of ten to fifteen to the initial detonation impulse. If times of
feet from the point of detonation with a smear flight to different ranges are known, then a
camera. Smear cameras give, at a particular velocity curve can be plotted. Another method
point, a time history which can be referenced of merit is photographing the fragments as
to the time of detonation. The disadvantage of they strike a frangible target. If these targets
using smear cameras is their narrow width are sufficiently small, the location of the
of field. When a large number of these warheads shattered targets provide a means of corre-
must be fired, it is feasible to simulate the lating dispersion, fragment shape and orienta-
fragment weight with inexpensive steel ballast tion with terminal velocity. It is sometimes
on the parts of the warhead which will not be feasible to color the fragments according to
175
SUDMISSILES
CENTER OF BURST
I
U. S. Army Photo
Warhead suspended between two poles with high-speed photographic

coverage to determine submissile pattern.
Figure 6-6. Submissile Ejection System Test
their location in the warhead. This enables the system, envelope removal system, and struc-
project engineer to correlate data pertaining to ture.
recovered fragments with their original loca- There are two types of submissile ejection
tion in the warhead. (Ceramic paint must be systems. When the submissiles must be forci-
used for this purpose since fragments get so bly ejected, a pyrotechnic system is used.
hot when fired that their steel "blues".) Aerodynamic means are used when forcible
ejection is not desired.
Cluster Warheads Because of the inherent com- The objective of forcible ejection is to
plexity of the cluster warhead, the designer eject a submissile of given weight from the
should anticipate an extensive test program. warhead at a specified velocity and with a
Consideration should be given to the different specified maximum acceleration. The develop-
procedures and techniques required for the ment of any such system requires an extensive
testing of cluster warheads and their compo- amount of testing. The engineer should select
nents. a test site which affords a maximum of safety
The effectiveness of a cluster warhead is for the ejection method chosen. If a powder
dependent directly upon the successful func- charge is selected for propulsion, instrumenta-
tioning of its components. These components tion is required to determine chamber pres-
include the submissiles, submissile ejection sure versus time, thrust versus time, and the
176
Gun tube ejection type Warhead mounted on test sled view taken
after firing shows the missile skin removed.
Figure 6-7. Skin Removal Test
missile ejection velocity. A reusable test stand head. Photographic coverage of the ejection
is required to mount the submissile and ejection sequence gives a maximum of information.
device. Pressure measurements are necessary A timing setup can be provided to determine
to determine thrust as well as to insure that the time from initial impulse to the time the
the ejection device has structural integrity. last submissile is ejected. Visual observation
These measurements are made with either a will indicate whether the operation of the
transducer or a piezoelectric crystal gauge ejection system affects any of the other warhead
whose output is fed into an oscilloscope and components.
recorded with a camera. Peak pressure can be An aerodynamic ejection system relies
determined with a copper crusher gauge. primarily on aerodynamic forces to eject the
Thrust is measured with a strain gauge. Veloc- submissiles after the warhead skin has been
ities are measured either photographically or removed. During flight testing to determine
with a counter chronograph, if the screens or the effectiveness of the system, photographic
circuits can be set up. coverage is used to investigate functional per-
Once a powder charge has been developed, formance of the system and any interference
testing is still required to determine if all the of other system components with the ejection
submissiles can be ejected uniformly. This sequence.
testing requires the use of an assembled war- Skin ejection is accomplished explosively
177
8AI
aqx "seAfloefqo ;sa; OM; aq Atftmsii XJM a*taqx *pa;ou s;xnsaj aq;
•ajqissod jaAauaqM pa;oajas aq 3ui;sa; acM; puepa;euo;apuaq;si aSxeqo aqx 'aAisoxdxa aq;
oiureuAp ;uq; jauSisap am o; papuauiuioaaj o; aATVBjaj Xxjadojd pa;uaijo aju 's;aauoduioo
si ;i -oiuii?uAp JO OI;B;S jaq;ia aq ura uia;sAS pa;uiTrans JO 's;uauoduioo asaq; 'pajmbaj
puaqjBM a;axduioo aq; jo 3ui;sa; aqx ajiB s;uauoduioo puaqju/vi jaq;o aq; uo s;oajja
•uoi;onj;sap o; uia;i aq; aq; ajaqAV 'pa;ou s;msaj aq; pire *pa;i3uo;ap
Sui;sa; japisuoo pmoqs jauSisap aq; 'ajqissod JI aotAap fBAOuiaj aq; 'pire;s aq; uo paoijxd BJB
'puB*jauui2uixiJuoi;uaAuooaq;ui pauuojjad ajB upis aq; jo sajdures "a;i3nbapi3 ST uoi;i2Ajasqo
s;sa; asaqx 'spBOx oiureuÄp ptre OT;U;S japun XensiA aouis s;sa; asaq; JOJ pajmbaj si UOT;
q;Suaj;s s;i auiuija;ap o; ajn;onj;s puaqjBM -B;uaumj;suTouXxrBoi;onj{i #saoiAap aAisoxdxa
OTS^q aq; ;sa; o; Xjussaoau aq ABUI ;i jo uoi;x*uo;ap aq; q;iM 3uijajja;ui UIOJJ puiqs
•suoi;ipuoo OT;U;S japun suSisap aq; ;uaAajd o; si uiaxqojd A'jBunjd aq; laxduns
;Xoq SUOIJUA jo Sm;sa; ûoipunj saAjoAin XxaAT;BxaJSi8ui;sa;sTq; JOI pajmbaj putqs ;sa;
siqx •uoi;Bjn3ijuoD ;xoq umun;do aq; auiui aqx #s;uauoduioo pnaqjBM uo uia;As siq; jo Su;
-ja;ap o; Sui;sa; xûoT;ippu auios sa;B;issaoau -uoi;ounjaq;jos;oajja aq; pine raa;sÄs xuAOuiaj
s;xoq aATso^dxa jo asn aqx 'uia;sAs \vAouidx ui^s aq; jo ssauaAT;oajja a\# axe s;uiod jotmii
9
upis aq; JOJ pasn ;-eq; o; JUXTUITS si iua;sAS qX"s;ioqaATsoxdxa Äq paAouiaj ajB SUTI anqM
XBAOUIBJ UIJ u JOJ ajnpaoojd ;sa; aqx pjoo 3ui;Buo;ap JO saäjuqo padi3qs jaq;ia q;tM
sjn
poaijJDft jafsn/j afafdwoj • jsaji pa/J "S'9 &!J
•aouanbas uonoafa 6UIMOI|S 'pa|s jsa; uo pa;unotu

pDaqjDM jajsnp jo aßDjaAOo DjaiuDo paads-ußjH
, **■ • -■ -
.... ■
U. S. Navy Photo NP/45-39870

Ice target prepared for test. Shaped charge is fired on stand near
right side of picture so that all jet fragments are caught in the ice.
Figur» 6-9. Complete Shaped Charge Warhead Test
first objective is to determine if the warhead the cameras be located accurately to insure
functions as it was designed to, and the second proper coverage.
is to observe the submissile pattern. The deto- Flight testing or air dropping a warhead
nation of a cluster warhead under dynamic system is not recommended unless the compo-
conditions provides the warhead project engi- nents of the system have been thoroughly
neer with a fairly accurate picture of the per- checked out and no other means were feasible.
formance of the warhead under actual condi- The instrumentation used in this case is gen-
tions. A cluster warhead can be tested dyna- erally photographic. Cameras are often located
mically be a sled test, flight test, or air drop. in chase aircraft as well as on the ground.
The selection of a sled or track facility Phototheodolites are used to determine the
is affected by the chance of damaging the track orientation of the missile before detonation.
when detonating the warhead. By securing a If the ground pattern is desired, the submissiles
track test facility, one can be certain that a are ejected over a terrain which will facilitate
maximum of information will be derived. In- their recovery.
strumentation for a test of this type can be as Static testing of cluster warheads requires
complex as the warhead designer requires. a test stand or tower. When results are
Generally, this includes extensive high speed analyzed, allowances may be made for inter-
photographic coverage to indicate the effective- ference with the submissiles by the tower
ness of the skin removal system and the ejec- structure. Again, instrumentation is photo-
tion system. A test of this type requires that graphic.
179
559-7Z8 O - 74
Army Photo
Fighter aircraft suspended between two towers with blast warhead
detonated beneath it to determine warhead effectiveness.
Figure 6-10. Blast Warhead Test
Shaped Charge Warheads The warhead designer ber. Dependent on the information required, the
relies heavily on the results of previous re- charges are detonated statically or dynamical-
search when designing a shaped charge war- ly. When it is desired to fire the charge from
head. The bulk of such results are obtained a gun for dynamic tests, special test cases
from experimental work. However, it is not are fabricated. These cases are used not only
possible, in most instances, to scale the re- to contain the charge, but also to control the
sults up or down to predict the performance charge parameters so that a complete analysis
of a new warhead. This is especially true for can be made of the firing. When being tested
those warheads which are associated with statically, the charges can either be contained
missiles having a high rate of spin. Therefore, in the same type of case or tested in an un-
the warhead designer must perform a con- confined condition, dependent on the informa-
siderable amount of testing on full size war- tion desired. The charge is usually either
heads. placed on a simple stand or hung, adjacent to
Basic investigations into shaped charge the target at the proper standoff. Where stand-
performance include testing to determine the offs of any large distance are used, it is
effects of various charge parameters upon such necessary to hang the charge with some ac-
factors as target penetration, hole volume, jet curacy to insure hitting the target. The targets
velocity, composition and shape. These tests used for these tests range from the typical
are conducted either outdoors on a firing targets encountered in combat to material
range or in a specially constructed test cham- samples such as armor plate, mild steel,
180
aluminum, reinforced concrete, large thick- patterns are dependent upon the configuration
nesses of earth, and combinations thereof. of the explosive cavity. Rod velocities are also
The data resulting from these tests can be dependent upon the amount of high explosive
secured by diverse methods including visual used. Therefore, the warhead designer usually
observation to determine penetration, and flash has various warhead configurations of a par-
radiography to obtain data such as jet velocity, ticular type fired before attaining a satisfactory
composition and shape. High speed photography design.
also finds applications in this field. Examina- The test procedures for a rod warhead are
tion of the warhead residue gives an indication very similar to those which are used for a
of the operational efficiency of the warhead. The complete fragmentation warhead. The warhead
recovery of scorched, undetonated "chunks" is hung or supported in the center of a test
of explosive, for instance, is an indication of arena with targets placed around the circum-
a low order explosion. These tests and design ference. Data which the warhead designer re-
modifications continue until a substantially quires includes rod velocity, patterns, shapes,
optimum warhead configuration has been se- orientation and, for discrete rod warheads, dis-
cured. persion. Target damage is also of interest.
Small warheads can be fired from guns at Rod velocities are obtained by the use of
specially prepared targets while large war- high speed photography. Vertical aluminum
heads must be installed in missiles for firing. tubes are placed in the ground at various
A typical target which could be located distances from the point of detonation. When
on the missile test range is a fortified combat these tubes are struck by the rods, a bright
communications center. It would be instrumen- flash is given off. This flash is picked up by
ted by placing simulated personnel at various the cameras and the impact time is correlated
locations in and around the target. Photographic with timing marks on the film.
coverage would be set up at a safe distance The rod pattern for a continuous rod war-
from the point of impact. Most of the data re- head is obtained by visual observation. Thin
sulting from a firing of this type would be sheets of metal, called pattern sheets, are
obtained by visual observation. The condition placed perpendicular to the rod flight path
of the simulated humans would give an idea of at various distances from the point of detona-
the lethal radius of the warhead. The warhead tion. The continous rods penetrate these sheets
debris would be examined for indications of and leave an impression of the rod pattern.
malfunction. The presence of cone fragments, Rod shapes and rod orientation can also be
for example, would indicate that a shaped determined by placing wire screens perpen-
charge warhead did not detonate properly and dicular to the rod flight path at the particular
would indicate a malfunction in, e.g., the fuzing ranges. When the rods strike the screen wire
system. marks are impressed upon them. By observing
these marks, one can determine the rod shape
Rod Warheads Testing of a complete rod warhead and orientation when the screen was struck.
usually does not begin until the optimum rod It is sometimes feasible when conducting
dimensions have been determined by evaluating tests of this type to place aircraft structures
individual rod firings. Complete warhead test- in the arena. Thus, the lethality of the warhead
ing is initiated at an early stage in the develop- can be determined.
ment of the warhead since the resulting data After the warhead has reached an advanced
governs the final configuration. This is of stage of development, the designer can consider
importance because most of the factors affect- firing against a target drone. This test gives
ing the performance of a rod warhead are the closest determination, other than from
dependent upon the physical characteristics of actual combat, of the effectiveness of the war-
the warhead. For instance, rod velocities and head when detonated within proper range of the
181
target. Instrumentation for this type of test is will find applications for electronic instrumen-
photographic. Cameras are located on the tation which, for warhead testing pur poses, will
ground and possibly in chase aircraft. However, require a minimum of data reduction effort.
coverage is not good because of the extreme However, most of the raw data which the war-
distances involved. It is sometimes possible to head designer handles is in the form of film.
determine the amound of damage inflicted by High speed motion picture film can be ana-
visual observation of the downed target. lyzed frame by frame when it is necessary to
determine the time at which an event occurred.
Blast Warheads The test procedures for a blast This event could be a fragment striking a sur-
warhead are not of a complex nature, because face or a rod striking a flash tube. Film is
of the relative simplicity of this type of war- read on film-viewers which project an enlarged
head. The primary performance factor is the image of the film, frame by frame, on a ground
amount of drastic blast damage inflicted on a glass screen. The film reader can then corre-
target. This is usually determined by detonating late the frame in which the event occurred with
small warheads adjacent to different parts of a time signal imprinted on the film. Reading
the target and observing the resulting damage. film appears to be a relatively easy task; how-
Large warheads are detonated at varying dis- ever, it can be a difficult and tedious Job if the
tances from different parts of the target until film is not clear or if there is a large amount
the critical, lethal distance is found. With the of data to be reduced.
larger warheads, blast pressures are some- An additional difficulty may be malfunc-
times measured at different distances from the tioning timing circuits. This can result in the
point of detonation. Photography can be used complete or partial disappearance of the timing
for all of these tests to supplement the data marks. Also, they may become lost in the back-
secured by visual observation. ground on the film. When the appearance of
Additional variations in blast effect occur these timing marks is inconsistent or several
in tests where the target is near the ground. of the marks are missing, it is possible to es-
The enhancement due to ground approaches a timate the time by averaging the time intervals
limit of 100 per cent on a weight basis, as of adjacent frames.
compared to tests in which the burst is high High speed motion pictures can also be
enough above the ground to be free from effects analyzed on a motion picture projector. This
of the reflected blast wave. method is used when it is desired to observe
in detail the performance of components such
6-4. DATA REDUCTION AND INTERPRETATION as skin ejection systems and submissile ejec-
tion systems. Data reduction in these cases is
Most of the instrumentation used in the relatively easy. Movie film can be examined
testing-of warheads does not present any seri- using a variable speed projector which can be
ous data reduction problems. In many in- stopped or reversed. The designer can thus de-
stances, data reduction is not necessary since termine exactly how the system in question is
the data obtained by visual observation is in functioning. The acceleration and velocity of the
finished form. These include such items as submissiles can also be determined in this
damage estimates, rod shapes and fragment manner. The data reduction in this case is sim-
dispersion. Data reduction is usually required plified if the motion picture is photographed
when photographic and electronic instrumen- against a calibrated background.
tation is used. Photographic instrumentation When evaluating the results of warhead and
is used to a large extent in warhead testing warhead component tests there are several
for measuring fragment and rod velocities, factors which the warhead designer must con-
shaped charge jet velocities, and cluster dis- sider. These include the data accuracy, test
persion. Occasionally, the warhead designer environment, scale effects and the quantity of
182
Table 6-1. Test Facility Selection Chart. determine the extent of the inaccuracy, qualify
ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE the evaluation or, if conditions permit, repeat
Warhead
z > the test.
Static
Tests
WARHEAD
s I is 1s
z
z
0
*
UJ
-1
i z z
<z
0
1
0
K
u.
U.
<
O
O
<
X
The effects of the test environment should
also be considered before testing is initiated.
FRAGMENTATION Typical environmental effects which may have
ROD to be considered include such items as the phys-
CLUSTER ical effects of test stands and structures, inter-
SHAPED CHARGE ference from the instrumentation, and inter-
HIGH EXPLOSIVE ference from nearby warhead and missile com-
BW ponents. Atmospheric conditions are also of
CW concern.
PROPAGANDA
X X When warheads and their components must
be scaled up or down, there is always the prob-
lem of evaluating scale effects.
Warhead ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE
Dynamic The warhead engineer is also faced with

z >-
UJ z the possibility of instrumentation malfunction
Tests UJ
2
z
§ Is
1=> $
§
_l
O 0
0
0.
H
O
< jj<
1-
u.
U.
0
0
< during a test program. When malfunctions oc-
WARHEAD 0 UJ z z z z < X
cur, the quantity of data is diminished accord-
FRAGMENTATION
ingly. Where there isalackofdata.it is some-
ROD
CLUSTER
times possible to extrapolate the results. How-
ever, any conclusions based on such extra-
SHAPED CHARGE
X polated data should be carefully qualified.
HIGH EXPLOSIVE
X XJX It is sometimes necessary to experimen-
BW
CW
X
><
tally establish the criteria against which test
results can be compared before a performance
PROPAGANDA
X X X >< X evaluation can be made. This does not present
a problem when the development objectives are
Damage ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE
known. However, a criteria problem exists if
Mechanism z > Q
O
the required velocities and accelerations are
UJ z O
Tests unknown. It is then necessary to establish the
DAMAGE
UJ
s §
z
1 *
UJ
O -1 1- 0
1/1
<0
0
2 U-u.
0
u
0
requirements experimentally. It should be
< 0. is O O O 0. «a
MECHANISM UJ z z z z < < 1
FRAGMENTS
noted that valuable design data is generated
RODS from any properly conducted test, and this
SHAPED CHARGE data should be utilized to its fullest extent.
HIGH EXPLOSIVE Lethality is another criterion which is not al-
ways firmly established, and consequently may
BW
CW
X
XX 1 1 , _
require experimental work.
The comparison of the test results with
theoretically or experimentally established
data. Data accuracy is dependent upon the in- criteria is sufficient in most cases. However,
strumentation used to obtain the data and the the most positive way of determining the ef-
accuracy with which the data is reduced. The fectiveness of a warhead, outside of actual com-
accuracy of the instrumentation and data re- bat firing, is to fire the test item in its missile
duction should be established both before and under simulated combat conditions. It should
after the test is conducted. However, where be remembered that the overall kill probability
accuracy is questionable, the engineer must includes PC (see subchapter 5-1) and other
183
FLUSH FOILS FOR
VELOCITY MEASUREMENT
WIRE-SCREEN
TO DETERMINE
f ORIENTATION
OF RODS
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Photo
Figure 6-11. Complete Rod Warhead Test
factors which are, in part, dependent on the This subchapter includes a description of
competence of the firing unit. Consequently, some of the Government facilities available for
troop training must overlap prototype missile the testing of warheads and their associated
development. components. It is presented to permit the de-
signer to select the appropriate installation
6-5. TEST FACILITIES at which the required testing can be conducted.
184
Test facility selection charts are presented In search and development Laboratories and other
Table 6-1 as an aid. The following organi- test facilities located at the Aberdeen Proving
zations are covered: Ground is of interest to the warhead designer.
(1) Exterior Ballistics
Department of the Army (a) Wind Tunnels
(b) Free Flight Firing Ranges
Ordnance Corps (c) Controlled Pressure-Tempera-
Aberdeen Proving Ground ture Ranges
Picatinny Arsenal
White Sands Missile Range (2) Interior Ballistics
Chemical Corps
Army Chemical Center (3) Terminal Ballistics
Dugway Proving Ground (a) Shaped Charge Laboratory
(b) Shaped Charge Firing Barricades
Department of the Navy (c) Blast Facilities
(d) Shock Tubes
Bureau of Ordnance (e) Fragmentation Chamber
Naval Ordnance Laboratory (f) Fragment Gun Range
Naval Ordnance Test Station (g) High Altitude Facility
Naval Proving Ground (h) High Speed Ballistic Track
Naval Aviation Ordnance Test
Station (4) Computing Laboratory
Department of the Air Force (5) Small Arms Range
Air Research and Development Com- (6) Major Caliber Range

mand
Air Proving Ground Center (7) Armor and Armor Defeating Ammu-
Air Force Flight Test Center nition Testing
Holloman Air Development Cen- (a) Armor Plate Ranges
ter (b) Projectile Ranges
(c) Armor and Ammunition Test
Areas
6-5.1. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland (d) Tank Vulnerability
The Aberdeen Proving Ground is the prin- (8) Aircraft Vulnerability and Ammuni-
cipal engineering and service testing center for tion Effectiveness Ranges
Ordnance Corps equipment to be used by the
Army Field Forces. It has the responsibility (9) Fragmentation Test Facility
for determining the operational and functional (a) Open Fragmentation Pits
ability of new Ordnance weapons and of equip- (b) Fragmentation Panels
ment to be approved for production. The re- (c) Closed Fragmentation Pit
search and development mission of the Aber- (d) Fragment Velocity Measuring In-
deen Proving Ground is to carry out studies strumentation
and experimental testing for the purpose of
producing design criteria and for developing (10) Bomb Testing Facilities
all types of weapons and instrumentation as
required. The following material list of re- (11) Environmental Testing Facility
185
(12) Weapons Systems Evaluations of guided missiles and other munitions. The
Range is a joint service installation operated
(13) Data Reduction and administered by the Ordnance Corps for
the three military departments. Flight and
(14) Rocket Flight Testing Facilities non-flight evaluation tests are conducted for
engineering assessment, acceptance, user
In addition to these test facilities, there are evaluation of ordnance (contractor developed),
sufficient range areas available to provide for or other services' missiles.
many special testing requirements of the war- The Army research and development mis-
head designer. sion at White Sands Missile Range is to:
6-5.2. Plcatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey (1) Prepare engineering test criteria and
procedures.
The research and development mission of
Plcatinny Arsenal is to develop various types (2) Provide technical facilities and oper-
of munitions, including missile warheads. ating personnel.
Among the test facilities located at this instal-
lation of interest to the warhead designer are (3) Provide supporting services as re-
the following: quired.
Instrumentation Development Labora-
tories (4) Plan for, recommend and, where di-
High Acceleration Air Gun rected, provide special facilities and/
Wind Tunnels or areas for testing material other
Fragmentation Chambers than guided missiles and long range
Ballistic Ranges rockets.
Static Test Chambers
Sectioning and Disassembly Chambers (5) Conduct scientific investigations as
Explosive and Propellant Evaluation Fa- required.
cilities
Rocket Testing Area As the primary mission of this installation
Centrifugal Force and Vibration Equip- is to flight test guided missiles, the majority
ment of its facilities have been created to support
Ammunition Component Packaging and this objective. The available ranges can be
Handling Equipment (Design and Test) utilized by the designer to test the warhead as
Plastic Research Test Equipment part of a check-out of the overall missile sys-
These facilities may be used to check frag- tem. This may include an investigation into the
ment, submissile or rod flight characteristics, warhead terminal ballistics against assorted
to determine the characteristics of various high targets. It is also the mission of WSMRto test
explosives, or to determine the effectiveness of components and subsystems of guided missiles
scaled or full size warheads. for overall evaluation when flight testing is not
required.
6-5.3. VÄiite Sands Missile Range, Las Cruces, New Mexico 6*5.4. Army Chemical Center, Edgewood,Maryland
The White Sands Missile Range is the prin- The Army Chemical Center engages in
cipal Army Ordnance Corps installation for the basic and applied research and development
execution of all technical and engineering re- and field testing. The Center conducts basic
sponsibilities associated with the flighttesting physiological, biochemical, and toxicologlcal
186
research on chemical warfare agents. It con- 6-5.7. Naval Ordnanc« T«»t Station, China Laic«,
ducts research on wound ballistics for the pur- California
pose of improving both the defensive effective-
ness of body armor and the offensive effective- The Naval Ordnance Test Station is en-
ness of anti-personnel weapons. The Center gaged in research, effectiveness and feasibility
has the responsibility for developing new chem- investigations, design, development, product
ical (and radiological) warfare agents, mate- and production engineering, test and technical
rials, and methods for both offensive and de- evaluation and the pilot production of ordnance
fensive purposes. In addition to these missions, materials, components, assemblies and sys-
the Center has the responsibility for con- tems in the field of missiles and other ordnance
ducting, evaluating, and preparing reports on items. Facilities are available for research and
engineering, field, and user tests of Chemical development in the fields of high explosive sand
Corps material. These tests may be conducted aeroballistics. Noteworthy test facilities in-
in conjunction with other development and test clude a moving-target range and several high
agencies. speed tracks. Such supporting functions as in-
strumentation, data reduction, and H. E. han-
6-5.5. Dugway Proving Ground, Too«!«, Utah dling facilities staffed with trained personnel
are also available. In particular, the facilities
The Dugway Proving Ground is a com- can be used to secure data on warhead termi-
bined research and test installation with the nal ballistics, fragment flight characteristics,
following missions: cluster warhead functioning under static or
dynamic conditions, and the characteristics of
(1) To obtain basic scientific data on new high explosives. Sufficient range space is also
and improved CW, BWand RW agents. available for the testing of shaped chargo, blast,
and other type warheads.
(2) To conduct controlled field tests of
CW, BW and RW agents and agent 6-5.8. Naval Proving Ground, Dahlgran, Virginia
vehicles.
The mission of the Naval Proving Ground
6-5.6. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Whit« Oak, Maryland is to conduct proof tests of ordnance materiel,
conduct research and development of ammu-
The Naval Ordnance Laboratory is a re- nition and components thereof, armament and
search and development organization that has components thereof, armor and ballistics, etc.,
the primary objective of originating and testing and to investigate other ordnance problems.
new devices in Naval Ordnance. Of primary Whenever necessary, research is also con-
interest to the warhead designer are its test ducted to develop required instrumentation.
facilities that include extensive aeroballistics The test facilities, including photographic and
and high explosives research areas. These electronic instrumentation, are available for
areas can be utilized toperformbasicresearch explosives-handling tests and interior ballis-
to determine both the characteristics of dif- tics studies. Ranges available include frag-
ferent high explosives and the flight character- mentation arenas, indoor and . outdoor firing
istics of various shaped fragments. There are ranges, and aerial gunnery and bombing ranges.
also additional range facilities available for These range facilities can be used to secure
warhead ground tests which do not require ex- terminal ballistics data for blast, shaped
tensive range areas. In addition to these, there charge, rod and fragment warheads. It is also
are the usual support facilities available, in- possible to test full size (as well as scale
cluding various shops, and instrumentation model) fragmentation and rod warheads in
and data reduction facilities. order to secure data on such parameters as
187
dispersion, fragment and rod size and shape, available for BW and CW testing.
and fragment and rod velocities.
6-5.11. Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air
6-5.9. Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station, Force Base, California
Chincoteague, Virginia
Though the activities of the Air Force

The Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station Flight Test Center are not directly related to
provides technical support and services to the development of missile warheads, there
Government agencies and contractors in re- are two track test facilities available at this
search, development, test, and evaluation pro- Center which may interest designers of such
grams. These activities include applied re- warheads. One of these tracks is 2,000 feet
search, development tests, as well as evalu- long, and the other 10,000 feet. It is suggested
ation of missiles, and other types of aerial that the designer contact the Flight Test Center
weapons. Facilities available at this instal- for specific information concerning the use of
lation include specialized ranges, with instru- these tracks if dynamic testing of warheads is
mentation, and data reduction capabilities. required.
Manned aircraft, range crews, and shop and
laboratory space are available. These facilities 6-5.12. Holloman Air Development Center, Alamogordo,
can be utilized for the flight testing of armed New Mexico
missiles against ground, sea, or aerial tar gets

to determine missile system effectiveness. The Holloman Air Development Center
conducts research and development of guided
6-5.10. Air Proving Ground Center, Eglin Air Force missile systems and components; conducts
Base, Florida
tests and evaluations of missile weapon sys-
tems, missile operational techniques and asso-
The Air Proving Ground Center is a facil- ciated equipment; and also conducts aeromed-
ity for the engineering testing of air armament. ical research and development. Extensive
An important and continuing part of the work range facilities are available at this Center
at this center is to provide testing support to for the flight testing of guided missile systems
contractors and other Government agencies. and the developmental testing of missile war-
To accomplish this, the Center is developing heads. Armed missiles of relatively short
versatile test facilities and rapid methods of ranges can be fired ground-to-ground, air-to-
data reduction. Various types of air-to-ground ground, air-to-air, or ground-to-air to deter-
ranges are available. The Center has a large mine their effectiveness against typical tar-
and growing inventory of instruments with gets. Range facilities are also available for the
which to meet test requirements. Aircraft various tests which are required in the,devel-
with their crews and maintenance personnel, opment of cluster warheads. The Center also
range crews, instrumentation, and shop and has a high speed track and support facilities
laboratory space can be provided. Range fa- such as manned aircraft, maintenance person-
cilities are available at the Center for firing- nel, and instrumentation.
tests of the smaller warheads, primarily those
used in short range ground-to-air, air-to-air, 6-6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
and air-to-ground missiles. Range facilities
are also available for a limited testing of (1) "Facilities of the United States Army
cluster warheads. Parameters which can be for Research and Development, Volumes 1, 2,
investigated include warhead system function- and 3". Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff,
ing, bomblet dispersion and bomblet flight G-4 Logistics - Research and Development
characteristics. In addition, facilities are also Division, Department of the Army, July, 1953.
188
(2) "California Naval Research, Devel- not be discussed.
opment and Test Stations - Unique Facilities", There are four general requirements for
Interlaboratory Committee on Facilities, May, all explosives; i.e., the explosive must be fluid
1953. enough in the preparatory state to be cast in the
(3) "Brochure of General and Descriptive warhead, withstand shipping and handling, with-
Information of the U. S. Naval Proving Ground", stand the effects of time, and perform predict-
July, 1949, N.P.G. Report No. 303. ably when used.
(4) "Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Most of the production, handling, and time
Station, Descriptive Brochure", Feb. 1956. factors may be considered under the following
(5) "Holloman Air Development Center- classifications: fluidity (capability of being
Information Guide", HQ HADC, Dec. 1956. cast, etc.), shrinkage, fragility, stability and
(6) "Air Force Armament Center-Range exudation (bleeding-out of components). Pre-
Facilities", HQ AFAC, January, 1954. sumably, explosives used in the missile war-
APPENDIX heads in this Survey are satisfactory in pro-
CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES FOR duction, handling and time factors — other-
MISSILE WARHEADS wise they would not have been used in the war-
Haller, Raymond & Brown, Inc., in an heads. These factors are not discussed in this
Appendix A to their report number 91-R-5, report.
entitled "Survey of Guided Missile Warheads", The topics to be discussed are the relative
included a summary of explosives for guided characteristics of several components, the
missile warheads. This is presented on the tests used to derive some of the relative prop-
following pages, essentially in its entirety, for erties of explosives, and a comparison of
ready reference. It is to be noted that additional properties of cast explosives used in the war-
explosives have been developed or are being heads surveyed.
tested for use in guided missile applications
since the publication of the survey. B - EXPLOSIVE COMPONENTS
A - INTRODUCTION TNT is used as an index base for deter-

mining the relative characteristics of the two
Six different explosive mixtures are used explosive components given in Table 1. TNT
in the missile warheads included in this Sur- is used as a component in all six of the ex-
vey. These are: RDX Composition B, H-6, plosives cited in the Survey and comprises 4 to
HBX-1, Tritonal, RDX Composition C-3, and 80 parts (by weight) of the explosive mixtures.
Cyclotol. Each of these explosives is a cast The heat of combustion TNT is greater than
mixture (none are pressed mixtures) and has RDX. The Gurney velocity constant ( ^2E )
certain measurable properties which distin- of TNT is 6940 feet per second. TNT has a good
guish it from other explosives. The distin- blast effect (4*). Its detonation rate is 6745
guishing properties of explosives are listed meters per second.
in Tables 1 and 2, at end of appendix. The most common component used in the
The warhead operation determines the explosives in this Survey is RDX. In four of
type of explosive that is used. Warheads con- the six explosives discussed, RDX comprises
sidered are of the following types: fragmenting, 40 parts or more by weight of the mixture.
continuous rod (expanding), blast, fragmenta- RDX by itself is very difficult to cast (4). It
tion-blast, and armor piercing. Some war- has a low heat of combustion (0.63) relative
heads use charges (called "propellants") which to TNT (1.00), and a very high Gurney velocity
disperse submissiles or flechettes from the constant, 8040 feet per second, or an index of
warhead at relatively slow rates to produce a 1.16.
controlled pattern. Propellants, however, will * See references by number at end of Appendix.
189
Four explosive mixtures in this Survey 3. Ballistic Mortar Test
contain either wax or D-2 desensitizer. Wax The ballistic mortar test (6) deter-
enhances some of the physical (handling) prop- mines the weight of an explosive required to
erties of the explosives mixtures since it acts raise a heavy ballistic mortar the same height
as a desensitizer (4). D-2 Improves the tough- to which it is raised by 10 grams of TNT. The
ness of these mixtures but decreases stability weight of explosive meeting this requirement
in storage (4). is then used to compute its TNT equivalence
Aluminum 1B used in three of the six ex- by the formula
plosive mixtures. This enhances the flash ef- «%«« rr , 10 grams TNT *
TNT Value = — *-—— ; ,, . „
fect of explosives and promotes a more con- Sample Weight in Grams
trolled expansion during combustion. The ad- The physical set-up for this test con-
dition of aluminum may reduce the fragility sists of a heavy ballistic mortar suspended on
of the explosive and also minimize shrinkage a compound pendulum. The mortar contains a
during curing after the block of the explosive chamber about 6 inches in diameter and 1 foot
has been cast. long. A standard projectile occupies about 7
Nitrocellulose, tetryl, MNT, and DNT are inches of this chamber, while the sample being
used by only one of the explosives—RDX Com- tested occupies only a small portion of the
position C-3. No information is given in the remainder of the chamber. Upon detonation,
Survey about these components. the projectile is driven into a sand bank and the
mortar swings through an arc. Swing height is
recorded by a pencil attached to the pendulum.
C. EXPLOSIVE TESTS
4. Trauzl Test
Several measurements comparing the rel- The Trauzl test (6) determines the
ative properties of explosive mixtures are weight of an explosive required to cause the
shown in Tables 1 and 2. The tests from which same expansion in a standard experimental
the measurements are derived are discussed measuring device as does TNT. Equivalent
in order of appearance in the tables. weights for the explosives tested are readily
1. Peak Pressure TNT Equivalent Test determined from this measurement and ex-
The test for the peak pressure equiv- pressed as a ratio by the equivalent weight of
alent of TNT compares the pressure produced TNT per unit weight of the test explosive.
by a sample explosive with that produced by an The experimental set-up (6) uses
equal weight of TNT. The tests are made at desilverized lead cylinders 200 millimeters in
the same standard distance. diameter and 200 millimeters in height. In the
The experimental set-up usually con- end of each of these is centered a cavity 25
sists of a plezo-electric gauge located a stand- millimeters in diameter and 125 millimeters
ard distance from the center of the explosion. deep. A trial and error process is used to de-
This gauge indicates the pressure Impulse by termine an amount of the explosive which will
voltage wave form when struck by the shock expand the cavity on detonation between 250
wave (7). Peak pressure Is the maximum Ordi- and 300 cubic centimeters. It has been found
nate of the pressure-time curve determined by Naoum that within this range of volume
from the experiment. there is linear correlation between volume
2. Positive ImpulBe Test increase and sample weight.
The test for TNT equivalent in posi-
tive impulse is identical to the test for peak 5. Plate Dent Test
pressure. Positive impulse is equal to the The brisance or shattering effect is
area under the pressure-time curve lying * Some of the references use percentages in-
above the atmospheric pressure (7). stead of fractional values.
190
determined by a plate dent teat which measures The index is determined from
the depth of the dents in a steel plate made $2E (test explosive)
by detonating equal weights of TNT and the ex- , {JE - -—
UE (TNT)
plosive being tested. The measurements are The experimental set-up for obtaining
used according to the formula the Gurney velocity constant by determining
initial fragment velocity usually makes use of
Relative Brisance = Sam le Dent Depth
P a moving picture camera (7). One such set-up
Dent Depth for TNT involves a high speed time-synchronized cam-
at 1.61 gm/cc era, a visual method (tetryl cap) for recording
initiation of the explosion, and a material
6. Detonation Rate Test (duralumin) which flashes when struck by a
The detonation rate test measures the fragment. This flash indicates the termination
time-distance burning rate of a long piece of of fragment flight to the camera. Since the
the explosive being tested. The index is deter- fragment travel distance is known, the initial
mined from velocity is readily computed (8).
I PR for test explosive
DR DR for TNT 8. Heat of Combustion Test
The heat of combustion test deter-
The experimental set-up uses a ro- mines the heat content of equal weights of ex-
tating drum camera to record the burning rate plosive mixtures. The measurements are made
of the explosive. The explosive is 1 inch in by calorimeters and are given in calories per
diameter and 20 inches long, and is held in gram.
place by a cellulose acetate sheet. A standard
initiating system is used, consisting of four 9. Standard Cylinder Tests
tetryl pellets at one end of the wrapped ex- The results shown in Table 2 were
plosive in conjunction with a Special Corps of taken from two tests (1). Information on the
Engineers Blasting Cap placed in a central number and mass of the fragments was obtained
hole in the end pellet. from pit tests. The velocity information was
determined in a velocity range.
7. Gurney Velocity Constant Test In the pit test (1), a cylinder is buried
The Gurney velocity constant (8), in a pit filled with sawdust. The cylinder is
$2E . is determined empirically from meas- enclosed in a cardboard box so that the initial
urements of the average velocity of fragments expansion takes place in air. The fragments
from steel cylinders and other casing shapes. are removed from the sawdust by magnets
The constant is obtained directly from the and by sifting.
formula The velocity range (1) uses a rotating
2£ (c/m) drum camera which photographically records
\ 1 + (1/2) {c/m) the passage of fragments past three illuminated
where: vertical slits. Range geometry and the time
V = the initial velocity of the fragment lapse between the two outside slits determine
in feet per second, the average fragment velocity. One-tenth of
= the weight of the explosive charge the cylinder circumference comprises the
in grams, sample beam in which velocities are measured.
= the weight of the fragmenting casing
in grams, and D ■ EXPLOSIVE MIXTURES
E = a constant depending on the ex- 1. RDX Composition B (60/40/1: RDX/
plosive measured in calories per TNT/Wax Added)
gram. RDX Composition B is the explosive
191
most commonly used in the guided missile war- the ten warheads, five use RDX Composition
heads included in the Survey. As shown in B as an alternative explosive.
Table 3 all but six of the twenty-five different H-6 is closely similar to RDX Com-
type warheads containing this explosive are position B. The principal difference in com-
the fragmenting type. Five non-fragmenting position is a reduction in the proportion of
warheads are continuous rod types. Alterna- RDX and TNT and the addition of aluminum
tively, these five warheads may use the ex- to that mixture.
plosive, H-6. The equivalent weight of H-6 to TNT
RDX Composition B consists of three for peak pressure is 1.27, the highest attained
ingredients: RDX, TNT, and Wax. The notation among the explosives listed in Table 1. H-6
in the above and subsequent captions gives the also ranks highest in the TNT equivalent
parts by weight of the components. Blending weight for positive impulse, with an index of
these ingredients provides an easily cast ex- 1.38.
plosive which does well as a fragmenting and The Gurney Velocity Constant, "^2E ,
expanding (continuous rod) charge. is 7710 feet per second for H-6, an index of
As noted in Table 1, the brisance of 1.11. Only Cyclotol and RDX Composition C-3,
RDX Composition B is 1.32, the highest for the of the feasible compositions noted, surpass
explosives found in the literature. In other H-6 in ability to impart a high initial velocity
words, this explosive is the most shattering. to fragments. In a number of fragment blast
The high Gurney velocity constant (7610 feet warheads, H-6 (or HBX-1) provides a worth-
per second) or index 1.10, is exceeded only by while increase in blast damage over RDX
Cyclotol and H-6 among the explosive mixtures Composition B without a commensurate loss
and indicates a high initial fragment velocity. of damage from fragments.
The relative blast effect (heat of combustion)
of Composition B is low, 0.78, compared with 3. HBX-1 (67/11/17/5/0.5: Comp. B/
1.00 for TNT. Blast, however, isnotaprimary TNT/Al/D-2 Desens./CaCl)
requisite for a fragmenting warhead. The det- HBX-1 is used by three different war-
onation rate of RDX Composition B is the high- heads (Table 3), two of which are the blast
est for explosives found in the available liter- type and one of the fragment type.
ature; 7840 meters per second with an index The TNT equivalent weight positive
of 1.17. Also, according to the Trauzl test (6) impulse for HBX-1 is 1.21, which is less than
of volume expansion RDX Composition B was that for H-6, but greater than that for RDX
the highest, having an index of 1.30. The Bal- Composition B. The same relationship holds
listic Mortar test (6), which measures the for the TNT equivalent weight peak pressure.
relative energy of an explosive, gives an index It would appear that H-6 is as good or better
of 1,33 for RDX Composition B. than HBX-1 for blast effect (heat of combustion
RDX Composition B would also appear measurement), having an index 1.06 compared
to be good as a fragmenting explosive from the with 1.03. As noted in Table 2, HBX-1 produces
relative measurements given in Table 2, which a larger number of fragments than H-6 and a
were made using standard cylinders as the consequent smaller average fragment mass
fragmenting casings (l).This explosive exceeds when tested in a standard fragmenting cyl-
H-6 and HBX-1 in both the number of fragments inder. Average initial velocity, however, is
formed and the average initial velocity. lower than that for H-6. Lower velocity for
HBX-1 is further exemplified by the difference
2. H-6 (74/21/5/0.5: Composition B /Al / in the Gurney velocity constant. Only Tritonal
D-2 Desens./CaCl) and TNT, have lower ^2E values.
The explosive H-6 is used in ten dif-
ferent warheads in the Survey (Table 3). Of 4. Tritonal (80/20: TNT/A 1)
192
The explosive Tritonal is used by a Composition B, 7840 meters per second (index
blast warhead for the Matador and a combina- 1.17). It has the highest {IF value, 8800 feet
tion fragmentation — blast warhead for the per second (index 1.27). These ratings explain
Corporal missile. its use as a fragmenting explosive.
As noted in Table 1, the TNT equiva-
lent weight of peak pressure and impulse for 6. Cyclotol (75/25: RDX/TNT)
Tritonal are 1.07 and 1.11, respectively. These The explosive Cyclotol is utilized in
measurements rank low relative to those for the French SS-10 missile which uses a shaped
the explosives discussed previously. Most of charge type warhead against tanks. The present
the other measurable properties of Tritonal standard composition of Cyclotol is as noted
are also somewhat lower relative to those for above, but the composition utilized in this mis-
TNT. sile is 50/50: RDX/TNT.
The heat of combustion for Tritonal The only measure available for Cy-
is 1.21, highest among the explosives for which clotol is the Gurney velocity constant, ~^2E .
there is information in Table 1. This is a meas- This is 7850 feet per second, with an index of
ure of the high blast potential of Tritonal. The 1.13 lower only than RDX and RDX Composition
brisance measure, 0.93, indicates a low shat- C-3. This infers that Cyclotol has a very high
tering effect. This explosive is used when large peak pressure and positive impulse rating, as
fragment masses are required. does H-6 which also has a high -JJE" value.
5. RDX Composition C-3 (77/4/1/3/5/ E - CONCLUSIONS

10: RDX/TNT/Nitrocellulose/ An overall view of the following two tables,
Tetryl/MNT/DNT) 1 and 2, enables one to make a direct com-
RDX Composition C-3, is used in parison among the different explosives given
fragmentation warheads for the Honest John in each measurement category. Unfortunately,
and Corporal missiles. some of the data were not available in the liter-
As noted in Table 1, RDX Composition ature at the time of this survey. There is no
C-3 ranks lower than RDX Composition B in absolute correlation of explosives by type of
the ballistic mortar test. It ranks lowest among use or by rank in any of the measurement cate-
the noted explosives in the Trauzl test. How- gories; however, the correlation of combina-
ever in brisance, it ranks considerably above tions of one or more uses and the measure-
Tritonal. This is partially substantiated by ments have been noted.
the high detonation rate, 7625 meters per sec- Changes of explosives used in the missiles
ond (index 1.13), second only to that of RDX in Table 3 are to be expected.
193
,_
m
*■—^
*y c ©■
Heat G
bustio:
(Bias
o
1. to
00 CO CO tH CO
o• o csi o CO
• • • • •
o tH rH tH tH ©
8,3 H
O H
t> ^^ *■««. ^■» ^^ >* „^ ^^ ^«, ^^
4) o o © © o o o ©
g , t
W TH
CO
vt
t-
8
CSJ
CO
CS]
o
CO
m
CO
■*
OS
"<*
o
m
■*
c~ t- t- CO CO t- CO CO c-
O
Gumc
Const;
2E I
Veloc
H o rH 1TJ tH t- co o CO c-
o o
i
-a tH TH O OS CSI tH tH
tH »H rH © tH tH tH tH tH
u ^^ _-,_ ^—s ^^ __,_

< a> o ITS m m m
go en ■<* C- CM
CO
■*
i>
OS
■* ■*
w a ... "a
CO
E-
2« sc-
—^
CO
*"—'
c-
*—*
Rate
3 tona
*■—*
03 t- CO CO o tH
fd •8 tH
•
OS
•
tH
■
o
t
tH
•
Q £ o tH tH tH
H a>
b^ o
1-t
§ 3 ^" csi
oo
CO
OS
CO
tH
o
o•
O
csi
Ed
• • • •
Cd TH o tH tH tH
03
ffl 65
03
<
H
o
►J
^H
N o IA c- o ■^
o■
a
Ed
Is
H
00
•
1-1
CO
TH
•
tH
tH
t
tH
CO
tH
•
o
00
ITS
H o
Mortar
Ballis-
03 CO CO co tH
< CO
•
CM
•
CSI
•
o• 00
• •
tic
O tH tH l-H tH l-H o
o -4-> 32 o
03 ■a a
Equivalen
Positive
Impulse
TNT
CD CO TH tH © 3 P5
ot
(5)
O CO CSI tH ces by n
ichnical
• • • •
tH TH *H TH tH
Ed
4_>
PM
r* rt a) 5 CO t- tH C- o
H
.H& £S rH CSI CO o• o•
9 OJ
• • ^3 c
i—1 TH tH tH tH
Ss
+ Picatiinny Ar
Ed
(1) and (5) See
PH
gj n
to ^ t ■-^
RDXCo
Tritona
Cycloto
05 t-l
C-3
3
50/50
80/20
tH
.3.3
i I
u
ffl
Ed S
1 CO &
o
H
194
TABLE 2
MEASUREMENTS OF EXPLOSIVE MIXTURES FROM STANDARD

CYLINDER TEST FIRINGS (1)
Explosive C/M N0 N(0. 5) m(0. 5) v0

(gms.) (gms.) ft/sec
Comp. B 0.378 3700 977 1.72 4440
H-6 0.385 2279 788 2.23 4420
HBX-1 0.386 2785 873 1.97 4130
Tri tonal
80/20
Comp. C-3
Cyclotol
50/50
TNT 0.358 1852 723 2.52 3710
RDX
Torpex
(1) Standard cylinder employed for fragmentation. Fragment distribution following

Motts Law, No total no. of fragments, N(0.5 gm) no. of fragments over 0.5 gram
m(0. 5 gm) mean mass of fragments over 0. 5 grams
195
TABLE 3
WARHEADS BY EXPLOSIVE USED
RDX Composition B
Missile Warhead Type Missile Warhead Type
Bomarc T33 Frag. Talos (6b) Ex 17 Mod 1 Frag.

Corporal T25E1 Frag. ♦Tartar Ex 20 Mod 1 Cont. Rod
LaCrosse T34E1 Sh. Charge Terrier Ex 12 Mod 0 Frag.
Meteor EX 8 Mod 0 Frag. ♦Terrier Adv. Ex 19 Cont. Rod
Nike I T22E4 Frag.
Nike I T26E4 Frag.
Nike I T37 Frag.
CO Nike I T37E2 Frag. H-6
OS XT.: 1. « T
Nike I T37E3 Frag.
Nike I T38 Frag. Missile Warhead Type
Nike I T38E2 Frag.
Nike I T38E3 Frag. ♦Sparrow III Ex 21 Mod 1 Cont. Rod
Sparrow I Ex 1 Mod 0 Frag. ♦Sparrow 1A Ex 22 Mod 1 Cont. Rod
Sparrow III Ex 2 Frag. Talos (6a) Ex 7 Mod 1 Frag.
Sparrow III Ex 3 Mod 1 Frag. ♦Tartar Ex 20 Mod 1 Cont. Rod
Sparrow II Ex 5 Mod 1 Frag. ♦Terrier Adv. Ex 19 Cont. Rod
♦Sparrow III Ex 21 Mod 1 Cont. Rod ♦Terrier Mk 5 Mod 3 Frag.
* Sparrow 1A Ex 22 Mod 1 Cont. Rod and 6
Sparrow 1 Mk 7 Mod 0 Frag. Falcon GAR 3 Mod 0 Blast
Talos (6a) Ex 6 Mod 1 Frag. Nike Hercules T45 Fra Frag. -Blast
Talos (6b) Ex 14 Mod 0 Cont. Rod Nike Hercules T46 Cluster
Hawk XM5 Frag. -Blast
♦Indicates that this same missile w arhead may also us e another explosive
TABLE 3 (cont'd)
WARHEADS BY EXPLOSIVE USED
HBX-1 KDX-Composition C-3
Missile Warhead Type Missile Warhead Type
Bomarc Cluster Blast Corporal T39E3 Frag.
Honest John T2021 Blast Honest John T39E3 Frag.
Sidewinder Mk 8 Mod 0 Frag. 50/50 Cyclotol
Tri tonal Missile Warhead Type
Missile Warhead Type SS-10 French Shaped Charge
* Corporal T23E1 Frag. Blast
Matador T3E3 Blast
♦Indicates that this same missile warhead may also use another explosive
REFERENCES
1. Salem, A. D., Shapiro, N., Singleton, B. N., Jr.: Explosives Comparison
for Fragmentation Effectiveness, NAVORD Report No. 2933, August 1953,
Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Maryland, Confidential.
2. Hyndman, J. R., Shuey, H. M., Iwanciow, B. L., Taylor, E. A.: Quarterly
Progress Report on Interior Ballistics, Redstone Arsenal Report No. P-54-3,
10 May 1954, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, Confidential.
3. Holt, P. L., McGill, R.: Explosives Research Department Publications,
NAVORD Report No. 4163, 1 November 1955, Bureau of Ordnance, Depart-
ment of Navy, Washington D. C., Confidential.
4. Anonymous: Fundamental Development of High Explosives, Progress Report
No. 113, 1 November to 30 November 1955, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, Confidential.
5. Christian, E. A., Fisher, E. M.: Explosion Effects Data Sheets, NAVORD
Report No. 2986, 14 June 1955, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak,
Maryland, Confidential, AD-69244.
6. Tomlinson, W. R., and revised by Shetfield, O. E.: Properties of Explosives
of Military Interest, Picatinny Arsenal Technical Report No. 1740 (U), April
1958, and Supplement No. 1 (C), August 1958, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J.
Confidential.
7. Sachs, R. G., Bidelman, W. P.: Blast Measurements on Five-and Ten-Ton
Bare Charges of TNT, Report No. 454, 1 March 1944, Ballistics Research
Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Confidential, AD-73234,
8. Davids, N., Köhler, M. R., Jr., Duncan, R. L.: Basic Compendium of the
Fragmentation Properties of Fin-Stabilized Mortar Shells Including Theories,
Data and Test Methods, 15 April 1956, Haller, Raymond & Brown, Inc.,
State College, Pa., Confidential.
198
INDEX
Aberdeen Proving Ground - Test Facilities 185
Agents - Chemical and Biological Warheads 133
Air Force Flight Test Center - Test Facilities 188
Air Proving Ground Center - Test Facilities 188
Analytical Evaluation Method 154
Army Chemical Center - Test Facilities 186
Beam Width - Fragmentation Warheads 47

Fragment Patterns 50
Fragment Slow-Down 49
Fragment Velocity 47
Selection 52
Bibliography
Blast Warheads 46
Chemical and Biological Warheads 138
Cluster Warheads 111
Continuous Rod Warheads 92
Discrete Rod Warheads 84
Explosives 198
Fragmentation Warheads 84
Shaped Charge Warheads 130
Warhead Evaluation 163
Warhead Selection 35
Warhead Testing 188
Blast Method of Ejection - Cluster Warheads 101
Blast Warheads 36
Bibliography 46
Detail Design Data 36
Design Data, Summary of 45
Explosive Loading and Sealing 41
Fabrication and Tooling 44
Function of Warhead Case and Related Blast Effects 36
Fuze Installation 44
Fuzing Requirements, Summary of 45
Installation and Handling Provisions 47
Strength Analysis 41
Weight and Space Allocated, Compatibility of 40
Detail Design Steps 36
External 36
Fundamental Concepts 149
Internal . 36
References 45
Test Procedures and Techniques 182
Warhead Types 1
Bomblet Compartment and Structure - Chemical and Biological Warheads 130
Bomblets - Chemical and Biological Warheads 131
199
Characteristics of High Explosives for Missile Warheads 189
13
Characteristics of Service Warheads
Agents 133
138
Bibliography
130
Cluster Type Warheads
Bomblet Compartment and Structure 130
Bomblets 131
132
Ejection Systems
Environmental Requirements 133
133
Massive Type Warheads
il
Warhead Types
Circular Normal Distribution - Distribution of Guidance Error 144
Classification of Targets - Warhead Selection 33
Cluster Submissiles - Test Procedures and Techniques 172
Cluster Type - Chemical and Biological Warheads 130
Cluster Warheads ^2
Bibliography Ill
Ejection Methods 100
Ejection System, Design of 103
Fuzing Requirements, Summary of HO
Number of Submissiles 100
Obstruction Removal Devices, Design of 109
Optimum Pattern „ 92
Retention System, Design of 109
Submissiles, Design of 105
10
Submissiles, Types of °
Support Structures, Design of 107
References m
Test Procedures and Techniques 1'
Warhead Types 1°
Bibliography 92
88
Detail Design Data
Details, Warhead 98
Explosive Cavity 90
Explosive Charge 88
88
Rod Bundle, Dimensions of
Rod Dimensions, Cross Sectional °°
87
Detail Design Steps
References 92
200
Warhead Types 8
Cost of the Contribution - Weapons System Concepts 31
Damage Classification - Evaluation Principles 146

Damage Mechanism Testing - Test Procedures and Techniques 170
Data Reduction and Interpretation 169,182
Design Data, Detail
Blast Warheads 36
Cluster Warheads 92
Fragmentation Warheads ^
Bibliography 87
Explosive Charge 85
85
Rod Cross Section
Rod Length 84
85
Rod Material
Rod Velocity 85
Warhead Details 87
References "
Warhead Types 8
Distribution of Fuzing Error - Evaluation Principles M5
Distribution of Guidance Error - Evaluation Principles Ml
Drag Coefficient 49
Dugway Proving Ground - Test Facilities I87
Ejection Methods - Cluster Warheads , 100

Blast Types 101
Gun Types 101
Ejection Systems - Chemical and Biological Warheads 132
Blast Method 103
Gun Tube Method 102
Elliptical Normal Distribution - Distribution of Guidance Error M4
Environmental Requirements - Chemical and Biological Warheads 133
Evaluation Methods 154
Analytical 154
Geometrical Model 158
Graphical 158
Monte Carlo and Lotto 156
201
Overlay 157
Simulated 156
Evaluation Principles 139
Conditional Kill Probability 140
Damage Classification 146
Fuzing Error, Distribution of 145
Guidance Error, Distribution of 141
Overall Kill Probability 139
Evaluations, Approximate 153
External Blast Warhead 153
l5
Fragmentation Warhead 4
Internal Blast Warhead 154
Evaluation, Warhead 139
Explosive Charge Design - Shaped Charge Warhead 125
Explosive Mixtures 191
Explosive Tests 190
Explosives for Missile Warheads, Characteristics 189
External Blast Warhead - Approximate Evaluations 153
Fragmentation Warheads ^
Bibliography 84
Beam Width 47
Charge to Metal Ratio (Actual) and Explosive Type 73
Charge to Metal Ratio (Maximum) 54
82
Design Data, Summary of
External Configuration 53
Fragmenting Metal, Design of 79
73
Fragment Shape and Material
7
Fragment Size Control, Methods of *
Fragment Weight and Velocity, Optimum 57
Static Fragment Velocity, Maximum Initial 56
Warhead Components, Design of 79
Evaluation, Approximate 154
References 83
3
Warhead Types
7
Fragment Size Control, Methods of *
77
Comparison of
76
Grooved Charge
75
Notched Rings
76
Notched Wire . . .
7
Precut 4
202
76
(Other)
Fragment Weight and Velocity, Optimum
Aerial Target 57
Ground Target 65
Fragments - Test Procedures and Techniques 170
Fuzing Error, Distribution of - Evaluation Principles 145
Geometrical Model - Evaluation Methods 158

Glossary of Terms vlli
Graphical Evaluation Methods 153
Guidance Error, Distribution of - Evaluation Principles 141
Circular Normal Distribution . 1**
l44
Elliptical Normal Distribution
l 4
Miss Distance *
I43
Rectangular Area, Probability of Hitting
l01
Gun Type Method of Ejection - Cluster Warheads
Gurney Formulas "
Holloman Air Development Center - Test Facilities I88
Incendiary Warheads 12
Inert and Exercise Warheads 13
Internal Blast Warheads - Approximate Evaluations 154
Kill Probability, Conditional - Evaluation Principles 140

Kill Probability, Overall - Evaluation Principles 139
Leaflet Warheads 12
Liner Design - Shaped Charge Warheads 123
Lotto - Evaluation Methods 156
l
Massive Type - Chemical and Biological Warheads ^3
Miss Distance - Distribution of Guidance Error 141
Monte Carlo - Evaluation Methods 156
Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station - Test Facilities I88

l87
Naval Ordnance Laboratory - Test Facilities
Naval Ordnance Test Station - Test Facilities 187
Naval Proving Ground - Test Facilities I87
203
Optimum Pattern - Cluster Warheads 92
l
Overlay - Evaluation Methods ^
Picatinny Arsenal - Test Facilities 186

Planning of Test Program 167
Data Reduction and Interpretation 169
l68
Establishing Test Program
Outlining Requirements 1^7
References
Blast Warheads *5
11
Cluster Warheads 1
8
Discrete Rod Warheads *
8
l2
Shaped Charge Warheads ^
l58
Warhead Evaluation
Rod, Continuous, Warhead - See "Continuous Rod Warheads"
Rod, Discrete, Warhead - See "Discrete Rod Warheads"
l72
Rods - Test Procedures and Techniques
l 2
Rod Warhead - Fundamental Concepts
l
Rod Warhead - Test Procedures and Techniques
Scope of Weapons System Concepts 30

Selection Chart, Warhead 34
Service Warheads, Characteristics 134
Shaped Charge Warheads *11
Bibliography 130
l2
Explosive Charge Design 125
l2
Fuzing Requirements, Summary of '
Liner Design 1 3
l2
Warhead Casing Design °
ll1
Detail Design Steps
Fundamental Concepts 1'3
l2
References 9
l8
10
Warhead Types
l
Simulated - Evaluation Methods ^^
Size of the Weapons System Design Team 31
l
Stabilized Submissiles - Cluster Warheads ^6
Sterne Formulas
l
Submissiles, Design of - Cluster Warheads °5
204
Symbols, Definition of Xi
Targets, Classification of 33
Test Facilities 184
Aberdeen Proving Ground *85
l88
Air Force Flight Test Center
l88
Air Proving Ground
l8
Army Chemical Center ^
87
Dugway Proving Ground I
Holloman Air Development Center I88
Naval Aviation Ordnance Test Station I88
18
Naval Ordnance Laboratory '
l3
Naval Ordnance Test Station *
l87
Naval Proving Ground
l8
Picatinny Arsenal ^
l86
White Sands Missile Range
l
Testing, Warhead - Planning of Test Program *>7
17
Test Procedures and Techniques . . 0
Damage Mechanism Testing 170
Cluster Submissiles 172
l7
Fragments 0
l72
Rods
Warhead and Warhead Components *74
Blast Warheads I82
l76
Cluster Warheads
Fragmentation Warheads *74
l81
Rod Warheads
Test Program, Planning 167
Specific Program, Establishing 168
Test Requirements, Outlining 167
Tests, Explosive 190
Unstabilized Submissiles - Cluster Warheads 1°5
Warhead and Warhead Components - Test Procedures and Techniques 174

Warhead Casing Design - Shaped Charge Warheads 126
Warhead Detail Design - General 36
Warhead Evaluation 139
Bibliography 163
Evaluations, Approximate 153
Evaluation Methods 154
Evaluation Principles 139
205
} ■ \ '•,. . ., s. . >
Warhead Evaluation (Continued)

References 158
Warhead Selection . 33
Bibliography 35
Chart 34
Classification of Targets 33
Warhead Testing 1*7
Bibliography 188
Facilities 184
l
Planning of Test Program ^'
l7
Procedures and Techniques °
Warhead Types
Blast Warheads t
9
Cluster Warheads
Continuous Rod Warheads '
Discrete Rod Warheads '
Incendiary Warheads 12
Inert and Exercise Warheads 13
l2
Leaflet Warheads
l0
Shaped Charge Warheads
Weapons System Concepts ^
Applications to Warhead Design 32
Measure of Cost of the Contribution 'l
Scope 30
l86
White Sands Missile Range - Test Facilities
y f -4
er
206
ENGINEERING DESIGN HANDBOOK SERIES
The Engineering Design Handbook Series is intended to provide a compilation of principles and fundamental data to
supplement experience in assisting engineers in the evolution of new designs which will meet tactical and technical
needs while also embodying satisfactory producibility and maintainability.
Listed below are the Handbooks which have been published or submitted for publication. Handbooks with publica-
tion dates prior to 1 August 1962 were published as 20-series Ordnance Corps pamphlets. AMC Circular 310-38, 19
July 1963, redesignated those publications as 706-series AMC pamphlets (i.e., ORDP 20-138 was redesignated AMCP
7C6-138). All new, reprinted, or revised Handbooks are being published as 706-series AMC pamphlets.
General and Miscellaneous Subjects Ballistic Missile Series
Number Title Number Title
106 Elements of Armament Engineering Part One, 281(S-RJ Weapon System Effectiveness (U)
Sources of Energy 282 Propulsion and Propellants
107 Elements of Armament Engineering Part Two, 284(C) Trajectories (U)
Ballistics 286 Structures
108 Elements of Armament Engineering Part Three,
Weapon Systems and Components Ballistics Series
110 Experimental Statistics, Section 1, Basic Con- 140 Trajectories, Differential Effects, and
cepts and Analysis of Measurement Data Data for Projectiles
111 Experimental Statistics, Section 2, Analysis of 160IS) Elements of Terminal Ballistics, Part
Enumerative and Classificatory Data One, Introduction, Kill Mechanisms,
112 Experimental Statistics, Section 3, Planning and and Vulnerability (U)
Analysis of Comparative Experiments 161(S) Elements of Terminal Ballistics, Part
113 Experimental Statistics, Section 4, Special Two, Collection and Analysis of Data
Topics Concerning Targets (U)
114 Experimental Statistics, Section 5, Tables 162(S-RD) Elements of Terminal Ballistics, Part
134 Maintenance Engineering Guide for Ordnance Three, Application to Missile and
Design Sp?C" Targets (U)
135 Inventions, Patents, and Related Matters
136 Servomechanisms, Section 1, Theory Carriages and Mounts Series
137 Servomechanisms, Section 2, Measurement 340 Carriages and Mounts--General
and Signal Converters 341 Cradles
138 Servomechanisms, Section 3 Amplif i cation 342 Recoil Systems
139 Servomechanisms, Section 4 Power Elements 343 Top Carriages
and System Design 344 Bottom Carriages
170(C) Armor and Its Application to Vehicles (U) 345 Equilibrators
252 Gun Tubes (Guns Series) * 346 Elevating Mechanisms
270 Propellant Actuated Devices 347 Traversing Mechanisms
290(C) Warheads--General (U)
331 Compensating Elements (Fire Control Series) Materials Handbooks
355 The Automotive Assembly (Automotive Series) 301 Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys
302 Copper and Copper Alloys
Ammunition and Explosives Series 303 Magnesium and Magnesium Alloys
175 Solid Propellanta, Part One 305 Titanium and Titanium Alloys
176(C) Solid Propellants, Part Two (U) 306 Adhesives
177 Properties of Explosives of Military Interest, 307 Gasket Materials (Nonmetallic)
Section 1 308 Glass
178(C) Properties of Explosives of Military Interest, 309 Plastics
Section 2 (U) 310 Rubber and Rubber-Like Materials
210 Fuzes, General and Mechanical 311 Corrosion and Corrosion Protection of
211(C) Fuzes, Proximity, Electrical, Part One (U) Metals
212(S) Fuzes, Proximity, Electrical, Part Two (U)
213(S) Fuzes, Proximity, Electrical, Part Three (U) Military Pyrotechnics Series
214(S) Fuzes, Proximity, Electrical, Part Four (U) 186 Part Two, Safety, Procedures and
215(C) Fuzes, Proximity, Electrical, Part Five (U) Glossary
244 Section 1, Artillery Ammunition--General, 187 Part Three, Properties of Materials Used
with Table of Contents, Glossary and in Pyrotechnic Compositions
Index for Series
Surface-to-Air Missile Series
245(C) Section 2, Design for Terminal Effects (U)
246 291 Part One, System Integration
Section 3, Design for Control of Flight Char-
acteristics 292 Part Two, Weapon Control
247 Section 4, Design for Projection 293 Part Three, Computers
248 294(S) Part Four, Missile Armament (U)
Section 5, Inspection Aspects of Artillery
Ammunition Design 295(S) Part Five, Countermeasures (U)
249' Section 6, Manufacture of Metallic Components 296 Part Six, Structures and Power Sources
of Artillery Ammunition 297(S) Part Seven, Sample Problem (U)
W*.
ü
f
0R REFERENCE OHLY
FOR REFERENCE ONLY

Ad 0501329

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ad 0501329

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ad 0501329

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNCLASSIFIED

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

RFrSRBSE^WtY ■^ — r, "~ '- :,tü\

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

REDSTONE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER

AMCP 706-290(C), Warheads--General (U), forming part of the

FOR THE COMMANDER:

SELWYN D. SMITH, JR.

The Engineering Design Handbook of the Army Materiel Com-

This handbook on Warheads--General presents information on

This handbook was prepared under the direction of the Engineer-

Agencies of the Department of Defense, having need for Hand-

Comments and suggestions on this handbook are welcome and

4-42 Warhead Details (Discrete Rod Warhead)

Biological Warhead - A warhead containing organisms, which damages primarily by

Casing - The material which forms the outer shell of a warhead.

Chemical Warhead - A warhead containing chemical agents, which damages primarily

Cluster Warhead - A warhead containing a group of submissiles or bomblets, together

Detonating Cord - A plastic-covered textile wrapper containing a core of explosive material.

Evaluation - Determination of warhead performance, often relative to the original require-

Fragment - Piece of metal scattered by the detonation of a warhead.

Fragment Beam Width - Angle covered by a useful density of fragments.

Fragment Pattern - The arrangement of fragments after detonation.

Fragmentation Warhead - A warhead so designed that metal fragments emitted at high

Fuze - A device designed to initiate detonation of a warhead at a specific time or position,

Guidance System - A group of electronic and mechanical devices designed to direct a

Hard Target - A target that is relatively difficult to damage as required.

Implosion - A force tending to create inward collapse.

Incendiary Material - A substance capable of setting fire to the target.

Incendiary Warhead - A warhead containing incendiary material as the primary damaging

Leaflet Warhead - A warhead containing leaflets or pamphlets.

Lethality - A measure of the effectiveness of a warhead.

Missile - A self-propelling pilotless weapon.

S & A - Safety and arming device.

Shaped Charge Warhead - A warhead designed to emit a jet of minute, hyper-velocity

Soft Target - A target which may be damaged with relative ease.

Standard Error of Guidance - A measure of the dispersion (linear standard deviation)

Training Warhead - See "Exercise and Inert Warheads".

Warhead Compartment - That space in a missile which is allocated to the warhead.

A Average presented area of fragment, MB Maximum bending moment between

AB Bore area, square inches. Mr Ratio of casing weight to charge

CD Drag coefficient. N(M) Number of fragments of mass greater

F Force, pounds or poundals. P^ Probability of a hit within a circle of

K Inside radius /outside radius. Probability of a hit.

L Length, feet or inches. Conditional kill probability.

M Mass, grains, ounces or pounds. Pressure, atmospheres or psi.

M' Weight to charge ratio parameter Probability of detecting and/or recog-

MA Maximum bending moment at loads, Probability of fuzing within any

S Burst point. vs Resultant striking velocity of frag-

V Average velocity, feet per second. W

VD Velocity of detonation wave in the Weight of individual submissile ejec-

Vj Initial dynamic fragment velocity, feet Weight of fragmenting metal, pounds.

vL Lethal striking velocity, feet per Weight of individual submissile ex-

V' Missile velocity, feet per second. Weight of explosive, pounds.

Vn Net volume, cubic inches. c/m Charge-to-metal ratio.

vo Initial relative velocity, feet per d Significant distance in warhead eval-

V. Submissile volume, cubic inches. dV Acceleration of a fragment along its

b Altitude of engagement, feet. 0 Angle between the missile and target

nxi Number of missiles which have an x 9s Static angle of fragment ejection,

p{ Probability of bursting at the i'th dj Angle of inclination of the missile with

IBßjDj^aoDjJnS'poaijJOft aßjDijj padDy$ 8£-/ JO6IJ

HAA SC* SC* CR* FRCR FRCL FR*