19 ms·
Shaped Charges – Sheet of copper going through 1ft of solid steel (2010) [video]
- Maursault 4y agoIn principle, I think this is how we defeat invading aliens. Production value of this piece is interesting. It kind of seems like an infomercial for PE4.
- pueblito 4y agoNow I want to look into 3d printed explosives
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- formerly_proven 4y agohttps://3dprintingindustry.com/news/uk-defence-agency-plans-to-3d-print-high-explosives-169082/ https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/uk-defence-agency-plans-...
- a9h74j 4y agoPro tip: you'll want to splurge on that second overtemperature limit on your heated bed.
- chemeril 4y agoSeveral US national labs have been developing 3D-printed explosives technology for a bit now. Pretty crazy business that is (surprisingly) safer than doing large machining operations on bulk HE.
- Animats 4y agoThat's a nice explanation of how anti-tank weapons work.
- Vladimof 4y agoI wonder if that's how Ukraine killed so many tanks
- toomuchtodo 4y agoMy understanding is that it’s poor design, storing ammunition in a ring within the turret which turns out is a poor location from an integrity perspective. The “Jack in the box” vulnerability. > The fault is related to the way many Russian tanks hold and load ammunition. In these tanks, including the T-72, the Soviet-designed vehicle that has seen wide use in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, shells are all placed in a ring within the turret. When an enemy shot hits the right spot, the ring of ammunition can quickly “cook off” and ignite a chain reaction, blasting the turret off the tank’s hull in a lethal blow. > For Russia, “the people are as expendable as the machine,” he said. “The Russians have known about this for 31 years — you have to say they’ve just chosen not to deal with it.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/30/russian-tank-turret-blast-jack-in-the-box/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/30/russian-tank...
- AdrianB1 4y agoThe design is responsible for the catastrofic explosions that blow the turret off the tanks, not for the tank being penetrated. The penetration is achieved by making the missiles explode on top of the tank, defeating the thinnest armor versus frontal armor that has 60-100 cm equivalent in RHA steel (they are composite, so thickness is different).
- sbierwagen 4y agoAll design is compromise. The autoloader is a design decision: it replaces a crew member, so Russian tanks operate with a crew of 3 instead of 4. This makes Russian tanks smaller and lighter. Here's a size comparison of the T-72 with the Abrams: https://preview.redd.it/mtwtamct1t821.jpg?auto=webp&s=101442557ee04573ec9212a890a8700fa471ccec https://preview.redd.it/mtwtamct1t821.jpg?auto=webp&s=101442... For the massed tank-on-tank actions it was meant for, this is good! Smaller targets are harder to hit, and T-72s were supposed to be fighting gun duels against M60s while crossing West Germany, so all the armor is in the front plate. Lighter tanks are cheaper, so you can build more of them, going from 4 crew to 3 means your limited pool of tankers can operate 33% more vehicles in the field. Classic cold war-era doctrine, hard lessons learned from WW2. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/technical-reflections-russias-armoured-fighting-vehicles https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme... (It makes regular operations like tank maintenance or replacing damaged tracks way harder, but oh well, nobody ever said being Russian was easy) Separately, there is no particular reason to think Abrams tanks wouldn't be vulnerable to the same weapons, if the Russians had that tank today and were fielding them in the same way they're operating their own tanks. Abrams also has light top armor and no ERA tiles on the roof. An anti-tank grenade dropped by a drone on an Abrams ammo compartment would mission kill it instead of killing the crew, but it would still be out of operation. AFAIK, no Abrams are equipped with Trophy in significant numbers, so it would be just as vulnerable to Javelin or other top attack ATGMs. Tanks are vulnerable from the air, so you need air supremacy; vulnerable to artillery, so you need counterbattery suppression; vulnerable to man-portable AT weapons, so you need dismounted infantry combined arms; vulnerable to AT mines, so you need demining combat engineers, perimeter security so UKR spec ops can't cross lines and plant them, and military police so enforce civilian curfews. Russia is doing none of this, partly due to incompetence, and partly because they just didn't have a big enough force. (Desert Storm took just a hair under a million troops!) If Russia had Abrams, but held all else equal, we'd still be seeing hundreds of flaming wrecks on the nightly news.
- etaioinshrdlu 4y agoIs there a diagram of the setup? I find the video pretty confusing to watch.
- Jabbles 4y agohttps://makeagif.com/gif/shaped-charge-NMFryy https://makeagif.com/gif/shaped-charge-NMFryy
- londons_explore 4y agoThis is just a few dollars worth of copper and explosives. Attach it to a few tens of dollars worth of drone. (The cheapest drones are under 10 dollars now). A country could release 1000 of these and direct them at any military target, and they'll do massive amounts of damage at very low costs. Most anti-drone defences can be defeated simply with a redesign of the drone (eg. Use UWB for Comms, and have dual gyros and use a camera for location instead of GPS). I think the only reason we haven't seen this on the battlefield yet is that we haven't yet had a war between the right countries. But we will.
- natly 4y agoNot sure why you'd use drones rather than just tiny remote controlled model airplanes.
- denton-scratch 4y agoWhat's the difference?
- jhgb 4y agoMulticopters are mechanically simpler and capable of hovering. Kind of a win-win. The drawback is that the fixed wing plane may have longer endurance with a battery of a given size than a multicopter would, but if your communication range is limited for some reason, then this may not be relevant.
- alkonaut 4y agoSomething that carries say 1kg for any distance, is a pretty significant drone. The Dji Mavic pro can carry 1kg and is around $1k. > I think the only reason we haven't seen this on the battlefield yet is that we haven't yet had a war between the right countries. But we will. There are videos every day of Ukrainian drones dropping shaped charges like the Russian RKG-3/1600 from drones. Ukraine even has special troops specialized in it, the Aerorozvidka (Google for the videos). The reason they apparently aren’t bothered by anti drone efforts is because the Russian forces don’t seem to have the training and equipment for it, so regular drones work well enough (with selection bias of course - we don’t see the videos of the failed attacks). It’s clear from that footage what an advantage it is to be able to drop 2 or 3 munitions since you can correct for wind if you miss the first, something you can’t do with a single drop. The larger octocopters that can carry 5kg or more is probably what you want for the job. Some range, and at least 2 charges to drop.
- giantg2 4y agoIf you're going to play around with explosives, an old knowledgeable teacher is best. I imagine incompetence gets weeded out early. The guy in the video has been in quite a few others too. It's fun to see how the hosts are usually a little nervous and he's calm as can be.
- h2odragon 4y agoCount the fingers. More than 8 is probably OK. age may be a drawback, one gets too old to meddle with some of the more fun things eventually.
- IncRnd 4y agoThere are old people who use explosives. There are bold people who use explosives. But, there are no old, bold people who use explosives.
- ethbr0 4y agoReading Ignition! convinced me that there's more than raw intelligence to experimenting with energetic chemistry. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0813595835/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0813595835/
- function_seven 4y agoNote to anyone that might be tempted to get this as an audiobook: Don't! It didn't occur to me that the subject matter would be incompatible with narration, but it (IMO) just doesn't work that way. Large portions of the book have equations and heavy notation. Here's an actual passage: > it can be simplified to cee equals bracket two aitch over em end-bracket to the one half power times bracket one minus parentheses pee e over pee cee end parentheses to the ar over cee pee power end bracket to the one half power. Yeah, I just couldn't keep listening to that. I need to get a print copy, because the subject matter is interesting.
- 4y ago
- anfractuosity 4y agoDr Alford also designed water-lined shaped charges for disrupting IEDs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Alford#Early_Inventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Alford#Early_Inventions
- StringyBob 4y agoAm I reading this right? That section also says he made shape charges out of cucumber that could cut steel!
- GravitasFailure 4y agoYou read that right or we're both reading it wrong. I'm guessing the cucumber was an early prototype of the gelled water shaped charges, or he has a very...energetic...hatred of salads.
- dylan604 4y agoNo, not salads. Spas.
- londons_explore 4y agoCucumber is basically water that you can cut to shape with a knife.
- daenz 4y agoI'm not sure I fully understood the explanation. So the copper cone is turned inside out and turns into a pointed wire that drives into the target? How is it that this wire can continue through the 1ft of steel? Is the force of the explosion flowing through this wire/tube, like liquid in a straw? And somehow it can sustain this through 1ft of steel?
- emmelaich 4y agoA major part of it is that the copper is going extremely fast. But also see other explanation, about being renewed.
- trhway 4y agodue to the copper cone shape and the explosion wave propagation from the back the copper, which at those pressures is flowing like a liquid, is formed into a jet and pushed forward like a water in a power washer hose. Water at 3000bar would cut several inch steel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quL14Csmi_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quL14Csmi_Y). The copper in that explosion gets accelerated to the speeds of like 10km/s and as a result cuts through everything in its way. A bit of current context - beside deep penetration the jet isn't that destructive to surroundings. And here comes design flaw of Russian tanks - getting inside a Russian tank such jet frequently hits the tank's ammo which in those tanks is stored in a carousel around/under the turret and thus it results in the whole tank ammo explosion which even throws the multi-ton turret several stories up into the air (you can see a lot of the tanks blown up in that way - 'lollypops' - in Ukraine). To compare - US Abrams tank has ammo stored in separate compartment in the back of the turret.
- KennyBlanken 4y agoFYI, waterjets cut by using water to carry an abrasive media which is injected into the stream at/near the nozzle, not by the action of the water alone.
- jacquesm 4y agoYou can use an abrasive component but you don't have to, pure waterjet cutting works. And depending on the materials and the nozzle shape might actually be the optimum.
- holly76 4y ago[flagged]
- KennyBlanken 4y ago"I designed this, for, well, filling by the user. It means it can travel on airplanes and such" Presenter: "DIY shaped charges, of course" "Mmm yes" I get that he likely meant it can be shipped on airplanes and local explosives used for easier logistics, but it's amusing to hear an explosive munitions expert brag about designing something so it can be carried on airplanes. "This box, I'm pleased to tell you, is full of explosives." Oh man, this guy is a hoot.
- AdrianB1 4y agoIt is just saying it is so stable and safe, it can be transported on a plane.
- ncmncm 4y agoNo. The explosives do not fly. The equipment is such as not to alarm airport people.
- a9h74j 4y agoYT brought me this[1] next, another jolly bunch with explosives. One of them before an attempt with water between the explosive and the target wall: I predict it will either go through or the wall will be really clean. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUKTIt5GQrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUKTIt5GQrM
- Someone 4y agoI interpreted that as him being able to bring everything except for the explosives anywhere easily by regular airlines, where he expects his client to provide the explosives.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
- javert 4y agoIf you were wondering what inspired the accents of fictional pirates and witches in movies and TV shows, now you know.
- blip54321 4y agoQuestion: Is there a way to play with these things at home? Any pointers to DIY stuff?
- belval 4y agoYou can find it by Googling around, but you won't find it on chemistry YouTube channels as YouTube cracked down hard on those. Even videos on making precursors to RDX or HMX (which can be used to make C-4) are banned.
- Spooky23 4y agoThe materials are monitored and retailers have relationships with police, nationwide. If you, a non-farmer, shows up to buy some fertilizer, etc, calls are made.
- Vladimof 4y agoany kind of explosive would probably be a good start... might want to check laws first though
- chemeril 4y agoYes and no. It's simple enough to construct a shaped charge from things you buy at Home Depot, assuming you have the right explosive. The explosive needs to be conformal (either plastic or castable) and capable of achieving true detonation. Secondaries like C4 and TNT are not easy to synthesize at home, and the primaries that are easy to synthesize at home are difficult to phlegmatize and handle safely at the necessary volumes. Explosives are terribly fun but please do not try messing with them at home.
- blip54321 4y agoI'd like to mess with them at home, but not at "the necessary volumes" to go through a foot of steel as in the video. You know those little bang snaps you throw at the ground and they make a popping sound? For DIY, ideally, I'd do things in that kind of volume. I'd probably need a smidgen more, but I wouldn't want to do more than e.g. make a pinhole in 29 gauge sheet metal. What I'd really love to make -- but I don't think I ever could safely -- is a little 1/8A or 1/4A rocket engine (of the that cost a couple bucks at the local hobby store). This is science lab with kids, not bomb-making 101.
- samlader 4y agoInteresting simulation of a shaped charge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqMoFx0uwpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqMoFx0uwpo
- somat 4y agoGot to admit, I was hoping they would dig the copper jet out of the sand.
- emmelaich 4y agoAppears to be from a series bbc.co.uk/bang
- mhh__ 4y agoThe show was called bang goes the theory.
- swayvil 4y agoBad ass. Momentum trumps substance.
- nostrademons 4y agoThe Wikipedia article on shaped charges is fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge The penetration distance is proportional to the diameter of the charge (counterintuitive; you'd expect the height), and can be up to 7x as large. So a ~5 inch charge shown in the film can penetrate up to about 3 feet of solid steel. Also, all of our known defenses against shaped charged rely on the assumption that the same spot won't get hit twice. Composite armor breaks and deflects the geometry of the jet through its deformation; reactive armor relies on a mini-explosion to defeat the jet. This has interesting implications in a world of drones and precision-guided munitions, and in fact the Javelin missiles we've been shipping to Ukraine have double warheads, the first to destroy the armor and the second to destroy the vehicle.
- infofarmer 4y agoThere are many more types of active defenses other than reactive armor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_protection_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_protection_system
- bglazer 4y agoI recently learned that active protection systems have really significant electronic signatures. I’m no expert but I believe that they rely on vehicle mounted radar systems to detect incoming fire. Take a look at this graphic: https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads/sites/3/2021/07/image2.png https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads/sites/3/2021/07/imag... The source for this is an advertisement for a Rheinmetal brand APS. So treat it like you would any marketing material. Nonetheless, if it’s even remotely accurate, I would not want to be part of a tank crew that is visible to surveillance aircraft multiple countries away. I get the impression these APS systems were designed with low intensity “anti-terror” operations in mind. They’ll do a decent job killing an RPG fired from across the street but they light you up like a Christmas tree. Not a problem if you’re battling ISIS but a significant liability against opponents with modern surveillance capability. Also they’re useless against top attack munitions which seem to be remarkably effective in Ukraine.
- 4y ago
- stjohnswarts 4y agolol I think I'm on a list now for watching that :)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- puskavi 4y agoI feel like this is really all about acoustics
- tshubbard 4y agoShaped charges are also used to create the holes (perfs) in wellbores prior to fracking. The shaped charges blast through 1/2 inch of steel pipe and then a foot or two of rock. Sand and water are then pumped through the holes to prop open the rock and allow oil, gas, and water to flow out with less resistance.
- pvillano 4y agothere was a defcon talk where they tested multiple methods for rapid hard drive erasure, in the event of a raid on a data center. a bomb range they visited happened to have a few of these leftover and https://youtu.be/-bpX8YvNg6Y?t=2135 https://youtu.be/-bpX8YvNg6Y?t=2135
- hunter-gatherer 4y agoIn the US/Iraq war such contraptions were commonly referred to as EFPs (explosively formed penetrators). My platoon was once hit by a four-array EFP that was hung behind a cement wall (US forces would often line streets with barricades like this) so we couldn't see it. It went through the concrete wall, the humvee, and took some legs with it. Brutal things they were. We avoided prolonged truck excursions, but I remember we used to always sit with our arms and legs as staggered as possible--The thought being that if an EFP went through, you might get lucky and only lose one arm/leg instead of two. Of course it probably didn't help... but whatever.
- root_axis 4y agoThat sounds pretty scary. I hope you made it out ok.
- hedgehog 4y agoDevious. The assassination of Alfred Herrhausen is I think the textbook example of this technique: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Herrhausen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Herrhausen
- sofixa 4y agoInteresting, thanks for sharing. A few things stand out (spoilers of course) - the Chairman of Deutsche Bank had an armoured convoy with two vehicles with bodyguards. It makes sense seeing that someone was trying to kill him, but outside of that context it seems a lot. Most European politicians, including heads of state and government, have less today. Second, he bled to death. I wonder what circumstances led to this, was the car too badly mangled and nobody could come to his aid? It's not something that happens instantaneously, i think, so there's some time to react. But maybe the blood loss couldn't be stopped ( severed legs, is there something that could be done? Would a tourniquet help?). No idea
- spiffistan 4y agoAlso rather interesting that Vladimir Putin is thought to have been involved as the RAF handler, if those sources are veritable.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- staticassertion 4y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHfQYGGUS4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHfQYGGUS4U Slow Mo guys using shape charges.
- supernova87a 4y agoI amuse myself by thinking that Sidney Alford (the expert in the video, who by the way appears to have passed away last year) looked like, and was, the modern Grand Maester, conjuring up magical (but yes, destructive and terrible) explosives for the use by kingdoms against each other. He should've been given a cameo part in Game of Thrones... I got onto the topic years ago when watching the Dambusters. Related to this, he also has a video showing how putting a simple tube/bag of water behind an explosive charge magnifies its force incredibly. I believe he started a company that built and sold explosives with such a water-fillable jacket that could be used to knock down doors by police forces. edit: here's the water filled explosive knocking down a door: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_80gWlDQdHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_80gWlDQdHg
- dEnigma 4y ago>here's the water filled explosive knocking down a door Seems more like it's blowing a hole into a wall.
- andai 4y agoWhat wall? ;)
- pvillano 4y agodoes that make the rainbow six siege breach charge somewhat accurate? In that, if it doesn't knock the whole wall down like the first part of the video, there would be a door-shaped hole. https://rainbowsix.fandom.com/wiki/Breach_Charge/Siege https://rainbowsix.fandom.com/wiki/Breach_Charge/Siege
- hedgehog 4y agoYes, "wall breaching charge"
- yencabulator 4y agoI have some combat explosives training. What I see in the picture there is sort of inspired by a real thing, but weirdly stylized. The real thing: Take stiff cardboard slightly larger than the hole you want to make, any shape. Using wire or such to hold it in place, arrange flexible "rope" of plastic explosive in loops on the cardboard, in any shape you want. It's going to be a continuous rope, not separate bits like in that image. Make it a triangle: 3 layers, then 2 on top, then 1. This is the "shaped explosive" part, and directs the force toward the wall. Nail/etc flat side of cardboard to door/wall you want a hole in, move to side & to safe distance. Make it go boom. I've converted a thick wood door into toothpicks with that.
- scotty79 4y agoWhat's pretty surprising is that explosively formed projectiles can have quite a range and can be aimed precisely. Explosion of PTKM-R1 anti-tank mine that destroys the tank by targeting it from above: https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/a0ZMv2n_460svvp9.webm https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/a0ZMv2n_460svvp9.webm I also read about some antitank missile that basically has two such auto-aiming charges and just releases them when it's above the targets and they aim and detonate forming projectiles that hit the tank(s?).
- 127 4y agoIf you look just at how small the shaped charge inside the NLAW is, and how the weapon works, I wonder why you wouldn't just put that shaped charge inside a $50 drone and fly it directly above the tank.
- ycombinete 4y agoThey are already doing that. There are many videos of Ukraine using modified anti tank grenades. They remove the little parachute, and attach a 3-d printed tail. This is then fitted to a commercial drone. Examples (NSFW-ish, Thermal imagery of tank cook-offs): 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/ug39y1/drone_destroys_a_russian_tank_with_a_cumulative/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/ug39y1/drone... 2. https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/u29rdx/ukrainian_cots_drone_drops_antitank_grenades_on_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/u29rdx/ukrai... There are also a lot showing anti-personnel grenades, and even RPG rounds being dropped on people, and regular cars etc. too.
- hasperdi 4y agoThey do actually equip largish hobby class quadcopters with anti tank grenades. You'll find plenty videos of them on YouTube.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- saberdancer 4y agoSome of the loitering munitions drones are doing exactly that. Switchblade 600 has a shaded charge based on a Javelin one.
- amai 4y ago„Electric armour is a type of reactive armour proposed for the protection of ships and armoured fighting vehicles from shaped charge and possibly kinetic weapons using a strong electric current“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_armour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_armour
- allturtles 4y agoFor anyone else who was intrigued and wanted to see more, I found the full documentary here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1_sMaMcLG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1_sMaMcLG8 Presumably this is of dubious legality, but I can't find any official way to view it online in the U.S., or any recorded media form you can buy.