A shaped charge is an explosive charge shaped to focus the effect of
the explosive's energy. Various types are used to cut and form metal,
initiate nuclear weapons, penetrate armor, and "complete" wells in the
oil and gas industry.
A typical modern shaped charge, with a metal liner on the charge
cavity, can penetrate armor steel to a depth of seven or more times
the diameter of the charge (charge diameters, CD), though greater
depths of 10 CD and above have been achieved. Contrary to a
widespread misconception (possibly resulting from the acronym HEAT)
the shaped charge does not depend in any way on heating or melting for
its effectiveness; that is, the jet from a shaped charge does not melt
its way through armor, as its effect is purely kinetic in nature.
1 Munroe effect
2.1 Modern military
3.3 Other features
5.1 Linear shaped charges
5.2 Explosively formed penetrator
5.3 Tandem warhead
5.4 Voitenko compressor
5.5 Nuclear shaped charges
6 Examples in the media
7 See also
9 Further reading
10 External links
The Munroe or Neumann effect is the focusing of blast energy by a
hollow or void cut on a surface of an explosive. The earliest mention
of hollow charges occurred in 1792. Franz Xaver von Baader
(1765–1841) was a German mining engineer at that time; in a mining
journal, he advocated a conical space at the forward end of a blasting
charge to increase the explosive's effect and thereby save powder.
The idea was adopted, for a time, in Norway and in the mines of the
Harz mountains of Germany, although the only available explosive at
the time was gunpowder, which is not a high explosive and hence
incapable of producing the shock wave that the shaped-charge effect
The first true hollow charge effect was achieved in 1883, by Max von
Foerster (1845–1905), chief of the nitrocellulose factory of
Wolff & Co. in Walsrode, Germany.
By 1886, Gustav Bloem of Düsseldorf, Germany had obtained U.S. Patent
342,423 for hemispherical cavity metal detonators to concentrate the
effect of the explosion in an axial direction. The Munroe effect is
named after Charles E. Munroe, who discovered it in 1888. As a
civilian chemist working at the U.S.
Naval Torpedo Station
Naval Torpedo Station at Newport,
Rhode Island, he noticed that when a block of explosive guncotton with
the manufacturer's name stamped into it was detonated next to a metal
plate, the lettering was cut into the plate. Conversely, if letters
were raised in relief above the surface of the explosive, then the
letters on the plate would also be raised above its surface. In
1894, Munroe constructed the first crude shaped charge:
Among the experiments made ... was one upon a safe twenty-nine
inches cube, with walls four inches and three quarters thick, made up
of plates of iron and steel ... [W]hen a hollow charge of
dynamite nine pounds and a half in weight and untamped was detonated
on it, a hole three inches in diameter was blown clear through the
wall ... The hollow cartridge was made by tying the sticks of
dynamite around a tin can, the open mouth of the latter being placed
Although Munroe's discovery of the shaped charge was widely publicized
in 1900 in
Popular Science Monthly, the importance of the tin can
"liner" of the hollow charge remained unrecognized for another
44 years. Part of that 1900 article was reprinted in the
February 1945 issue of Popular Science, describing how
shaped-charge warheads worked. It was this article that at last
revealed to the general public how the fabled
Bazooka actually worked
against armored vehicles during WWII.
In 1910, Egon Neumann of Germany discovered that a block of TNT, which
would normally dent a steel plate, punched a hole through it if the
explosive had a conical indentation. The military usefulness
of Munroe's and Neumann's work was unappreciated for a long time.
Between the world wars, academics in several countries – Myron
Yakovlevich Sukharevskii (Мирон Яковлевич
Сухаревский) in the Soviet Union, William H. Payment
and Donald Whitley Woodhead in Britain, and Robert Williams Wood
in the U.S. – recognized that projectiles could form
during explosions. However, it was not until 1932 that Franz Rudolf
Thomanek, a student of physics at Vienna's Technische Hochschule,
conceived an anti-tank round that was based on the hollow charge
effect. When the Austrian government showed no interest in pursuing
the idea, Thomanek moved to Berlin's Technische Hochschule, where he
continued his studies under the ballistics expert Carl Julius
Cranz. There in 1935, he and Hellmuth von Huttern developed a
prototype anti-tank round. Although the weapon's performance proved
disappointing, Thomanek continued his developmental work,
Hubert Schardin at the Waffeninstitut der Luftwaffe
(Air Force Weapons Institute) in Braunschweig.
By 1937, Shardin believed that hollow-charge effects were due to the
interactions of shock waves. It was during the testing of this idea
that, on February 4, 1938, Thomanek conceived the shaped-charge
explosive (or Hohlladungs-Auskleidungseffekt (hollow-charge liner
effect)). (It was Gustav Adolf Thomer who in 1938 first
visualized, by flash radiography, the metallic jet produced by a
shaped-charge explosion.) Meanwhile, Henry Hans Mohaupt, a
chemical engineer in Switzerland, had independently developed a
shaped-charge munition in 1935, which was demonstrated to the Swiss,
French, British, and U.S. militaries.
During World War II, shaped-charge munitions were developed by Germany
(Panzerschreck, Panzerfaust, Panzerwurfmine, Mistel), Britain (PIAT,
Beehive charge), the Soviet Union (RPG-43, RPG-6), and the U.S.
(bazooka). The development of shaped charges revolutionized
anti-tank warfare. Tanks faced a serious vulnerability from a weapon
that could be carried by an infantryman or aircraft.
One of the earliest uses of shaped charges was by German glider-borne
troops against the Belgian Fort Eben-Emael in 1940. These
demolition charges – developed by Dr. Wuelfken of the German
Ordnance Office – were unlined explosive charges and didn't
produce a metal jet like the modern
HEAT warheads. Due to the lack of
metal liner they shook the turrets but they did not destroy them, and
other airborne troops were forced to climb on the turrets and smash
the gun barrels.
High explosive anti-tank warhead
The common term in military terminology for shaped charge warheads is
high explosive anti-tank (HEAT).
HEAT warheads are frequently used in
anti-tank guided missiles, unguided rockets, gun-fired projectiles
(both spun and unspun), rifle grenades, land mines, bomblets,
torpedoes, and various other weapons.
In non-military applications shaped charges are used in explosive
demolition of buildings and structures, in particular for cutting
through metal piles, columns and beams and for boring
holes. In steelmaking, small shaped charges are often used to
pierce taps that have become plugged with slag. They are also used
in quarrying, breaking up ice, breaking log jams, felling trees, and
drilling post holes.
Shaped charges are used most extensively in the petroleum and natural
gas industries, in particular in the completion of oil and gas wells,
in which they are detonated to perforate the metal casing of the well
at intervals to admit the influx of oil and gas.
A 40 lb (18 kg)
Composition B 'formed projectile' used by
combat engineers. The shaped charge is used to bore a hole for a
A typical device consists of a solid cylinder of explosive with a
metal-lined conical hollow in one end and a central detonator, array
of detonators, or detonation wave guide at the other end. Explosive
energy is released directly away from (normal to) the surface of an
explosive, so shaping the explosive will concentrate the explosive
energy in the void. If the hollow is properly shaped (usually
conically), the enormous pressure generated by the detonation of the
explosive drives the liner in the hollow cavity inward to collapse
upon its central axis. The resulting collision forms and projects a
high-velocity jet of metal particles forward along the axis. Most of
the jet material originates from the innermost part of the liner, a
layer of about 10% to 20% of the thickness. The rest of the liner
forms a slower-moving slug of material, which, because of its
appearance, is sometimes called a "carrot".
Because of the variation along the liner in its collapse velocity, the
jet's velocity also varies along its length, decreasing from the
front. This variation in jet velocity stretches it and eventually
leads to its break-up into particles. Over time, the particles tend to
fall out of alignment, which reduces the depth of penetration at long
Also, at the apex of the cone, which forms the very front of the jet,
the liner does not have time to be fully accelerated before it forms
its part of the jet. This results in its small part of jet being
projected at a lower velocity than jet formed later behind it. As a
result, the initial parts of the jet coalesce to form a pronounced
wider tip portion.
Most of the jet travels at hypersonic speed. The tip moves at 7 to
14 km/s, the jet tail at a lower velocity (1 to 3 km/s), and
the slug at a still lower velocity (less than 1 km/s). The exact
velocities depend on the charge's configuration and confinement,
explosive type, materials used, and the explosive-initiation mode. At
typical velocities, the penetration process generates such enormous
pressures that it may be considered hydrodynamic; to a good
approximation, the jet and armor may be treated as inviscid,
incompressible fluids (see, for example,), with their material
Jet temperatures vary depending on type of shaped charge, cone
construction, type of explosive filler. A Comp-B loaded shaped charge
with a rounded or pointed cone apex with a copper liner had an average
temperature of 428 degrees Celsius with a standard deviation of 67
degrees Celsius. Octol-loaded charges have an average jet temperature
of 537 degrees Celsius with a standard deviation of 40 degrees
Celsius. A tin-lead liner with Comp-B fill average is 569 degrees
Celsius with a standard deviation of 34 degrees Celsius. the tin-lead
liner also had a slower jet tip velocity of 6.3 km/s.
The location of the charge relative to its target is critical for
optimum penetration for two reasons. If the charge is detonated too
close there is not enough time for the jet to fully develop. But the
jet disintegrates and disperses after a relatively short distance,
usually well under two meters. At such standoffs, it breaks into
particles which tend to tumble and drift off the axis of penetration,
so that the successive particles tend to widen rather than deepen the
hole. At very long standoffs, velocity is lost to air drag, further
The key to the effectiveness of the hollow charge is its diameter. As
the penetration continues through the target, the width of the hole
decreases leading to a characteristic "fist to finger" action, where
the size of the eventual "finger" is based on the size of the original
"fist". In general, shaped charges can penetrate a steel plate as
thick as 150% to 700% of their diameter, depending on the charge
quality. The figure is for basic steel plate, not for the composite
armor, reactive armor, or other types of modern armor.
The most common shape of the liner is conical, with an internal apex
angle of 40 to 90 degrees. Different apex angles yield different
distributions of jet mass and velocity. Small apex angles can result
in jet bifurcation, or even in the failure of the jet to form at all;
this is attributed to the collapse velocity being above a certain
threshold, normally slightly higher than the liner material's bulk
sound speed. Other widely used shapes include hemispheres, tulips,
trumpets, ellipses, and bi-conics; the various shapes yield jets with
different velocity and mass distributions.
Liners have been made from many materials, including various
metals and glass. The deepest penetrations are achieved with a
dense, ductile metal, and a very common choice has been copper. For
some modern anti-armor weapons, molybdenum and pseudo-alloys of
tungsten filler and copper binder (9:1, thus density is
≈18 Mg/m3) have been adopted. Nearly every common metallic
element has been tried, including aluminum, tungsten, tantalum,
depleted uranium, lead, tin, cadmium, cobalt, magnesium, titanium,
zinc, zirconium, molybdenum, beryllium, nickel, silver, and even gold
and platinum. The selection of the material depends on the target to
be penetrated; for example, aluminum has been found advantageous for
In early antitank weapons, copper was used as a liner material. Later,
in the 1970s, it was found tantalum is superior to copper, due to its
much higher density and very high ductility at high strain rates.
Other high-density metals and alloys tend to have drawbacks in terms
of price, toxicity, radioactivity, or lack of ductility.
For the deepest penetrations, pure metals yield the best results,
because they display the greatest ductility, which delays the breakup
of the jet into particles as it stretches. In charges for oil well
completion, however, it is essential that a solid slug or "carrot" not
be formed, since it would plug the hole just penetrated and interfere
with the influx of oil. In the petroleum industry, therefore, liners
are generally fabricated by powder metallurgy, often of pseudo-alloys
which, if unsintered, yield jets that are composed mainly of dispersed
fine metal particles.
Unsintered cold pressed liners, however, are not waterproof and tend
to be brittle, which makes them easy to damage during handling.
Bimetallic liners, usually zinc-lined copper, can be used; during jet
formation the zinc layer vaporizes and a slug is not formed; the
disadvantage is an increased cost and dependency of jet formation on
the quality of bonding the two layers. Low-melting-point (below
500 °C) solder/braze-like alloys (e.g., Sn50Pb50, Zn97.6Pb1.6,
or pure metals like lead, zinc or cadmium) can be used; these melt
before reaching the well casing, and the molten metal does not
obstruct the hole. Other alloys, binary eutectics (e.g. Pb88.8Sb11.1,
Sn61.9Pd38.1, or Ag71.9Cu28.1), form a metal-matrix composite material
with ductile matrix with brittle dendrites; such materials reduce slug
formation but are difficult to shape.
A metal-matrix composite with discrete inclusions of low-melting
material is another option; the inclusions either melt before the jet
reaches the well casing, weakening the material, or serve as crack
nucleation sites, and the slug breaks up on impact. The dispersion of
the second phase can be achieved also with castable alloys (e.g.,
copper) with a low-melting-point metal insoluble in copper, such as
bismuth, 1–5% lithium, or up to 50% (usually 15–30%) lead; the
size of inclusions can be adjusted by thermal treatment.
Non-homogeneous distribution of the inclusions can also be achieved.
Other additives can modify the alloy properties; tin (4–8%), nickel
(up to 30% and often together with tin), up to 8% aluminium,
phosphorus (forming brittle phosphides) or 1–5% silicon form brittle
inclusions serving as crack initiation sites. Up to 30% zinc can be
added to lower the material cost and to form additional brittle
Oxide glass liners produce jets of low density, therefore yielding
less penetration depth. Double-layer liners, with one layer of a less
dense but pyrophoric metal (e.g. aluminum or magnesium), can be used
to enhance incendiary effects following the armor-piercing action;
explosive welding can be used for making those, as then the
metal-metal interface is homogeneous, does not contain significant
amount of intermetallics, and does not have adverse effects to the
formation of the jet.
The penetration depth is proportional to the maximum length of the
jet, which is a product of the jet tip velocity and time to
particulation. The jet tip velocity depends on bulk sound velocity in
the liner material, the time to particulation is dependent on the
ductility of the material. The maximum achievable jet velocity is
roughly 2.34 times the sound velocity in the material. The speed
can reach 10 km/s, peaking some 40 microseconds after detonation;
the cone tip is subjected to acceleration of about 25 million g. The
jet tail reaches about 2–5 km/s. The pressure between the jet
tip and the target can reach one terapascal. The immense pressure
makes the metal flow like a liquid, though x-ray diffraction has shown
the metal stays solid; one of the theories explaining this behavior
proposes molten core and solid sheath of the jet. The best materials
are face-centered cubic metals, as they are the most ductile, but even
graphite and zero-ductility ceramic cones show significant
For optimal penetration, a high explosive with a high detonation
velocity and pressure is normally chosen. The most common explosive
used in high performance anti-armor warheads is
although never in its pure form, as it would be too sensitive. It is
normally compounded with a few percent of some type of plastic binder,
such as in the polymer-bonded explosive (PBX) LX-14, or with another
less-sensitive explosive, such as TNT, with which it forms Octol.
Other common high-performance explosives are RDX-based compositions,
again either as PBXs or mixtures with TNT (to form
Composition B and
the Cyclotols) or wax (Cyclonites). Some explosives incorporate
powdered aluminum to increase their blast and detonation temperature,
but this addition generally results in decreased performance of the
shaped charge. There has been research into using the very
high-performance but sensitive explosive
CL-20 in shaped-charge
warheads, but, at present, due to its sensitivity, this has been in
the form of the PBX composite LX-19 (
CL-20 and Estane binder).
A 'waveshaper' is a body (typically a disc or cylindrical block) of an
inert material (typically solid or foamed plastic, but sometimes
metal, perhaps hollow) inserted within the explosive for the purpose
of changing the path of the detonation wave. The effect is to modify
the collapse of the cone and resulting jet formation, with the intent
of increasing penetration performance. Waveshapers are often used to
save space; a shorter charge with a waveshaper can achieve the same
performance as a longer charge without a waveshaper.
Another useful design feature is sub-calibration, the use of a liner
having a smaller diameter (caliber) than the explosive charge. In an
ordinary charge, the explosive near the base of the cone is so thin
that it is unable to accelerate the adjacent liner to sufficient
velocity to form an effective jet. In a sub-calibrated charge, this
part of the device is effectively cut off, resulting in a shorter
charge with the same performance.
During World War II, the precision of the charge's construction and
its detonation mode were both inferior to modern warheads. This lower
precision caused the jet to curve and to break up at an earlier time
and hence at a shorter distance. The resulting dispersion decreased
the penetration depth for a given cone diameter and also shortened the
optimum standoff distance. Since the charges were less effective at
larger standoffs, side and turret skirts (known as Schürzen) fitted
to some German tanks to protect against ordinary anti-tank rifles
were fortuitously found to give the jet room to disperse and hence
HEAT penetration.
The use of add-on spaced armor skirts on armored vehicles may have the
opposite effect and actually increase the penetration of some shaped
charge warheads. Due to constraints in the length of the
projectile/missile, the built-in stand-off on many warheads is less
than the optimum distance. In such cases, the skirting effectively
increases the distance between the armor and the target, and the
warhead detonates closer to its optimum standoff. Skirting should
not be confused with cage armor which is used to damage the fusing
RPG-7 projectiles. The armor works by deforming the inner
and outer ogives and shorting the firing circuit between the rocket's
piezoelectric nose probe and rear fuse assembly.
Cage armor can also
cause the projectile to pitch up or down on impact, lengthening the
penetration path for the shaped charge's penetration stream. If the
nose probe strikes one of the cage armor slats, the warhead will
function as normal.
There are several different forms of shaped charge.
Linear shaped charges
Linear shaped charge
A linear shaped charge (LSC) has a lining with V-shaped profile and
varying length. The lining is surrounded with explosive, the explosive
then encased within a suitable material that serves to protect the
explosive and to confine (tamp) it on detonation. "At detonation, the
focusing of the explosive high pressure wave as it becomes incident to
the side wall causes the metal liner of the LSC to collapse–creating
the cutting force." The detonation projects into the lining, to
form a continuous, knife-like (planar) jet. The jet cuts any material
in its path, to a depth depending on the size and materials used in
the charge. For the cutting of complex geometries, there are also
flexible versions of the linear shaped charge, these with a lead or
high-density foam sheathing and a ductile/flexible lining material,
which also is often lead. LSCs are commonly used in the cutting of
rolled steel joists (RSJ) and other structural targets, such as in the
controlled demolition of buildings. LSCs are also used to separate the
stages of multistage rockets.
Explosively formed penetrator
Main article: Explosively formed penetrator
Formation of an EFP warhead. USAF Research Laboratory
The explosively formed penetrator (EFP) is also known as the
self-forging fragment (SFF), explosively formed projectile (EFP),
self-forging projectile (SEFOP), plate charge, and Misznay-Schardin
(MS) charge. An EFP uses the action of the explosive's detonation wave
(and to a lesser extent the propulsive effect of its detonation
products) to project and deform a plate or dish of ductile metal (such
as copper, iron, or tantalum) into a compact high-velocity projectile,
commonly called the slug. This slug is projected toward the target at
about two kilometers per second. The chief advantage of the EFP over a
conventional (e.g., conical) shaped charge is its effectiveness at
very great standoffs, equal to hundreds of times the charge's diameter
(perhaps a hundred meters for a practical device).
The EFP is relatively unaffected by first-generation reactive armor
and can travel up to perhaps 1000 charge diameters (CD)s before its
velocity becomes ineffective at penetrating armor due to aerodynamic
drag, or successfully hitting the target becomes a problem. The impact
of a ball or slug EFP normally causes a large-diameter but relatively
shallow hole, of, at most, a couple of CDs. If the EFP perforates the
armor, spalling and extensive behind armor effects (BAE, also called
behind armor damage, BAD) will occur. The BAE is mainly caused by the
high-temperature and high-velocity armor and slug fragments being
injected into the interior space and the blast overpressure caused by
this debris. More modern EFP warhead versions, through the use of
advanced initiation modes, can also produce long-rods (stretched
slugs), multi-slugs and finned rod/slug projectiles. The long-rods are
able to penetrate a much greater depth of armor, at some loss to BAE,
multi-slugs are better at defeating light or area targets and the
finned projectiles are much more accurate.
The use of this warhead type is mainly restricted to lightly armored
areas of main battle tanks (MBT) such as the top, belly and rear
armored areas. It is well suited for the attack of other less heavily
protected armored fighting vehicles (AFV) and in the breaching of
material targets (buildings, bunkers, bridge supports, etc.). The
newer rod projectiles may be effective against the more heavily
armored areas of MBTs. Weapons using the EFP principle have already
been used in combat; the "smart" submunitions in the
bomb used by the US Air Force and Navy in the 2003 Iraq war employed
this principle, and the US Army is reportedly experimenting with
precision-guided artillery shells under Project
SADARM (Seek And
Destroy ARMor). There are also various other projectile (BONUS, DM
642) and rocket submunitions (Motiv-3M, DM 642) and mines (MIFF,
TMRP-6) that use EFP principle. Examples of EFP warheads are US
patents 5038683 and US6606951.
Some modern anti-tank rockets (RPG-27, RPG-29) and missiles (TOW 2B,
ERYX, HOT, MILAN) use a tandem warhead shaped charge, consisting of
two separate shaped charges, one in front of the other, typically with
some distance between them. TOW-2A was the first to use tandem
warheads in the mid-1980s, an aspect of the weapon which the US Army
had to reveal under news media and Congressional pressure resulting
from the concern that NATO antitank missiles were ineffective against
Soviet tanks that were fitted with the new ERA boxes. The Army
revealed that a 40 mm precursor shaped charge warhead was fitted
on the tip of the TOW-2B collapsible probe. Usually, the front
charge is somewhat smaller than the rear one, as it is intended
primarily to disrupt ERA boxes or tiles. Examples of tandem warheads
are US patents 7363862 and US 5561261. The US Hellfire
antiarmor missile is one of the few that have accomplished the complex
engineering feat of having two shaped charges of the same diameter
stacked in one warhead. Recently, a Russian arms firm revealed a 125mm
tank cannon round with two same diameter shaped charges one behind the
other, but with the back one offset so its penetration stream will not
interfere with the front shaped charge's penetration stream. The
reasoning behind both the Hellfire and the Russian 125 mm
munitions having tandem same diameter warheads is not to increase
penetration, but to increase the beyond-armor effect.
Main article: Voitenko compressor
In 1964 a Russian scientist proposed that a shaped charge originally
developed for piercing thick steel armor be adapted to the task of
accelerating shock waves. The resulting device, looking a little
like a wind tunnel, is called a Voitenko compressor. The Voitenko
compressor initially separates a test gas from a shaped charge with a
malleable steel plate. When the shaped charge detonates, most of its
energy is focused on the steel plate, driving it forward and pushing
the test gas ahead of it. Ames translated this idea into a
self-destroying shock tube. A 66-pound shaped charge accelerated the
gas in a 3-cm glass-walled tube 2 meters in length. The velocity of
the resulting shock wave was 220,000 feet per second (67 km/s).
The apparatus exposed to the detonation was completely destroyed, but
not before useful data was extracted. In a typical Voitenko
compressor, a shaped charge accelerates hydrogen gas which in turn
accelerates a thin disk up to about 40 km/s. A slight
modification to the
Voitenko compressor concept is a super-compressed
detonation, a device that uses a compressible liquid or solid
fuel in the steel compression chamber instead of a traditional gas
mixture. A further extension of this technology is the
explosive diamond anvil cell, utilizing multiple
opposed shaped charge jets projected at a single steel encapsulated
fuel, such as hydrogen. The fuels used in these devices, along
with the secondary combustion reactions and long blast impulse,
produce similar conditions to those encountered in fuel-air and
Nuclear shaped charges
The proposed Project Orion nuclear propulsion system would have
required the development of nuclear shaped charges for reaction
acceleration of spacecraft.
Shaped charge effects driven by nuclear
explosions have been discussed speculatively, but are not known to
have been produced in fact. For example, the early nuclear
weapons designer Ted Taylor was quoted as saying, in the context of
shaped charges, "A one-kiloton fission device, shaped properly, could
make a hole ten feet in diameter a thousand feet into solid rock."
Also, a nuclear driven explosively formed penetrator was apparently
proposed for terminal ballistic missile defense in the 1960s.
Examples in the media
The Krakatoa Shaped Charge System by Alford Technologies Ltd.
The Future Weapons program of the Discovery channel featured the
Krakatoa, a simple shaped charge weapon system designed by Alford
Technologies for special operations deployment. The weapon
consisted of a simple plastic outer shell, a copper cone and a volume
of plastic explosive. This device was effective at penetrating
1-inch-thick (25 mm) steel plate at a range of several meters.
High explosive squash head
^ Post, Richard (June 1, 1998). "Shaped Charges Pierce the Toughest
Targets" (PDF). Science & Technology Review.
^ Introduction to Shaped Charges, Walters, Army Research Laboratory,
^ Franz Baader (March 1792) "Versuch einer Theorie der Sprengarbeit"
(Investigation of a theory of blasting), Bergmännisches Journal
(Miners' Journal), vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 193–212. Reprinted in: Franz
Hoffmann et al. ed.s, Franz von Baader's sämtliche Werke … [Franz
von Baader's complete works …] (Leipzig (Germany): Herrmann
Bethmann, 1854), Part I, vol. 7, pp. 153–166.
^ Donald R. Kennedy, History of the Shaped Charge Effect: The First
100 Years (Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory,
1990), pp. 3–5.
^ For a brief biography of Max von Foerster, see the German
article on him.
^ Kennedy (1990), pp. 5 and 66.
Max von Foerster (1883) Versuche mit Komprimierter Schiessbaumwolle
[Experiments with compressed gun cotton], (Berlin, Germany: Mittler
und Sohn, 1883).
Max von Foerster (1884) "Experiments with compressed gun cotton,"
Nostrand's Engineering Magazine, vol. 31, pp. 113–119.
^ US patent 342423, Gustav Bloem, "Shell for detonating caps", issued
Charles E. Munroe
Charles E. Munroe (1888) "On certain phenomena produced by the
detonation of gun cotton," Proceedings of the Newport [Rhode Island]
Natural Historical Society 1883–1886, Report no. 6.
Charles E. Munroe
Charles E. Munroe (1888) "Wave-like effects produced by the detonation
of guncotton," American Journal of Science, vol. 36, pp. 48–50.
Charles E. Munroe
Charles E. Munroe (1888) "Modern explosives," Scribner's Magazine,
vol. 3, pp. 563–576.
Kennedy (1990), pp. 5–6.
^ C.E. Munroe (1894) Executive Document No. 20, 53rd [U.S.] Congress,
1st Session, Washington, D.C.
Charles E. Munroe
Charles E. Munroe (1900) "The applications of explosives,"
Popular Science Monthly, vol. 56, pp. 300–312, 444–455.
A description of Munroe's first shaped-charge experiment appears on p.
^ Munroe (1900), p. 453.
^ Kennedy (1990), p. 6.
^ "It makes steel flow like mud" Popular Science, February 1945, pp.
^ G.I. Brown (1998). The Big Bang: A history of explosives. Stroud,
Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing Limited. p. 166.
^ W.P. Walters; J.A. Zukas (1989). Fundamentals of Shaped Charges. New
York: John Wiley & Sons inc. pp. 12–13.
^ М. Сухаревский [M. Sukharevskii] (1925) Техника
и Снабжение Красной Армии (Technology and
Equipment of the Red Army), no. 170, pp. 13–18 ; (1926)
Война и Техника (War and Technology), no. 253, pp.
^ William Payman; Donald Whitley Woodhead & Harold Titman
(February 15, 1935). "Explosion waves and shock waves, Part II — The
shock waves and explosion products sent out by blasting detonators".
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 148 (865):
604–622. See also: W. Payman & D. W. Woodhead (December
22, 1937). "Explosion waves and shock waves, V — The shock wave and
explosion products from detonating high explosives". Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London A. 163 (915): 575–592.
^ R. W. Wood (November 2, 1936). "Optical and physical effects of high
explosives". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 157A (891):
^ For a biography of Carl Julius Cranz (1858–1945), see:
Peter O. K. Krehl (2009). History of Shock Waves, Explosions and
Impact: A Chronological and Biographical Reference. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag. pp. 1062–1063.
German: Carl Cranz
^ Helmut W. Malnig (2006) "Professor Thomanek und die Entwicklung der
Präzisions-Hohlladung" (Professor Thomanek and the development of the
precision hollow charge), Truppendienst, no. 289. Available on-line
at: Bundesheer (Federal Army (of Austria))
^ Kennedy (1990), p. 9.
Kennedy (1990), p. 63.
Krehl (2009), p. 513.
H. Mohaupt, "Chapter 11: Shaped charges and warheads", in: F. B.
Pollad and J. A. Arnold, ed.s, Aerospace Ordnance Handbook (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966).
Kennedy (1990), pp. 10–11.
William P. Walters (September 1990) "The shaped charge concept, Part
II. The history of shaped charges," Technical Report BRL-TR-3158, U.S.
Army Laboratory Command, Ballistic Research Laboratory (Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland), p. 7. Available on-line at: Defense
Technical Information Center
^ Donald R. Kennedy, "History of the Shaped Charge Effect, The First
100 Years", D.R. Kennedy and Associates, Inc., Mountain View,
^ John Pike. "Shaped Charge". globalsecurity.org.
^ Col. James E. Mrazek (Ret.) (1970). The Fall of Eben Emael. Luce.
^ Thomanek, Rudolf (1960). "The Development of Lined Hollow Charge".
Explosivstoffe. 8 (8). Retrieved 28 April 2015.
^ Lucas, James (1988). Storming eagles : German airborne forces
in World War Two. London: Arms and Armour. p. 23.
^ "Parkersburg-Belpre Bridge". Controlled Demolition, Inc. Retrieved
^ "500 Wood Street Building". Controlled Demolition, Inc. Retrieved
^ "Semtex RAZOR". Mondial Defence Systems. Retrieved 2011-04-24.
^ a b c Walters, William. "An Overview of the Shaped Charge Concept"
^ "Shaped Charge". globalsecurity.org.
^ G. Birkhoff, D.P. MacDougall, E.M. Pugh, and G.I. Taylor,
"Explosives with lined cavities," J. Appl. Phys., vol. 19, pp.
^ Walters, William (1998). Fundamentals of Shaped Charges (softcover
edition with corrections ed.). Baltimore Maryland: CMCPress.
p. 192. ISBN 0-471-62172-2.
^ Jane's Ammunition Handbook 1994, pp. 140–141, addresses the
reported ~700 mm penetration of the Swedish 106 3A-HEAT-T and Austrian
HEAT projectiles for the 106 mm M40A1 recoilless rifle.
^ "Shaped Charge Liner Materials: Resources, Processes, Properties,
Costs, and Applications, 1991" (PDF). dtic.mil. Retrieved 31 March
^ Alan M. Russell and Kok Loong Lee, Structure-Property Relations in
Nonferrous Metals (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2005),
Copper alloys for shaped charge liners - Olin Corporation".
^ "Method of making a bimetallic shaped-charge liner" U.S. Patent
^ Manfred Held. "Liners for shaped charges", Journal of Battlefield
Technology, vol. 4, no. 3, November 2001.
^ Alistair Doig, "Some metallurgical aspects of shaped charge liners",
Journal of Battlefield Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, March 1998.
^ Hilary L. Doyle; Thomas L. Jentz & Tony Bryan. Panzerkampfwagen
IV Ausf.G, H and J 1942–45.
^ WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69451 Weinheim (1999) - Propellants,
Explosives, Pyrotechnics 24 - Effectiveness Factors for Explosive
Reactive Armour Systems - page 71
^ Accurate Energetic Systems LLC " Linear Shape Charge
^ Ernest L.Baker, Pai-Lien Lu, Brian Fuchs and Barry
High explosive assembly for projecting high velocity
^ Arnold S.Klein (2003) "Bounding Anti-tank/Anti-vehicle weapon"
^ Goodman A. "ARMY ANTITANK CANDIDATES PROLIFERATE" Armed Forces
Journal International/December 1987, p. 23
^ Jason C.Gilliam and Darin L.Kielsmeier(2008)"Multi-purpose single
initiated tandem warhead"
^ Klaus Lindstadt and Manfred Klare(1996)"
Tandem warhead with a
^ Войтенко (Voitenko), А.Е. (1964) "Получение
газовых струй большой скорости" (Obtaining
high speed gas jets), Доклады Академии Наук
СССР (Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR), 158 :
^ NASA, "The Suicidal Wind Tunnel"
^ GlobalSecurity"Shaped Charge History"
Explosive Accelerators"Voitenko Implosion Gun"
^ I.I. Glass and J.C. Poinssot, "IMPLOSION DRIVEN SHOCK TUBE"
^ Shuzo Fujiwara (1992) "
Explosive Technique for Generation of High
^ Z.Y. Liu, "Overdriven
Detonation of Explosives due to High-Speed
^ Zhang, Fan (Medicine Hat, Alberta) Murray, Stephen Burke (Medicine
Hat, Alberta), Higgins, Andrew (Montreal, Quebec) (2005) "Super
compressed detonation method and device to effect such
detonation[permanent dead link]"
^ Jerry Pentel and Gary G. Fairbanks(1992)"Multiple Stage Munition"
^ John M. Heberlin(2006)"Enhancement of Solid
Using Reflective Casings"
^ Frederick J. Mayer(1988)"Materials Processing Using Chemically
Driven Spherically Symmetric Implosions"
^ Donald R. Garrett(1972)"Diamond Implosion Apparatus"
^ L.V. Al'tshuler, K.K. Krupnikov, V.N. Panov and R.F.
Explosive laboratory devices for shock wave compression
^ A. A. Giardini and J. E. Tydings(1962)"Diamond Synthesis:
Observations On The Mechanism of Formation"
^ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2004) "Going To Extremes"
^ Raymond Jeanloz, Peter M. Celliers, Gilbert W.Collins, Jon H.
Eggert, Kanani K.M. Lee, R. Stewart McWilliams, Stephanie Brygoo and
Paul Loubeyre (2007) Achieving high-density states through shock-wave
loading of precompressed samples"
^ F. Winterberg "Conjectured Metastable Super-Explosives formed under
Pressure for Thermonuclear Ignition"
^ Young K. Bae (2008)" Metastable Innershell Molecular State (MIMS)"
^ Andre Gsponer (2008) "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military
Effectiveness and Collateral Effects"
^ Dyson, George, Project Orion: The Atomic Spaceship 1957–1965, p.
113. ISBN 0-14-027732-3.
^ Dyson, Project Orion, p. 220.
^ McPhee, John, The Curve of Binding Energy, p.159
^ Explosively Produced Flechettes; JASON report 66-121, Institute for
Defense Analysis, 1966
^ Interview with Dr. Richard Blankenbecler
^ "YouTube – Future Weapons:Krakatoa". DiscoveryNetworks.
^ "Explosives.net – Products". Alford Technologies.
Fundamentals of Shaped Charges, W.P. Walters, J.A. Zukas, John Wiley
& Sons Inc., June 1989, ISBN 0-471-62172-2.
Tactical Missile Warheads, Joseph Carleone (ed.), Progress in
Astronautics and Aeronautics Series (V-155), Published by AIAA, 1993,
Popular Science article that at last revealed secrets of shaped
charge weapons; article also includes reprints of 1900 Popular Science
drawings of Professor Munroe's experiments with crude shaped charges
Elements of Fission Weapon Design
Shaped bombs magnify Iraq attacks
Shaped Charges Pierce the Toughest Targets
The development of the first Hollow charges by the Germans in WWII
Use of shaped charges and protection against