Talk:Continuous-rod warhead
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
possible reference... edit
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/index.html
Part 13.4.4
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.144.254 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This picture
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Continuous-rod-warhead.gif
is nice, but unrealistic. The rod would not cut through the engine, which is made of lots of very hard materials.
Lastdingo (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I added the reference and corrected the description. Such a cutting would indeed be only possible with a particularly oversized CRW, but missiles that size use fragmentation warheads instead. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It's NOT an annular blast fragmentation pattern edit
It is just similar to one. A annular fragmentation effect is created by actual fragmentation, which is designed to throw the fragments in an annular expanding ring. The expanding rod is a related but different concept. There is no fragmentation involved, in fact they spend a great deal of effort to ensure that it doesn't fragment. "Annular blast expansion" would be a better term.