"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember
that
the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel
shell.

I don't know WHAT that shell was made out of, or how thick it was---for
all
I know they used a more exotic material, like titanium. Nor do we know
the
actual cross sectional dimensions of the warhead itself. We do know that
a
particularly thick outerwall was not *required*, and that the actual
physics
package diameter could have been as high as maybe six inches, with
quarter
inch thick shell walls (the need for extreme thickness is not really
evident).

They were firing it out of a *cannon*. You don't do that with very thin
shell walls, and it also suggests a large amount of ruggedization for
the warhead itself (something not needed for a hand-carried bomb).

Yes, you can--witness the use of various cargo rounds, to include RAAM/ADAM.
Thin walled structures can be very strong, especially since the force it was
designed to sustain was pretty much a pure axial kick in the seat of the
pants with the rotational force being a nonplayer. And what were the charge
restrictions on its use?


At *worst*, you have a package that will easily fit in a golf bag. How
many ways can you think of to sneak something that size into the US?

Doesn't matter--the claim by Lebed, which these folks have apparently
latched onto, was that we were talking "suitcase bombs", not arty rounds.
Sorry, but I still find it less than believable. Maybe it si the complete
and utter lack of evidence to support Lebed's claims...


Your device still needs its batteries, its HE component, its
high-speed detonators and associated fuzing, its initial neutron
booster--all of the components minus the actual screw in fuze and the
external casing. The apparent limit to the package itself, minus the
unnecessary accoutrements, is going to be in the 50-60 pound range. If
you
have found a smaller device, by weight, that has actually been proven to
work (i.e., either tested or fielded), please explain what it is.

Why? Fifty pounds and small enough to fit in a hand-carried case is
certainly small enough. It's not like you need to fit the thing under a
coach airline seat.

But you have been saying they could be even smaller--where's the beef?

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.