Talk:Warhead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

I removed an intial spam line from the top of the page -anon

What about the following proximity detonators: sonar/acoustic, altimeter-based and magnetic? They used to be used. Are they still? --rmhermen

---

Sonar / acoustic and perhaps magnetic are still probably used, and should be mentioned regardless. Magnetic was most often used on ship mines, though.

Altimeter-based fusing is primarily used with bombs, which I tend to distinguish from warheads. Most nuclear warheads are air-burst, so it may be that some of them used altimeter-based fusing. I think they're all radar based now, but I can't confirm that.

In my mind at least, a bomb isn't the same as a warhead, though they both explode. I consider a warhead to always be a part of a weapon, with it's own delivery system. -- ansible

---

Actually I was thinking of torpedoes. How would they fit? - they are self-propelled. --rmhermen

---

I'm not quite sure what you mean there.

At any rate, all these things are self-propelled delivery vehicles:

• rockets
• missles (tactical, cruise, ballistic)
• torpedos

Therefore, the explosive part of these devices is called a warhead.

These things don't have warheads:

• mines (land, sea)
• bombs
• demolition charges, depth charges, etc.

They do indeed explode, but they don't go to the target by their own power. --ansible

Who are you to make this arbitrary decision? I've heard of ballistic tank rounds and bombs with "warheads." Is this your own POV definition of warhead or standard terminology? I've never heard of it in my years as a Jane's reader, tanknet member and rec.aviation.military flamer.

[edit] Fusing

All right, fusing is distinct from warheads (as is guidance). They are interchangeable and separate. So why is a list of “detonators” listed in a warhead article? This article isn’t about general missile technology, it’s about warheads.