A Brief Journey Through the History of Gun Propulsion 

by Albert W. Horst 

ARL-TR-3671 November 2005 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

ARL-TR-3671 November 2005 

A Brief Journey Through the History of Gun Propulsion 

Albert W. Horst 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

November 2005 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

October 2001–December 2003 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

A Brief Journey Through the History of Gun Propulsion 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

622618AH8000 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Albert W. Horst 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-WM-BD 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3671 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

While the use of guns and gun-like devices extends back in history for more than a millennium, the past century has been 

marked by significant advances in the technology of guns, the projectiles they launch, and the propulsion systems employed to 

launch these projectiles to ever-increasing velocities. This report chronicles a sampling of theoretical and experimental 

advances in the science of gun propulsion and its application to a wide range of practical gun propulsion concepts. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

gun charges, solid propellant, multiphase flow, computer simulation 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Albert W. Horst 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

 34 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-6856 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents 

List of Figures iv 

1. Background 1 

2. Interior Ballistics – The Underpinning Science of Gun Propulsion 1 

3. Landmark Experimental Contributions 2 

4. Theoretical Interior Ballistics 5 

5. Gun Propulsion – Ordnance Applications 9 

6. Gun Propulsion – Hypervelocity Applications 13 

7. Current Drivers for Research and Prognosis for the Future 18 

8. References 20 

Distribution List 24
iv

List of Figures 

Figure 1. The overall problem: conversion of chemical energy stored in the propellant into 

kinetic energy in the projectile...................................................................................................1 

Figure 2. The challenge for more performance: increasing the area under the pressure vs. 

travel curve without exceeding system pressure limits..............................................................2 

Figure 3. (a) Noble crusher gage (4); (b) piezoelectric crystal gage (2).........................................3 

Figure 4. (a) Projecting rod technique (4); (b) microwave interferometry (5). ..............................4 

Figure 5. Predicted pressure vs. time profiles for nominal telescoped ammunition (12). ..............5 

Figure 6. The 155-mm chamber simulator, flash radiograph, and cinematographic frame 

(11).............................................................................................................................................5 

Figure 7. Schematic of NGEN3 multidimensional multiphase flow interior ballistics code 

(21).............................................................................................................................................8 

Figure 8. Schematic (axisymmetric half figure) of nominal telescoped ammunition (12).............8 

Figure 9. Predicted gas velocity and pressure fields for nominal telescoped ammunition (12). ....8 

Figure 10. Progressivity and geometry of various propellant configurations (1).........................10 

Figure 11. Conceptual interior ballistic process for bulk-loaded liquid propellant gun. ..............11 

Figure 12. Simplified schematic of regeneratively injected liquid propellant gun.......................11 

Figure 13. Simplified schematic of ETC propulsion gun. ............................................................12 

Figure 14. Experimental and predicted muzzle velocities as a function of propellant charge 

to projectile mass (C/M) (based on reference [30] and updated by Horst)..............................13 

Figure 15. The 210-mm, 140-cal Wilhelmgeshutze (Paris Gun) – 1917 (32). .............................14 

Figure 16. The 16-in, 86-cal HARP Gun – 1965 (32). .................................................................15 

Figure 17. The 150-mm, 100-cal German Hochdruckpumpe – 1944 (35). ..................................15 

Figure 18. Detonation wave acceleration from explosive lined tube (38)....................................16 

Figure 19. Schematic of traveling charge propulsion concept (40)..............................................16 

Figure 20. Schematic of inbore ram accelerator concept (thermally choked mode) (43).............16 

Figure 21. Simplified schematic of single-stage light gas gun (44). ............................................17 

Figure 22. Simplified schematic of electromagnetic gun – coilgun concept................................17 

Figure 23. Simplified schematic of electromagnetic gun – railgun concept.................................18 
1

1. Background 

In preparing for this report, the author had the privilege of reviewing hundreds of publications 

from numerous countries on both the seminal accomplishments and the technical details of 

theoretical and experimental efforts critical to the evolution of gun propulsion technology. The 

current work by no means attempts to catalog all of these efforts, but rather is intended to 

provide a sampling of interesting and important scientific accomplishments and practical 

developments leading to identifiable advances in gun propulsion. As this report was written 

primarily for oral presentation, the narrative performs the function of providing brief technical 

description and historical perspective associated with a clearly limited but hopefully interesting 

selection of topics pertinent to progress in the field of gun propulsion. (Much of this material 

was presented at the 20th International Symposium on Ballistics [1].) The reader is directed to 

the references for a more complete accounting of any of the reported accomplishments. 

2. Interior Ballistics – The Underpinning Science of Gun Propulsion 

The interior ballistics of guns is the science of converting some form of stored energy 

(classically, chemical energy of a solid propellant released upon burning) into significant kinetic 

energy of a launch package in a very short timeframe and employing a launch system that 

occupies limited space (as opposed to rocket propulsion, for which the propulsive cycle may be 

extensive in time and space, continuing well into the ballistic trajectory of the flight body). The 

very nature of this highly dynamic launch environment defines the fundamental problem for the 

gun interior ballistician – managing the competition between the production of gases from the 

burning propellant and the volume to put them in as the projectile moves down the bore, so as to 

maximize the conversion of stored chemical energy of the propellant to kinetic energy of the 

projectile at muzzle exit (figure 1). 

Figure 1. The overall problem: conversion of chemical energy stored in the propellant 

into kinetic energy in the projectile. 

Chemical Energy 

Chemical Energy Æ Internal Energy of Gas + Kinetic Energy of Gas + Losses + 

Kinetic Energy of 

the Projectile! 
2

As depicted in figure 2, the challenge for more performance thus translates into one of increasing 

the area under the pressure vs. travel curve without exceeding the maximum pressure limits of 

the system, be they imposed by the gun tube, the recoil system, or the projectile itself. Produce 

the gases too rapidly and excessive pressurization occurs; too slowly, the propellant is not all 

burned and/or expansion of combustion gases is limited, reducing the extraction of energy to 

accelerate the projectile. Proper programming of energy release, however, broadens the curve 

and increases projectile kinetic energy at the muzzle. This interesting process thus defines the 

fundamental tasking to interior ballisticians throughout history: increasing interior ballistic 

performance by (1) increasing the total energy available to the propulsion system and, equally 

important, (2) tailoring the release of this energy, both temporarily and spatially, to maximize its 

transfer to the projectile. Numerous contributions, both experimental and theoretical, have 

addressed this grand challenge for centuries, but this report will limit itself to those of the past 

150 years. Of necessity, only the briefest of descriptions are provided herein; the reader is 

encouraged to consult the references for additional information. 

Figure 2. The challenge for more performance: increasing the area under the pressure vs. travel curve 

without exceeding system pressure limits. 

3. Landmark Experimental Contributions 

We begin our tour with a recognition of development critical tools, both experimental and 

theoretical, that have been essential to the progress of the interior ballistician and gun propulsion PROJECTILE BASE PRESSURE 

POSITION 

BARREL “DESIGN” PRESSURE 
3

engineer. Experimental accomplishments are grouped here into three categories: practical charge 

design, propellant performance characterization, and research tools. 

Clearly, a critical requirement of the early gun designer was measurement of pressure within the 

gun chamber. Early techniques were based on deformation of lead or copper plates, and later 

copper cylinders, such as the Noble gage (figure 3a), first introduced in England in 1860 and 

providing a monumental advance for experimental ballisticians (1). Revolutionary, however, 

was the development of piezoelectric crystal gages (figure 3b), introduced nearly a century later, 

but able to quantify not only the maximum pressure but also the entire temporal history of 

pressurization within the gun (2). The next step, of course, was to put a pressure gage on the 

projectile base, enabling quantification of the pressure gradient within the gun and hence 

establishing the actual pressure (and force) history acting on the projectile. Hardware techniques 

were introduced in the 1950s (2), though the wire seldom survived more than a few inches of 

travel. This technology was eclipsed, however, by the development and use of onboard 

recorders or telemetry systems (e.g., S-band FM/FM [3]) in the 1970s, which were then used 

routinely to provide in-bore data throughout the interior ballistic cycle. 

 

 (a) (b) 

Figure 3. (a) Noble crusher gage (4); (b) piezoelectric 

crystal gage (2). 

During this same period of time, a number of techniques were developed to enable 

characterization of the in-bore trajectory without instrumentation onboard the projectile. As far 

back as 1860, Krupp in Germany employed a projecting rod (figure 4a) to break successive 

electrical circuits to mark passage of the projectile down the bore. Similar methods were 

employed by Noble and Abel in England and Crehore and Squier in the United States in the 

following decades (2, 4). Nearly a century later, investigators in many continents began using 

microwave interferometers (figure 4b) to make reliable in-bore trajectory measurements. A 

rotating drum camera capable of resolving interferometer frequencies up to 1200 kHz was 

developed at the U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory (5). Again, onboard telemetry 
4

 

 (a) (b) 

Figure 4. (a) Projecting rod technique (4); (b) microwave interferometry (5). 

revolutionized such measurements in the 1970s and 1980s, as has miniaturization of electronics 

in the past decade, facilitating multi-axis, high-g measurements with minimal volumetric 

requirements. 

Turning now to propellant characterization, the use of closed and vented chambers has long 

provided valuable assistance to both the propellant developer and the propelling charge designer. 

For many decades, closed bombs were used to establish relative performance characteristics, but 

with the development of piezoelectric pressure gages and computerized data reduction codes in 

the 1960s, they became the standard tool for not only quantifying relative force and quickness of 

the propellant, but also determining the all important burning rate of the propellant. Typically in 

sizes of several hundred cubic centimeters in volume, latest versions are as small as 25 cm3

 to 

facilitate evaluation of small samples of research formulations employing costly materials (6, 7). 

Alternate chamber designs are fitted with blowout discs to allow convenient study of early phase 

interior ballistics or capture of partially burned propellant (8), or with nozzles to allow evaluation 

of the erosivity of various propellants (9). 

Research interests dictated the development of more sophisticated approaches to address motion 

of the solid propellant, including the use of radioactive tracers (figure 5) by Yamakawa and 

others at the U.S. Ballistic Research Laboratory in the 1950s, who employed propellant grains 

seeded with gamma radiation sources such as Cobalt 60 (2). Most fruitful has been the 

development and use of a wide range of gun simulators employing optically and x-ray 

transparent chambers (figure 6) allowing direct monitoring of flamespread and early solid phase 

motion of developmental or pathogenic charge configurations. Now used throughout the world, 

first successful designs were provided by Soper (10) at the U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory and 

Minor (11) at the U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory. It should be noted that the previous 

paragraphs identify just a few of the innovative and highly significant advances made by the 

experimental community in the field of gun interior ballistics and propelling charge design. 
5

Figure 5. Predicted pressure vs. time profiles for nominal telescoped ammunition (12). 

Figure 6. The 155-mm chamber simulator, flash radiograph, and cinematographic frame (11). 

4. Theoretical Interior Ballistics 

While “seeing is believing,” underscoring the uncontested need for experimental data, the 

explanation for such observed behavior, as well as the description of behaviors not yet amenable 

to experimental elucidation, depend on the accomplishments of the theoretician. This is no less 
6

true in the field of interior ballistics than in any other field of applied science, with a rich history 

filled with the accomplishments of such famous names as Lagrange, Langweiler, Cranz, 

Coppock, Goldie, Resal, Liouville, Chabonnier, Kent, and Corner, to name but a few. In this 

section, we review a number of the key advances in interior ballistic theory, ranging from 

simplified closed form solutions to today’s powerful multidimensional, multiphase flow codes. 

In the beginning, the basic tools of the interior ballistics modeler were a few definitions, an 

equation of state, an isentropic expansion law, and a simple yet all-important energy equation, 

describing how chemical energy originally stored in the propellant is apportioned into internal 

energy remaining in the hot pressurized gas, kinetic energy of the projectile and propellant gas, 

and losses such as friction and heating of the barrel. The simplest of descriptions then follows by 

assuming the propellant is all burnt at time zero. One can employ the equation of state to define 

a hypothetical initial pressure, the expansion law to calculate it at muzzle exit, and then apply the 

energy equation to determine the kinetic energy and hence velocity of the projectile. 

Incidentally, while such a model is clearly not useful for predicting maximum chamber pressure, 

its application to the U.S. Army 120-mm tank gun yields a predicted muzzle velocity that 

exceeds experiment by only about 50 m/s. 

A next step in the hierarchy of closed form interior ballistic representations was that of the 

constant pressure solution; this assumption is still used today by many for estimation of the 

performance of new propellants. It assumes combustion of the propellant and motion of the 

projectile at a constant pressure to yield conditions at burnout, followed by expansion of gases to 

the muzzle and application of the energy equation to yield muzzle velocity, typically about 5% 

high with respect to reality. And finally, the more elegant solution of Mayer-Hart (13), which 

includes recognition of the covolume of the propellant gases (effectively the volume per mass of 

the gas molecules – significant at high loading densities and pressures), and, importantly, the 

finite burning rate and burning surface of the propellant. With three basic equations – the energy 

equation, Newton’s law, and the mass burning rate equation – and a not insignificant application 

of algebra, this technique provides results typically within 1% of reality at ordnance velocities. 

Early WWII ballisticians, such as Roggla, Bennet, and Hirshfelder (14), developed expansive 

tables providing performance estimates based on grain dimensions, loading density, and 

expansion ratio. But it was the entrance of computers, starting with the introduction of the 

ENIAC in 1945 at the Ballistic Research Laboratory (with its 18,000 vacuum tubes and capable 

of multiplying two 10-digit numbers in 2.6 ms) and leading to today’s massively parallel 

supercomputers, with capabilities at the teraflop level, that revolutionized the simulation and 

prediction of interior ballistics and gun propulsion phenomenology. 

Perhaps the most prevalent of computerized interior ballistic codes are those based on lumpedparameter models, one of the earliest of which was developed by Baer and Frankle (15), which 

with a few more bells and whistles is used extensively today under the name of IBHVG2 (16). 

Five basic governing equations (energy equation, equation of state, mass burning rate equations, 

equations of motion, and pressure gradient equation) are solved numerically as algebraic and 
7

ordinary differential equations, facilitating parametric analyses and optimizations with minimal 

computer assets. Numerous equivalent codes exist and remain the workhorse tools of the gun 

propelling charge designer worldwide. 

Acknowledgment also needs to be made to Love and Pidduck’s 1922 introduction to the gas 

dynamics occurring in the gun tube (17). The “Lagrange gun,” as it became known, was a 

hypothetical gun initially pressurized with a frictionless projectile that was released at time zero. 

Love and Pidduck provided an analytical solution to the problem of the transit of this projectile 

and the transit of the resulting rarefaction wave. Not only did this work provide a transition from 

the world of lumped parameter codes to modern multiphase flow codes, but it was the likely 

inspiration for a current interior ballistic concepts, such as the wave gun for high velocities (18) 

and the rarefaction wave gun for mitigation of recoil forces (19). 

Today’s focus, however, is on the use of multiphase (and often multidimensional) interior 

ballistic codes to treat the problems of ignition and flamespreading, and the development of 

pressure waves and potentially damaging overpressures – all beyond the scopes of both 

lumped-parameter and single-phase flow models. Figure 7 provides a block diagram of a stateof-the-art multiphase flow interior ballistic code, known as NGEN3, developed by Paul Gough 

Associates (20, 21), incorporating three-dimensional continuum equations and supporting 

auxiliary relations in a modularized code structure. A coupled Eulerian Lagrangian approach is 

utilized to provide accurate modeling of the continuous gas phase and discrete solid (particulate) 

phase, employing the balance equations for conservation of mass, momentum, and energy on a 

sufficiently small scale of resolution for treating this multicomponent reacting mixture problem. 

A macroscopic representation of the flow is adopted by employing a formal averaging technique 

to render a solution appropriate to the scale of the phenomena of interest but large with respect to 

the scale of heterogeneity of the problem. Closure is provided through a number of constitutive 

laws including state equations, intergranular stresses, and interphase transfers of mass, 

momentum, and energy. The numerical representation of these equations is based on a finitevolume discretization and high-order accurate, conservative numerical solution schemes. 

One example of application of NGEN3 to a problem of current interest is provided by Nusca and 

Horst (12) and addresses a notional, telescoped ammunition configuration (figure 8). 

Flamespread is complicated in such a configuration, and the potential for severe longitudinal 

pressure waves is a concern. Results from simulations from NGEN3 (run in the two-dimensional 

axisymmetric mode) are shown, with figure 5 depicting a strong predicted pressure spike at the 

front of the chamber, and figure 9 providing a elucidation via snapshots at various times of gas 

velocity vectors and pressure fields. Subsequent calculations in this study identified a solution 

based on providing a high-permeability longitudinal path in the annular region exterior to the 

projectile, perhaps through the use of stick or scroll propellant. Numerous pathogenic charge 

configurations have been studied over the past several years with this code, providing suggested 

solutions, first validated in companion simulator firings and subsequently adopted in actual 

charge designs. 
8

Figure 7. Schematic of NGEN3 multidimensional multiphase flow interior ballistics code (21). 

Figure 8. Schematic (axisymmetric half figure) of nominal telescoped 

ammunition (12). 

Figure 9. Predicted gas velocity and pressure fields for nominal telescoped ammunition (12). 
9

5. Gun Propulsion – Ordnance Applications 

Over the course of history, propelling charge designers have faced a formidable range in gun 

parameters – some three decades in bore diameter and six decades in muzzle energy – with a 

common goal of maximizing performance, at least in part, by increasing the energy in the 

propellant charge and tailoring its release spatially and temporally to maximize transfer to the 

projectile. 

In terms of intrinsic energy of gun propellant formulations, history has seen a transition from 

conventional solvent processed single and double base propellants to nitramine-based composite 

propellants (originally in pursuit of low vulnerability as much as increased energy), the use of 

NENA-based plasticizers, and most recently the incorporation of high energy crystalline 

oxidizers like RDX and CL20 into energetic thermoplastic elastomeric (ETPE) binders like 

BAMO-AMMO and BAMO-GAP (22). Current efforts also address the use of novel high 

energy molecules and nanostructured energetics to provide increased energies. 

Any such increases in energy provided by these efforts, however, require concomitant 

improvements in the ability to program their release during the interior ballistic cycle to provide 

usable increases in gun performance. Toward this end, propellant engineers have provided 

alternatives to conventional perforated cylinders for more aggressive approaches to providing a 

programmed increase in the mass generation rate after peak pressure (figure 10). Techniques 

include the use of concepts such as programmed splitting propellant (23) to, at prescribed time in 

the interior ballistic cycle, discontinuously increase surface area, and layered materials (24) to 

similarly increase burning rates and energies, a technique made possible by the use of ETPE 

propellants which offer the chemical stability between adjacent layers required for such 

applications. 

It is important to point out that the competition between gas production and volume production, 

key to optimization of the interior ballistic cycle, is not simply a global concern, but as extremely 

important on the local level, as either a nonuniform initial distribution of propellant in the gun 

chamber or a localized ignition of the propellant bed can lead to significant longitudinal pressure 

waves with attendant safety problems. The process is then further influenced by grain 

configuration and loading density, which determine the overall charge permeability to gas flow, 

and propellant mechanical properties, which determine the potential for grain fracture. 
10

Figure 10. Progressivity and geometry of various propellant configurations (1). 

The traditional role of artillery fire has been to provide large volume fire at a variety of ranges 

with the gun always pointed at a high firing angle for terminal performance reasons; the solution 

to this challenge has been the use of multiple zone charges to provide a range of muzzle 

velocities to allow this high angle firing under all conditions. Accompanying problems, 

however, have included difficulty in smooth and reproducible ignition of all increments, a 

susceptibility to damage to the bagged or combustible cased increments during handling, and, of 

course, an added logistics burden associated with use of the various types of increments required 

to meet ballistic requirements. Recent efforts both within the United States and abroad have 

focused on the development of single, universal increment concepts, fast enough to burn out at 

low (one or two) zones, and slow enough not to overpressure the gun at top (maximum number 

of increments) zones. 

Tank guns, on the other hand, have benefited from the use of rigid case assemblies. Performance 

has been the paramount issue, and the quest for maximizing propellant energy, loading density, 

and progressivity of gas production are major considerations for the charge designer. Today’s 

high performance tank gun cartridges boast extremely high energy loads of propellant in novel 

progressive geometries or chemically coated or layered formulations providing muzzle velocities 

in the 1700 m/s range. Moreover, the closely coordinated optimization of gun, projectile, and 

propelling charge as a system has yielded substantial benefit. 

Alternate approaches to gun propulsion for ordnance applications have included the use of liquid 

propellants employed in various combustion schemes. The potential benefits of a liquid 

propellant are both obvious and subtle, with the logistics advantage of “one size fits all” near the 

top of the list, but including many other items such as propellant cost and even certain aspects of 

performance. Specific approaches have included bulk-loaded liquid propellant guns (25) and 

various injected concepts (26), where the potential benefit of simplicity of mechanical design is 

Perforated Grains Partially Cut 19-Perf Sticks 

Layered Propellants Programmed Splitting Sticks 

PS
11

traded for increased control over the physical process. In bulk loaded concepts, the initial 

burning surface is defined by the ignition process, with subsequent burning surface determined 

by complex hydrodynamic processes (figure 11), both subject to a lack of reproducibility which 

all too often led to overpressures and even catastrophic failures – and ultimately the termination 

of development efforts. Regeneratively injected liquid propellant gun approaches (figure 12) 

enjoyed a considerably longer period of interest from the development community, but finally 

succumbed to problems of system size, weight, and complexity; propellant/gun steel 

incompatibility; and a chronic history of high frequency pressure oscillations of debatable 

concern. It is worth pointing out, however, that revised propellant formulations and oscillation 

mitigation techniques pursued in recent years have provided solutions to some of these concerns. 

Figure 11. Conceptual interior ballistic process for bulk-loaded liquid propellant gun. 

Figure 12. Simplified schematic of regeneratively injected liquid propellant gun. 
12

Considerably more success has been achieved with another family of concepts most commonly 

known as electrothermal-chemical (or ETC) propulsion. First conceived simply as an 

electrothermal gun, electrical energy in the form of a plasma was injected into a working fluid 

such as water, which was then vaporized to pressurize the gun chamber and accelerate the 

projectile down the bore. Further, proper electrical pulse shaping could, in theory, be used to 

tailor the process to provide the required progressivity of gas production to optimize 

performance of the launcher. Owing to the high cost, in terms of volume and mass, of electrical 

energy, the concept was quickly hybridized to use energetic working fluids that would release 

additional energy from combustion. Plagued by the same problems of process stability as bulkloaded liquid propellant guns, the concept then migrated to the use of solid propellants (though 

some variations such as metal-water guns are still being considered). With the resulting system 

(figure 13), a minimal amount of plasma energy can be used to control or at least influence the 

rate of energy release from the propellant. High-temperature, low-mass plasmas provide an 

excellent medium providing very rapid and extremely reproducible ignition for propellants of all 

types, including very high density charges, with the side benefit of being able to provide 

temperature compensation by altering the amount of electrical energy to compensate for the 

temperature-dependent burning rate of the propellant (27). 

Figure 13. Simplified schematic of ETC propulsion gun. 

As of today, electrical energy alone cannot compete with chemical propellants as a primary 

source of energy for ordnance velocity guns. However, as an enabler of very high loading 

density layered propellants, performance increases in excess of 25% in muzzle kinetic energy 

have been demonstrated in a range of U.S. guns (28). Also, the UK has pursued a concept 

whereby adjustments in electrical energy are used to provide closed loop corrections for extreme 

precision in muzzle velocity (29). Of current interest is the potential to exploit a chromophoric 

coupling between the plasma spectral output and the response of the propellant to achieve a 

tuned match for a specific ignition response, perhaps enabling the use of very high energy 

propellants that are responsive only to the intended stimulus both otherwise relatively 

insensitive.

Prime Power Pulsed Power

 Supply 

Projectile

Plasma Injector

Propellant Charge 
13

6. Gun Propulsion – Hypervelocity Applications 

Time now for a brief visit to the world of hypervelocities achieved from gun launch. A chart 

very similar to that shown in figure 14 was first presented to the Seventh International 

Symposium on Ballistics by Heiser in 1980 (30). Muzzle velocities from various classes of 

guns are shown as a function of their propellant charge to projectile mass ratio (C/M), with this 

ration for artillery typically around 0.25 g/cm3

, tank guns at about 0.95, and research launchers at 

3 or above. Also presented in the figure are theoretical limits computed using various 

assumptions. If one were to use the simple global energy equation used in the closed form 

interior ballistic models mentioned earlier, and assume an arbitrarily high C/M, an infinite 

expansion, and no losses (such as heat loss or friction), the result falls in the range of 5-6 km/s 

range. 

Figure 14. Experimental and predicted muzzle velocities as a function of propellant 

charge to projectile mass (C/M) (based on reference [30] and updated by 

Horst). 

Actual experimental results, though somewhat more conservative, are still quite impressive. 

While small payloads (31.5 g) are reported to have been launched to velocities in excess of 

3.5 km/s from a 40-mm barrel and a C/M of 25 (31), substantial masses too have been launched 

to hypervelocities using truly conventional propulsion. Over 30 years ago, in a follow-on 

program to the joint US/Canadian High Altitude Research Program (HARP) program, a 60-kg 

projectile was launched to a velocity of over 3 km/s from what was essentially a triple travel 

16-in Naval gun (32). More recently, this author and others conducted hypervelocity firings at 

more modest C/M levels, still achieving velocities in the 2.5–3km/s range, but with detailed 
14

interior ballistic measurements that showed excellent agreement with multiphase flow 

calculations for downbore pressures throughout the firing cycle (33, 34). 

Digressing for a moment to consider a broader view of history of ballistics, including 

hyperenergy as well as hypervelocity, we note use of a number of techniques, including “brute 

force,” alterations to the tube and chamber geometries, and various downbore gas generation 

techniques. History provides many examples of big guns. The Wilhelmgeschutze (or Paris 

Gun), shown in figure 15, dates back to WWI and launched 106-kg projectiles to 126 km, but 

with muzzle velocities of under 1700 m/s (34). Some half a century later, the 16.4-in HARP gun 

(figure 16) launched a variety of high velocity projectiles, including 160-kg research vehicles at 

muzzle velocities of nearly 2200 m/s and achieving an apogee of 180 km (32). These latter 

firings were conducted at a C/M of about 2.4 and employed a unique distributed ignition system 

to achieve satisfactory flamespreading and prevent the formation of pressure waves. A number 

of investigators, primarily in Germany, but also in the UK and the United States, have looked at 

ways to modify the geometry of the gun to prevent downbore pressures from dropping off rapidly 

after peak pressure. Concepts have included tapered bore guns and multichambered guns, such 

as the mighty German Hochdruckpumpe (figure 17), which included not only the standard gun 

chamber at the rear of the barrel, but also ten additional chambers down the length of the bore (35). 

Figure 15. The 210-mm, 140-cal Wilhelmgeshutze (Paris Gun) – 1917 (32). 

The quest for gun propulsion concepts which provide high downbore pressures has continued to 

modern times. More recent efforts of limited success have included the use of propellant-lined 

tubes by the U.S. Navy, whereby a very high burning rate propellant progressively ignites as the 

projectile moves down the bore (36), and more aggressive extensions to this concept by Kryukov 

in the USSR (37), employing explosive liners providing a focused detonation wave on the base 
15

of the pressure to achieve hypervelocities, as shown in figure 18. U.S. investigators have also 

studied this concept (38). The traveling charge gun first discussed extensively by Langweiler in 

1947 (39) has been pursued experimentally at numerous sites including the U.S. Army Ballistic 

Research Laboratory in the 1980s (figure 19), where very high burning rate propellants were 

employed to provide the high gasification rates necessary for a simple end burning grain 

geometry (40). Success was limited, however, by propellant problems, including the lack of 

mechanical properties required to support resulting stresses in the charge fixed to the 

accelerating projectile base. 

Figure 16. The 16-in, 86-cal HARP Gun – 1965 (32). 

Figure 17. The 150-mm, 100-cal German 

Hochdruckpumpe – 1944 (35). 
16

Figure 18. Detonation wave acceleration from explosive lined tube (38). 

Figure 19. Schematic of traveling charge propulsion concept (40). 

Extensive research was conducted at several sites throughout the world in the 1990s on the 

inbore ram accelerator, a concept based on injecting a moving projectile shaped like the 

centerbody of a ramjet into an accelerator tube precharged with a combustible or detonable 

mixture (41–43). Heating and ignition of these gases, by a variety of mechanisms, at the base of 

the projectile resulted in a local pressurization that traveled with the projectile as it moved down 

the tube. Successes to about 2.5 km/s were achieved in various gun sizes up to 120 mm, but both 

fundamental and practical problems limited success beyond that point. 

Figure 20. Schematic of inbore ram accelerator concept (thermally choked mode) 

(43). 
17

Two topics are largely excluded from this report: light gas guns (LGG), a single stage version 

depicted in figure 21, and electromagnetic guns (EMG), shown in two forms in figures 22 and 

23. Only a brief comment will be made on each. Regarding LGG, the reader is reminded once 

again of the simple energy equation introduced early in this report. The usual losses associated 

with accelerating the propellant gases, which grow prohibitively large at hypervelocities, are 

substantially reduced with the use of low molecular weight gases like hydrogen and helium, 

leading to an entire field of accelerators whereby a light gas is first pressurized by conventional 

propellants, explosives, chemical reactions, or electrical heating, prior to a highly efficient 

expansion cycle (44). LGGs perform well as laboratory devices but are difficult to weaponize, 

though hybridized concepts have been proposed for weapon applications. EMGs, on the other 

hand, have seen extensive investment for both strategic and tactical weapon application. Again, 

one principal advantage is the avoidance of losses to KE of an accelerating gas, though numerous 

other challenges are present, not the least of which is the low relative energy density of electrical 

devices (~5J/g) versus that of propellants (~5000 J/g). Both the U.S. Army and Navy are 

currently pursuing electromagnetic propulsion for future gun systems (45), as are various 

agencies in numerous other countries. 

Figure 21. Simplified schematic of single-stage light gas gun (44). 

Figure 22. Simplified schematic of electromagnetic gun – coilgun concept. 

Prime Power Pulsed Power 

 Supply 

Projectile

Drive Coils
18

Figure 23. Simplified schematic of electromagnetic gun – railgun concept. 

7. Current Drivers for Research and Prognosis for the Future 

Future requirements for gun propulsion focus not only on increases in performance but also on 

reductions in size and mass to support the trend for lightweight yet highly lethal weapons 

systems. Compact systems require compact weapons and ammunition, motivating concepts such 

as telescope ammunition, posing substantial challenges to projectile and charge designers alike. 

High performance from small gun systems necessitates recoil impulse management, such as fireout-of-battery or novel approaches like Benet Laboratory’s rarefaction wave gun (19). Reduced 

weight systems limit the amount and type of armor protection employed, posing a need for 

reduced vulnerability of ammunition. Add to all of the above the requirement to deliver smart 

munitions, posing additional constraints on the launch environment. As many of the above may 

offer conflicting requirements on gun propulsion, future interior ballisticians and charge designer 

will have to appeal to two major approaches to achieve success. 

The first is the application of ever-improving design and analysis tools. Modeling capabilities 

exist or are emerging that address atomistic level energetic materials modeling, detailed 

component combustion modeling, ignition and flamespread modeling, multiphase-flow interior 

ballistic modeling, and transient projectile and tube response modeling. Each of these areas of 

research has shown great progress in the past decade, but linkages between the efforts remains a 

challenge. Nano- to micro- to meso- to macroscale modeling transitions may allow not only 

identification of new materials and processes, but also true across-scale optimization of the 

overall system to push gun propulsion to its physical limits. 

The second depends on the identification of breakthrough technologies, in part a result of the 

previously mentioned modeling efforts. However, new technology does not just happen – 

priority and focus are required to mobilize and coordinate national intellectual and financial 

assets on key challenges. In the area of advanced energetics, those elements have been recently 

addressed in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)-sponsored National Advanced 

Energetics Program, leading to coordination of activities in this area among the Department of 

Defense, the Department of Energy, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and affiliated 

universities and contractors (46). Novel molecules, nanostructured energetics, and thermobaric 

Prime Power Pulsed Power 

 Supply 

Conducting Rails 

Armature Projectile
19

material research are among the topics receiving national interest under this program. Yet even 

with incremental improvements, gun propulsion, perhaps at times hybridized with rocket 

propulsion, is expected to continue to play a major role on the battlefield for the foreseeable 

future. Beyond this, however, innovators throughout the community continue to provide 

numerous concepts and approaches to advance propulsion, promising as much as decadal 

improvements in performance. While such promises remain as yet unfulfilled, limitations on the 

future are not posed by this author. Indeed, special purpose gun applications, such as gun-launch 

of insensitive materials to space or at least low orbit, may relieve the launch system of many of 

the constraints that render most innovative concepts impractical for tactical systems. 
20

8. References 

1. Horst, A. W. Interior Ballistics, Where It All Begins. 20th International Symposium on 

Ballistics, Orlando, FL, 2002. 

2. Army Materiel Command Engineering Design Handbook, Ballistics Series; Interior 

Ballistics of Guns, AMCP 706-150, 1965. 

3. Evans, J.; Colburn, J. Measurement of Resistive Pressure Profiles for the 120-mm Gun; 

BRL-TR-3067; U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 

1989. 

4. Cranz, C. Textbook of Ballistics, Vol. III (Part 2); Experimental Ballistics, 1927. 

5. Loder, R. Sensitivity Analysis of Michelson Type Microwave Interferometry for the 

Measurement of Projectile In-Bore Motion; ARBRL-TR-02386; U.S. Army ARRADCOM, 

Ballistic Research Laboratory: Picatinny, NJ, 1982. 

6. Mitchell, S.; Horst, A. Comparative Burning Rate Study. 13th JANNAF Combustion 

Meeting; CPIA Publication 281, 1976. 

7. Juhasz, A.; et al. Micro Closed Bomb for Characterizing the Burning of Propellants at Gun 

Pressures. 36th JANNAF Combustion Meeting; CPIA Publication 691, 1999. 

8. Colburn, J.; et al. Novel Solid Propellant Temperature Testing in a 30-mm Laboratory Gun 

Fixture. 34th JANNAF Combustion Meeting; CPIA Publication 662, 1997. 

9. Leveritt, C.; et al. Characterization of the Erosivity of Advanced Solid Gun Propellants. 

37th JANNAF Combustion Meeting; CPIA Publication 701, 2000. 

10. Soper, W. Ignition Waves in Gun Chambers. Combustion and Flame 1973, 20. 

11. Minor, T.; Horst, A. Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Flamespreading 

Processes in Stick Propellant Charges; BRL-TR-2710; U.S. Army Ballistic Research 

Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1986. 

12. Nusca, M.; Horst, A. Progress in Multidimensional, Two-Phase Simulations of Notional 

Telescoped-Ammunition Propelling Charge. 39th JANNAF Combustion Meeting, CPIA 

Publication TBD, 2003. 

13. Mayer, J.; Hart, B. Simplified Equations of Interior Ballistics. Journal of the Franklin 

Institute 1945. 

14. Hirschfelder, J.; et al. Interior Ballistics II; NRDC Armor and Ordnance Report A-180, 

1943. 
21

15. Baer, P.; Frankle, J. The Simulation of Interior Ballistic Performance of Guns by Digital 

Computer Program; BRL-R-1183; U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory: Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD, 1962. 

16. Anderson, R.; Fickie, K. IBHVG2 – A User’s Guide; BRL-TR-2829; U.S. Army Ballistic 

Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1987. 

17. Love, A.; Pidduck, F. Lagrange Ballistic Problem. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 1922. 

18. Dahm, T.; Randall, D. The Wave Gun Concept for a Hypervelocity Rapid-Fire Weapon. 

1984 JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, CPIA Publication 390, 1984. 

19. Kathe, E.; Dillen, R. Sonic Rarefaction Wave Low Recoil Gun; ARCCB-TR-02001; U.S. 

Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center: Picatinny, NJ, 2002. 

20. Gough, P. Formulation of a Next-Generation Interior Ballistics Code; ARL-CR-68; U.S. 

Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1993. 

21. Nusca, M.; Gough, P. Numerical Model of Multiphase Flows Applied to Solid Propellant 

Combustion in Gun Systems; AIAA Paper No. 98-3695, 1998. 

22. Juhasz, A.; et al. Energetic TPE Gun Propellant Characteristics, Ballistic Potential, and 

Recommended Research; ARL-TR-1239; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD, 1996. 

23. Robbins, F.; Horst, A. High-Progressivity/Density Propelling Charge Concepts: Progress of 

Programmed Splitting Stick Propellant; BRL-MR-3547; U.S. Army Ballistic Research 

Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1986. 

24. Robbins, F.; Worrell, D. Fastcore Layered Propellant Study. 29th JANNAF Combustion 

Meeting, CPIA Pub. 593, 1992. 

25. Talley, R. Investigation of Bulk-Loaded Liquid Propellant Gun Concepts; ARL-CR-335; 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1997. 

26. Mandzy, J. Weapon System Implications of RLPG Technology; ARL-CR-446; U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 2000. 

27. Oberle, W.; White, K. The Application of Electrothermal-Chemical Propulsion Concepts to 

Reduce Propelling Charge Temperature Sensitivity; ARL-TR-1509; U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1997. 

28. Oberle, W.; Goodell, B. The Role of Electrothermal-Chemical Propulsion in Enhancing 

Direct Fire Gun Lethality. 16th International Symposium on Ballistics, San Francisco, CA, 

1996. 

29. Woodley, C. Qinetic (UK). Private communication, 2002. 
22

30. Heiser, R. Gasdynamic Limits of Maximum Attainable Muzzle Velocities for Conventional 

Guns. 5th International Symposium on Ballistics, Toulouse, France, 1980. 

31. Baldini, L.; et al. High Velocity Interior Ballistics of Guns and Terminal Ballistic Effects; 

draft report; U.S. Army ARRADCOM: Picatinny, NJ, 1982. 

32. Bull, G.; Murphy, C. Paris Kanonen – the Paris Guns and Project HARP; Mittler & Son: 

Lohne, Germany, 1980. 

33. Ruth, C.; Horst, A. Detailed Characterization of Hypervelocity Firings in a Long 120-mm 

Gun; BRL-TR-3190; U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD, 1991. 

34. Colburn, J.; et al. Hypervelocity Firings from a 7-Inch HARP Gun; BRL-TR-3344; BRLMR-3921; U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1992. 

35. Ford, B. German Secret Weapons: Blueprint for Mars; Ballantine: New York, NY, 1969. 

36. Johndrow, J. Development of the Film Ballistics (FILMBAL) Gun Propulsion Concept; 

NSWL/DL TR 3820; U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory: Dahlgren, VA, 1978. 

37. Kryukov, P. BALSAD – Ballistic System for Anitasteroid Defense. 2nd International 

Conference on Ram Accelerators, Seattle, WA, 1995. 

38. Wilson, D.; et al. Numerical Simulation of the Blast Wave Accelerator. AIAA Journal 1996, 

38 (7). 

39. Langweiler, H. A Proposal for Increasing the Performance of Weapons by the Correct 

Burning of Propellant, Impulse Propulsion; Report 1247; Wa Pruef 1/IIb, Berlin, 1939; 

translated by British Intelligence Fort Halstead Exploiting Center: U.K., 1945. 

40. May, I.; et al. The Traveling Charge Effect; ARBRL-MR-03034; U.S. Army ARRADCOM, 

Ballistic Research Laboratory: Picatinny, NJ, 1980. 

41. Hertzberg, A.; et al. Ram Accelerator: A New Chemical Method for Accelerating Projectiles 

to Ultrahigh Velocities. AIAA Journal 1988, 26. 

42. Giraud, M.; et al. RAM Accelerator in 90-mm Caliber, First Results Concerning the Scale 

Effect in Thermally Choked Propulsion Mode. 13th International Symposium on Ballistics, 

Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. 

43. Kruczynski, D.; et al. Experimental Demonstration of a 120-mm Ram Accelerator; ARLTR-1237; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1996. 

44. Siegel, A. Theory of High-Muzzle-Velocity Guns. Interior Ballistics of Guns, AIAA, 1979. 
23

45. Selected Papers from the 11th Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology; IEEE 

Transactions on Magnetics 2003, 39 (1). 

46. Dougherty, R. Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Science and Technology. 

Private communication, 2003. 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

24

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 ONLY) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV & 

 ENGRG CMD 

 SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS 

 INTEGRATION 

 AMSRD SS T 

 6000 6TH ST STE 100 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS 

 AT AUSTIN 

 3925 W BRAKER LN 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CS IS T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600) 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

25

 1 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL D 

 J MILLER 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL RO P 

 D MANN 

 R SHAW 

 TECH LIB 

 PO BOX 12211 

 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

 27709-2211 

 8 US ARMY AVIATN & MSLE CMD 

 W CHEW 

 C DOLBEER 

 J S LILLY 

 M LYON 

 J M FISHER 

 B P MARSH 

 R S MICHAELS 

 D THOMPSON 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-5249 

 2 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS 

 LTC M BUTLER 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 2 PM CAS 

 SFAE AMO CAS 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 7 DIR BENET WEAPONS LAB 

 M AUDINO 

 R DILLON 

 R FISCELLA 

 R HASENBEIN 

 E KATHE 

 K MINER 

 S SOPOK 

 WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050 

 1 COMMANDER 

 RADFORD ARMY AMMO PLANT 

 SMCAR QA HI LIB 

 RADFORD VA 24141-0298 

 18 CDR US ARMY ARDEC 

 D CARLUCCI 

 R CARR 

 R CIRINCIONE 

 S EINSTEIN 

 T GORA 

 J HEDDERICH 

 P HUI 

 J LANNON 

 E LOGSDEN 

 P LU 

 B MACHAK 

 S NICHOLICH 

 P O REILLY 

 J O REILLY 

 J RUTKOWSKI 

 A SABASTO 

 J SHIN 

 R SURAPANENI 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY NGIC 

 AMXST MC 3 

 220 SEVENTH ST NE 

 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22901-5396 

 1 COMMANDANT 

 USAFC&S 

 ATSF CN 

 P GROSS 

 FT SILL OK 73503-5600 

 2 CDR NAVAL RSRCH LAB 

 TECH LIB 

 J BORIS 

 WASHINGTON DC 20375-5000 

 1 OFFICE OF NAVAL RSRCH 

 J GOLDWASSER 

 875 N RANDOLPH ST RM 653 

 ARLINGTON VA 22203-1927 

 8 CDR 

 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER 

 J CONSAGA 

 R DOHERTY 

 C GOTZMER 

 S MITCHELL 

 S PETERS 

 T C SMITH 

 C WALSH 

 TECH LIB 

 INDIAN HEAD MD 20640-5000 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

26

 4 CDR 

 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 J FRAYSEE 

 R FRANCIS 

 T TSCHIRN 

 TECH LIB 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448-5000 

 3 CDR 

 NAVAL AIR WARFARE CTR 

 A ATWOOD 

 S BLASHILL 

 T PARR 

 CH1NA LAKE CA 93555-6001 

 1 AIR FORCE RESH LAB 

 MNME EN MAT BR 

 B WILSON 

 2306 PERIMETER RD 

 EGLIN AFB FL 32542-5910 

 1 AIR FORCE OFC OF SCI RSRCH 

 M BERMAN 

 875 N RANDOLPH ST 

 SUITE 235 RM 3112 

 ARLINGTON VA 22203-1768 

 1 NASA LANGLEY RSRCH CTR 

 D BUSHNELL 

 MS 110 

 HAMPTON VA 23681-2199 

 1 DIR SANDIA NATL LABS 

 M BAER DEPT 1512 

 PO BOX 5800 

 ALBUQUERQUE NM 87185 

 1 DIR SANDIA NATL LABS 

 R CARUNG 

 COMBUSTION RSRCH FACILITY 

 LIVERMORE CA 94551-0469 

 2 DIR LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NL 

 L FRIED 

 M MURPHY 

 PO BOX 808 

 LIVERMORE CA 94550-0622 

 1 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGNCY 

 J BACKOFEN 

 RM 4PO7 NHB 

 WASHINGTON DC 20505 

 2 BATTELLE COLUMBUS LAB 

 TWSTIAC 

 V LEVIN 

 505 KING AVE 

 COLUMBUS OH 43201-2693 

 1 BATTELLE PNL 

 M GARNICH 

 PO BOX 999 

 RICHLAND WA 99352 

 1 BATTELLE EAST SCI & TECH 

 A ELLIS 

 1204 TECHNOLOGY DR 

 ABERDEEN MD 21001-1228 

 2 JHU CHEM PROP INFO AGNCY 

 W HUFFERD 

 R FRY 

 10630 LITTLE PATUXENT PKWY 

 STE 202 

 COLUMBIA MD 21044-3200 

 1 OUSD (AT&L)/STRAT & TACT 

 SYS MUNITIONS 

 T MELITA 

 3090 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

 RM 3B1060 

 WASHINGTON DC 20301-3090 

 1 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV 

 M BECKSTEAD 

 DEPT OF CHEMICAL ENGRG 

 PROVO UT 84601 

 1 CALIF INSTITUTE OF TECHLGY 

 F E C CULICK 

 204 KARMAN LAB 

 MS 301 46 

 1201 E CALIFORNIA ST 

 PASADENA CA 91109 

 2 UNIV OF ILLINOIS 

 DEPT OF MECH INDUSTRY 

 ENGINEERING 

 H KRIER 

 R BEDDINI 

 144 MEB 1206 N GREEN ST 

 URBANA IL 61801-2978 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

27

5 PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV 

 DEPT OF MECHANICAL ENGRG 

 K KUO 

 T LITZINGER 

 G SETTLES 

 S THYNELL 

 V YANG 

 UNIVERSITY PARK PA 16802-7501 

 1 ARROW TECHLGY ASSOC INC 

 1233 SHELBURNE RD D 8 

 SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 

 2 ATK TACTICAL SYSTEMS 

 W B WALKUP 

 T F FARABAUGH 

 210 STATE RTE 956 

 ROCKET CENTER WV 26726-3548 

 1 ALLEGHENY BALLISTICS LAB 

 PO BOX 210 

 ROCKET CENTER WV 26726 

 1 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 C CANDLAND MN07 LW54 

 5050 LINCOLN DR 

 EDINA MN 55436 

 3 ATK AMMO & ENERGETICS 

 RADFORD ARMY AMMO PLANT 

 D A WORRELL 

 W J WORRELL 

 S RITCHIE 

 RTE 114 PO BOX 1 

 RADFORD VA 24141-0299 

 2 ATK THIOKOL 

 P BRAITHWAITE 

 R WARDLE 

 PO BOX 707 

 BRIGHAM CITY UT 84302-0707 

 1 ATK ELKTON 

 J HARTWELL 

 PO BOX 241 

 ELKTON MD 21921-0241 

 1 BAE ARMAMENT SYS DIV 

 J DYVIK 

 4800 E RIVER RD 

 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55421-1498 

 2 GEN DYNAMICS ORD/TACT SYS 

 N HYLTON 

 J BUZZETT 

 10101 DR M L KING ST N 

 ST PETERSBURG FL 33716 

 3 GENERAL DYNAMICS ST MARKS 

 J DRUMMOND 

 H RAINES 

 D W WORTHINGTON 

 PO BOX 222 

 SAINT MARKS FL 32355-0222 

 

 1 GENERAL DYNAMICS ARM SYS 

 J TALLEY 

 128 LAKESIDE AVE 

 BURLINGTON VT 05401 

 1 HICKS AND ASSOCIATES SAIC 

 I MAY 

 7990 SCIENCE APPLIC CT 

 VIENNA VA 22182 

 1 PAUL GOUGH ASSOC INC 

 P S GOUGH 

 1048 SOUTH ST 

 PORTSMOUTH NH 03801-5423 

 2 VERITAY TECHGY INC 

 R SALIZONI 

 J BARNES 

 4845 MILLERSPORT HWY 

 EAST AMHERST NY 14501-0305 

 1 SRI INTERNATIONAL 

 PROPULSION SCIENCES DIV 

 TECH LIB 

 333 RAVENWOOD AVE 

 MENLO PARK CA 94025-3493 

 1 SAIC 

 W WAESCHE 

 1410 SPRING HILL RD 

 SUITE 400 

 MCLEAN VA 22102 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

28

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 CDR 

 USAATC 

 CSTE DTC AT SL 

 APG MD 21005 

 51 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL WM 

 W CIEPIELA 

 AMSRD ARL WM B 

 J B MORRIS 

 AMSRD ARL WM BA 

 D LYON 

 T KOGLER 

 AMSRD ARL WM BD 

 W R ANDERSON 

 R A BEYER 

 A L BRANT 

 S W BUNTE 

 T P COFFEE 

 J COLBURN 

 P J CONROY 

 B E FORCH 

 B E HOMAN 

 AW HORST 

 S L HOWARD 

 P J KASTE 

 A J KOTLAR 

 C LEVERITT 

 R LIEB 

 K L MCNESBY 

 M MCQUAID 

 A W MIZIOLEK 

 J A NEWBERRY 

 M J NUSCA 

 R A PESCE RODRIGUEZ 

 G P REEVES 

 B M RICE 

 R C SAUSA 

 J SCHMIDT 

 A W WILLIAMS 

 AMSRD ARL WM BC 

 P PLOSTINS 

 AMSRD ARL WM EG 

 E SCHMIDT 

 AMSRD ARL WM M 

 S MCKNIGHT 

 AMSRD ARL WM SG 

 T ROSENBERGER 

 AMSRD ARL WM T 

 B BURNS 

 M ZOLTOSKI 

 AMSRD ARL WM TB 

 P BAKER