A Brief History of Shaped Charges 

by William Walters 

ARL-RP-232 December 2008 

A reprint of the keynote paper from the 24th International Symposium on Ballistics, vol. 1, pp. 3–10, 

New Orleans, LA, 22–26 September 2008. 

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 21005-5069 

ARL-RP-232 December 2008 

A Brief History of Shaped Charges 

William Walters 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

A reprint of the keynote paper from the 24th International Symposium on Ballistics, vol. 1, pp. 3–10, 

New Orleans, LA, 22–26 September 2008.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
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)

December 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Reprint 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

January 2008–November 2008 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

A Brief History of Shaped Charges 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

William Walters 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

1L1622618AH80 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

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

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-WM-TC 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-RP-232 

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 

A reprint of the keynote paper from the 24th International Symposium on Ballistics, vol. 1, pp. 3–10, New Orleans, LA, 

22–26 September 2008. 

14. ABSTRACT 

This report provides an overview of the history of shaped charge development by consolidating earlier write-ups from several 

investigators [1–5]. The intent is to educate a new generation of researchers who are not familiar with this material. Most of 

these documents are now either out of print or hard to find. Since most of these publications originated in the 1980s to early

1990s, a few additions were made based on the discovery of new historical material. The report begins with the early work 

(prior to the invention of the detonator) and continues to the present. This report chronicles the works of the early researchers, 

notably Munroe, von Foerster, Newman, Mohaupt, Thomanek, and others. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

shaped charge, EFP, warheads 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

 16 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

William Walters 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-6062 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
A Brief History of Shaped Charges 

Dr. William Walters, Research Engineer 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Terminal Effects Division 

AMSRD-ARL-WM-TC 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

walters@arl.army.mil

phone: 410-278-6062 

This paper provides an overview of the history of shaped charge 

development by consolidating earlier write-ups from several 

investigators [1–5]. The intent is to educate a new generation of 

researchers who are not familiar with this material. Most of these 

documents are now either out of print or hard to find. Since most of 

these publications originated in the 1980s to early 1990s, a few 

additions were made based on the discovery of new historical material. 

The paper begins with the early work (prior to the invention of the 

detonator) and continues to the present. This paper chronicles the 

works of the early researchers, notably Munroe, von Foerster, Newman, 

Mohaupt, Thomanek, and others. 

This brief overview of the development of shaped charges begins with a 

definition of a shaped charge. In the opinion of the author, a shaped charge is 

defined as a cylinder of explosive with a hollow cavity at the end opposite the 

initiation train. If the cavity does not contain a liner, it is referred to as a hollow 

charge or an unlined-cavity charge. If the cavity contains a liner made from a 

metal, an alloy, glass, ceramic, wood, or another material, the device is termed a 

shaped charge or cumulative charge (in the former Soviet Union) or Hohlladung (in 

Germany). The liner geometry may be conical, hemispherical, parabolic, or any 

arcuate device. If the liner is “bow shaped” it is called an explosively formed 

penetrator (EFP). Thus, an EFP also called a self-forging fragment, ballistic disk, 

P-charge projectile, or Miznay-Schardin device, is also a shaped charge. Shaped 

charges with conical liners, hemispherical liners, or bow-shaped liners all collapse 

and form jets and/or slugs in a different manner. Of course, the formed penetrators 

experience some overlap, i.e., a shaped charge with a truncated hemispherical liner 

or a shaped charge with a wide angle conical liner may look like an EFP. Walters 

and Zukas [1] illustrate the formation of shaped charges with various liner 

geometries and Held, see [1], shows that for conical liners with an apex angle of 

150° or greater and for liner wall thicknesses of 1–5% of the liner diameter, the 

penetrator does not form a slug, but all the liner material flows as a single EFP like 

penetrator. Also, for very narrow angle conical liners, with very thick walls (an 

extruded liner), the penetrator resembles the jet from an EFP [1]. Thus, the liner 

wall thickness profile is critical in terms of discerning the shape of the penetrator. 
The term “hollow charge” was apparently coined by A. Marshall in 1920 and the 

term “shaped charge” was coined in the U.S. during World War II [5]. 

The petard may have been a forerunner of the shaped charge and was known 

from the earliest days of gunpowder [5]. The petard consisted of a hood or bellshaped container with a planar rim at the open end to be applied to the face of the 

structure to be blasted, and was filled with gunpowder which was set off from the 

apex end. 

The earliest cited reference to the unlined-cavity charge was attributed to Franz 

von Baader in 1792. F. von Baader focused the energy of an explosive blast using a 

hollow charge. However, his experiments utilized black powder which is not 

capable of detonation. Thus, our shaped-charge history will begin after the 

invention of the detonator by Alfred Nobel in 1867. 

The first demonstration of the hollow cavity effect for high explosives was 

achieved by von Foerster in 1883. G. Bloem of Dusseldorf patented a shell for 

detonating caps that resemble a shaped charge with a hemispherical liner. This was 

perhaps the first shaped charge, i.e., utilizing a lined cavity. 

The unlined shaped charge was rediscovered by Charles Munroe of the Naval 

Torpedo Station, Newport, RI in 1888. Munroe popularized the hollow charge 

concept with several publications. In one of his famous experiments, Munroe 

detonated blocks of explosive in contact with a steel plate. The explosive charge 

had the initials USN (United States Navy) inscribed on the charge opposite the 

initiation point. The initials were reproduced on the steel plate. This is known as 

explosive engraving and von Foerster conducted similar experiments. Munroe 

further observed that when a cavity was formed in a cylinder of explosive, opposite 

the point of initiation, the depth of the crater produced in the steel target increased. 

In other words, a deeper cavity could be formed in a steel plate using a smaller 

amount of explosive. The increase in penetration resulted from the focusing of the 

detonation products by the hollow cavity. 

One of the first lined shaped charges (or perhaps the first shaped charge if we 

discounted Bloem) may be due to Munroe. This device consisted of a tin can with 

sticks of dynamite tied around and on top of it, with the open end of the tin can 

pointing downward. It was able to punch a hole through the top of a steel safe. In 

this case, the tin can served as the liner. 

Early German reference to the hollow cavity effect, after von Foerster and 

Bloem, occurred in 1911–1912 patents in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and Germany 

by Westfalische Anhaltische Sprengstoff Actien Gesellschaft (WASAG). The 

WASAG patents clearly demonstrated the unlined-cavity effect and the lined 

shaped-charge effect. Also, M. Neumann in 1911 and E. Neumann in 1914 (who 

are often confused in the literature) demonstrated the unlined-cavity effect. 

M. Neumann shows a greater penetration into a steel plate from a cylinder of 

explosive with a hollow, conical cavity (247 g of Trinitrotoluol) than from a solid 

cylinder (310 g of Trinitrotoluol). This clearly illustrates what is known in the U.S. 

and U.K. as the Munroe effect and in Germany as the Neuman effect. The depth of 

the crater in the target is increased by utilizing a lined shaped charge and the 

penetration can be further increased by displacing the shaped charge some optimal 

distance from the target.
To illustrate this effect, in Germany in 1941 a hollow cavity charge, a lined 

cavity charge, and a lined cavity charge detonated at a certain standoff distance 

above an armor plate were compared. The target plate was ship armor steel and the 

explosive mixture was 50% TNT and 50% cyclonite. The hollow cavity was a 

hemisphere with a cylindrical extension at its base equal to one-half of the diameter 

of the cavity (D). The liner was made of iron. The explosive contour was of the 

same geometry as the cavity, and the explosive thickness at the base of the liner was 

0.15 times the cavity diameter. For the unlined hollow charge, the penetration (P) = 

0.4 D at zero standoff. For the lined cavity, P = 0.7 D at zero standoff and P = 1.2 

D for standoffs between 0.5 and 1.5 D. For the iron-lined shaped charge, D 

represents the inside diameter of the liner. These formulas are not universal laws, 

but they illustrate the increase in penetration in going from hollow charges, to lined 

cavity charges, to lined cavity charges with a nonzero standoff distance. 

Sukharevskii was the first known Soviet to investigate the shaped-charge effect 

in 1925–1926. The first Italian paper on the shaped-charge effect was by Lodati in 

1932. Schardin reviewed his work and reported that Lodati did not contribute 

anything new to the field. The French research on the shaped charge concept dates 

to 1891 where Lepidi conducted studies with a 155-mm shell which was essentially 

a shaped charge with a cylindrical liner. The final construction of the shell failed 

due to trouble with the initiation system. Due to the use of an inadequate time-fuze 

device, a gun exploded, and the experiments were halted and forgotten. 

The U.K. contributions to the field of shaped charges includes the numerous 

contributions of Evans, Ubbelohde, Taylor, Tuck, Mott, Hill, Pack, and others [4]. 

In the U.S., the contributions of Watson on percussion fuzes and Wood on selfforging fragments (now called EFP’s) were significant. The Watson percussion 

fuzes, patented in 1925, used a parabola-shaped booster charge with a metal lined 

hemispherical cavity or “arched shield” to intensify the effect of the booster charge. 

Watson stated that the lined cavity effect required only one-fifth to one-sixth as 

much explosive as an unlined booster, and the lined cavity charge would function 

over a considerable air gap. This fuze was, in effect, a detonator using the shapedcharge principle. R. W. Wood of Johns Hopkins University described what is 

known today as an EFP. R. Eichelberger, the former director of the U.S. Army 

Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL), credited Wood with recognizing the 

enhancement obtained by metal-lined shaped charges. Also, Payman and 

Woodhead of the U.K. discussed jets from a cavity in the ends of detonators in 

1937. They attributed this jetting process to the Munroe effect. 

These early studies of the shaped charge concept, although interesting, had little 

application until the pre-World War II era. The lined cavity shaped-charge research 

accelerated tremendously between 1935 and 1950 due primarily to World War II, 

and the application of shaped charge development during this time frame is 

somewhat ambiguous in that the British, Germans, and Americans all have made 

significant claims to the early development of modern lined cavity charges. 

The discoverers of the modern shaped charge were Franz Rudolf Thomanek for 

Germany and Henry Hans Mohaupt for the U.K. and the U.S. Thomanek and 

Mohaupt independently perfected the hollow charge concept and developed the first 

effective lined cavity shaped-charge penetrators. Thomanek’s early work dates from 

1935 to 1939. 
Thomanek claimed discovery of the hollow charge lining effect on 4 February 

1938. Thomanek’s colleagues were von Huttern and Brandmayer. Thomanek 

presented an account of his shaped-charge studies in his development of hollow 

charges summary table starting with the 1883 work of von Foerster and ending in 

1941. Thomanek [see 1] states that he was employed at the Air Force Research 

Institute Herman Goering at Braunschweig. Before entering this employ, he 

submitted a collection of all his prior inventions. Among other things, he suggested 

evacuating the cavity in the explosive charge, doing this either by directly pumping 

out a finished projectile, or by inserting a vacuum body into the cavity. 

Furthermore, the general idea was presented of firing an anti-tank projectile from 

the shoulder. Until May 1938, he conducted studies on hollow charges for the Air 

Force, especially tests with the evacuated cavity. 

From 1 June 1938, he worked for the Ballistic Institute of the Air Force 

Academy, Gatow. In accordance with information given by Professor Schardin, he 

was not allowed to evaluate test results outside of the institute or to have access to 

patent records without written permission. At the instigation of Professor Schardin 

and against his own previously formed opinion concerning the effect of the vacuum, 

Thomanek also worked on tests since 1937 independent of Braunschweig. It was 

determined here that the liner without a vacuum, in respect to penetration, gave the 

same increase of effect as the corresponding evacuated liner. Thomanek left the 

institute on 31 May 1939. On 10 May 1940, hollow charges were used with 

resounding success at Eben Emael, Belgium. 

Mohaupt independently developed and introduced the shaped-charge concept to 

the U.S. Mohaupt’s earliest patent claimed a date of 9 November 1939. He used 

liner cavity charges to design practical military devices ranging from rifle grenades, 

to mortars, to 100-mm-diameter artillery projectiles. These devices were test fired 

at the Swiss Army Proving Ground at Thun, at Mohaupt’s laboratory, and at the 

French Naval Artillery Proving Ground at Gavre. A U.K. commission investigated 

Mohaupt’s device and upon payment of a fee later witnessed test firings. The 

British officers witnessing the tests surmised that Mohaupt was using the Neumann 

principle and dropped negotiations because the price was too high [5]. 

As a result of the Mohaupt demonstration, however, the British reconsidered 

whether the shaped-charge effect could be introduced into service munitions. The 

early studies concentrated on a shaped-charge rifle grenade. After about a year’s 

development, it was introduced into British Service in November 1940 as the No. 

68 grenade. Thus, the British were equipped with the world’s first hollow-charge, 

anti-tank rifle grenade [5]. The British test results were sent to Washington and 

negotiations began with Mohaupt. Before divulging any details, he demanded 

$25,000, which the U.S. Army Ordnance Department did not want to spend. The 

matter was dropped until Mohaupt came to Washington in 1940 and arranged for a 

demonstration at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), MD. The U.S. Army and Navy 

recommended acquisition of rights of the invention [5]. 

The curious fact then came to light that the essential features of this munition 

had already been offered to the Ordnance Department by Nevil Hopkins, an 

American inventor. The Ordnance Technical Department had rejected Hopkins’ 

design of a bomb built with a shaped charge because it was not a new idea, citing 

the WASAG patent of 1911. A few months later, the technical staff learned what 
the British had already guessed earlier, that Mohaupt’s “secret” was no secret. With 

this knowledge, the Army was able to conclude a contract with Mohaupt at a lower 

price [5]. The U.S. accepted the program, classified it, and thus excluded Mohaupt 

from the program but produced the 2.36-in high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) 

machine gun grenade and the 75- and 105-mm HEAT artillery projectiles in 1941. 

Later, the machine gun grenade was modified to include a rocket motor and a 

shoulder launcher and became the bazooka. The bazooka was first used by the U.K. 

in North Africa in 1941. Incidentally, Leslie Skinner, formerly of APG, has been 

called the father of the bazooka. 

Allied researchers entered Germany near the end of World War II to study and 

recover German technology. They discovered flash x-rays showing the collapse 

and formation of shaped charges with conical and hemispherical liners. Various 

other liner geometries were studied, including helmet-shaped liners, bottle-shaped 

liners, and ellipsoidal liners. The effect of varying the cone angle, wall thickness, 

and standoff distance was studied for various shaped charges. Also, the effect of 

tapering the liner with respect to thickness was studied. The Germans concluded 

that 60/40 cyclotol (a RDX-TNT mixture) was the optimum explosive fill for 

shaped charges, and aluminized explosives provided no additional advantage. The 

liner materials studied were steel, sintered iron, copper, aluminum, and zinc. It was 

realized that copper was the best liner material, but due to the shortage of copper in 

Germany, zinc liners were used instead. Other studies involved standoff distance 

effects, explosive lenses, wave shaping, and hemispherical liners. One study 

concluded that the hemisphere was an effective shaped-charge liner geometry 

(actually a hemisphere with a cylindrical extension on its equator). 

Other designs included the Schwere Hohlladung or heavy shaped charge (SHL). 

The SHL 500 was a 65-cm-diameter shaped charge used against light ships. The 

SHL 1000 was apparently an improvement to the SHL 500. The largest SHL of this 

series was called the Beethoven and had a diameter of 180 cm with 5000 kg of 

explosive. The Beethoven was designed for use against ships and ground 

fortifications and was the forerunner of the MISTEL (mistletoe) I and MISTEL II. 

The MISTEL concept used a fighter aircraft mounted piggyback on the top of a 

large bomber aircraft. The unmanned bomber carried the MISTEL warhead in its 

nose. The warhead consisted of a 2-m-diameter, wide-angle, conical-shaped 

charge. It is speculated that the liner had a 120° apex angle, was about 30 mm 

thick, and made of either aluminum or mild steel. The warhead weighed 3500 kg 

with an explosive weight of 1720 kg. The fighter pilot flew the combination to the 

target, aimed it, released it, then returned to his base. The Germans developed this 

device near the end of World War II, and most were captured intact. 

The Germans were also instrumental in transferring shaped charge technology 

to the Japanese. There is no evidence of hollow charge research in Japan before 

May 1942. At that time, two German officers, Col. Paul Niemueller and Maj. 

Walter Merkel, provided Japan with data and samples of the German 30- and 40-

mm hollow charge rifle grenades. The Japanese officials involved were Lt. Col. 

Yoshitaka, the Japanese liaison officer for the Germans and Col. A. Kobayashu, an 

explosives expert in Tokyo. Other notable Japanese researchers were Futagami, 

Naruse, Nasu, Nagaoka, Nakiyama, and Lt. Gen. Kan. The shaped charges were 

presented as a highly secret and valuable project, and the Germans and Japanese 
continued to exchange shaped-charge data until the cessation of hostilities in 1945. 

Also, the Japanese instigated a research and development program of their own, and 

additional shaped-charge designs were received from Germany. These designs 

included the panzerfaust and the MISTEL. From the MISTEL, the Japanese 

developed the large SAKURA Bombs I and II for kamikaze plane attacks against 

warships. 

In addition to captured U.S. and U.K. ammunition, and the information received 

from Germany, the Japanese did considerable independent research on shaped 

charges. This research included gas flow and gas velocity from an unlined hollow 

charge; the jet velocity from a lined hollow charge; penetration versus standoff 

distance studies; hollow charge liner geometries varying from conical to 

hemispherical caps; various liner materials including mild steel, copper, aluminum, 

zinc, asbestos, molded Bakelite, tin, and paper; recovery of jet particles in sand; and 

dynamic (missile) effects. The Japanese preferred laminated liners (three to seven 

sheets) over a single, homogeneous liner of the same thickness. The Japanese also 

concluded that a hole in the apex of a conical or hemispherical liner was desirable. 

Also, the size of this hole was critical, an optimal value for the apex hole diameter 

being 1/10 of the warhead charge diameter. (The wall thickness was taken as 1/25 

of the charge diameter and the liner diameter was taken to be 4/5 of the charge 

diameter for both conical and hemispherical liners.) The optimal cone apex angle 

was determined to be between 35° and 50°. The optimal open apex diameter was 

concluded to be 3/16 of the charge diameter for this warhead. 

Tapered liners were designed based on the 30–40-mm German rifle grenades. 

They used 19° conical steel liners tapered from 0.5 mm at the apex to 1.0 mm at the 

base. Other projectiles used constant wall thickness, laminated liners. The 

Japanese also developed 18- and 21-in-diameter torpedoes using a tapered wall with 

a 45° conical steel shaped-charge liner with an open apex. 

Other Japanese studies related to detonation physics and methods of focusing 

the gas flow, calculation of the target hole volume and penetration, penetration of 

concrete targets, and the recovery of jet particles by reducing the explosive power 

(mixing dynamite with starch to reduce the “strength” of the dynamite), and 

capturing the jet in sand. 

The explosive charges used in their research were spherical and formed from the 

arcs of two circles. Thus, the cross section of the charge looked like a new moon, 

quarter moon, and so on, depending on the two radii used. Cylindrical, tapered, and 

boat-tailed explosive geometries were also studied as well as the effect of the highexplosive head height and the length-to-diameter ratio of the charge. In fact, the 

height of the charge was varied from one-half of a charge diameter to 6 charge 

diameters. A charge height of 1.5–2 charge diameters was concluded to be optimal 

for a 80-mm-diameter charge with a 64-mm-diameter soft iron, hemispherical liner 

and with a 2.5-mm-thick wall. 

Futagami tested two-dimensional charges, i.e., a flat, disk-shaped charge 

confined between two lead plates. Tests of this nature were used to evaluate 

various liner geometries, cone apex angles, liner wall thickness effects, and the 

effect of the diameter of the open apex region. All of these effects, including 

standoff distance studies, were also investigated with three-dimensional shaped 

charges. Futagami also studied bimetallic liners of soft iron and copper (the iron 
was in contact with the explosive). The Japanese also observed that a cavity 

between the liner and the explosive reduces the penetration capability of the 

warhead. 

The Japanese antitank shells, although not as effective as those developed by the 

Allies or the Germans, were used effectively in Burma. Other Japanese inventions 

included the suicidal "Lunge" mine, which was in fact a shaped charge with a 

wooden handle used as an antitank weapon [2]. 

The U.K. conducted research in the shaped area in the 1940s with studies by 

Tuck, Monro, Evans, Ubbelohde, Leonard-Jones, Devonshire, and Andrew. Many 

liner materials were studied including Cadmium. 

Shaped-charge development, based on the early work of Mohaupt, was 

continued in the U.S. by the DuPont Company, the Hunter Manufacturing 

Company, the Dobbins Manufacturing Company, the Hercules Powder Company, 

the Atlas Powder Company, and the Corning Glass Company. Research was 

conducted by DuPont and the Eastern Laboratory at Gibbstown, NJ. Demolition 

charges such as the M1, M2A3, M3, M3A, and others, were tested at APG in 1942 

and developed by the corporations already cited. 

In addition to the fundamental studies performed in 1941 at the Eastern 

Laboratory (DuPont), parallel studies were undertaken by the Eastern Laboratory 

and Division 8, National Defense Research Committee (NDRC), Bruceton, PA. 

The chief NDRC scientists were G. Kistiakowsky, D. MacDougall, S. Jacobs, and 

G. Messerly. 

At the same time, E. M. Pugh organized a group at the Carnegie Institute of 

Technology (CIT). Following the war, CIT took over the NDRC facilities at 

Bruceton. The Carnegie group employed some outstanding researchers who 

contributed much of the current shaped charge knowledge. The leaders at CIT were 

Heine-Geldern, N. Rostoker, E. Pugh, and R. Eichelberger. 

In addition to the work at CIT, important postwar contributions to shaped 

charge research were made by L. Zernow and associates at BRL. Other laboratories 

making important contributions during this time period were the Naval Ordnance 

Laboratory, MD (Solem and August), the Naval Ordnance Test Station, CA 

(Throner, Weinland, Kennedy, Pearson, and Rinehart), Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 

(Dunkle), the Stanford Research Institute, CA (Poulter), and others. 

The shaped-charge principle was clarified and understood as a result of the 

pioneering flash x-ray photographs taken in the US by Seely and others, and in the 

U.K. by Tuck. Schumann and Schardin obtained similar flash radiographs in 

Germany in 1941. It is debatable as to who took the first flash radiograph. Note 

that flash radiographs (or x-ray photographs) are necessary since ordinary 

photographs are uninformative due to the smoke and flame associated with the 

detonation. 

Schardin and Thomer published excellent flash radiographs of collapsing 

shaped charges with hemispherical liners. These x-ray photographs clearly depict 

the collapse of the hemispherical liner (as it turns inside out from the pole) and 

illustrates the “pinch-off” effect as the equatorial region of the liner collapses on the 

jet. The liner was truncated from the equator to remove this pinch-off. These 

phenomena were rediscovered some 30 years later. 
Also, Linschitz and Paul experimentally studied conical lined shaped charges in 

different stages of collapse. Hand-tamped nitroguanidine of various densities was 

used as the explosive fill to achieve a partial collapse of the liner. The conical liner 

was recovered in water after a partial deformation, the degree of liner deformation 

(or collapse) corresponding to the density of the explosive fill. The recovered liners 

showed excellent agreement with the flash x-rays. Based on the analysis of the 

flash x-ray data and the partial collapse studies, analytical models of the collapse of 

a lined conical shaped charge were developed and verified by Birkhoff, Evans, 

Tuck, and Pugh, Eichelberger, and Rostoker. 

Shaped-charge theory continued to develop during the 1950s, boosted by the 

Korean War. During this time period, tremendous progress was made toward 

understanding the phenomena associated with shaped-charge jets. Efforts were 

made to improve existing shaped-charge warheads and to enhance the overall 

system performance. 

Starting in the 1950s–1960s, significant shaped-charge developments were 

made possible by the perfection of experimental techniques such as high-speed 

photography and flash radiography. Other advances stemmed from the 

development of large computer codes to simulate the collapse, formation, and 

growth of the jet from a shaped-charge liner. These codes provide, for the most 

part, excellent descriptions of the formation of the jet. 

Currently, shaped-charge research continues in order to devise a successful 

countermeasure to the advanced armors currently fielded or contemplated. Studies 

that originated in the 1930s–1950s still continue; notably, torpedo applications of 

shaped-charge rounds, anti-aircraft rounds, fragmentation rounds, and other devices 

using shaped charges. Many of these improvements and research activities are well 

documented, for example, in the present and past symposia on ballistics. 

REFERENCES 

1. Walters W., and J. Zukas. Fundamentals of Shaped Charges. John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1989, 

Soft cover edition (with corrections) published in 1998 by CMC Press, Baltimore, MD. 

2. Kennedy, D. “The History of the Shaped Charge Effect, the First 100 Years,” presented at 

MBB, Schrobenhausen, Germany, September 1983. 

3. Kennedy, D. “Warheads: A Historical Perspective” in Tactical Missiles and Warheads, Chapter 

1, Vol. 155 of Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, edited by J. Carleone, AIAA, 1993. 

4. Eather, R., and N. Griffiths. “A U.K. Note on the History of Shaped Charges,” Royal 

Armament Research and Development Establishment Report, August 1983. 

5. Berkholtz, N. “Evolution of the Shaped Charge,” presented at the 38th Bomb and Warhead 

Technical Meeting, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 18-19 May 1988. 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 only) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK PE 

 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

 1 COMMANDING GENERAL 

 US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

 AMCRDA TF 

 5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

 PO BOX 202797 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-2797 

 1 INDIAN HEAD DIVISION NSWC 

 COMPONENT TECHLGY 

 BLDG 302 

 1 K REED CODE 312H 

 4103 FOWLER RD STE 107 

 INDIAN HEAD MD 20640-5106 

 1 UNIV OF ALABAMA 

 DEPT OF ARSPC ENGRG & MECH 

 PROFESSOR S E JONES 

 BOX 870280 

 TUSCALOOSA AL 35487-0280 

 3 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR WEE C 

 E BAKER 

 A DANIELS 

 R FONG 

 B3022 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY AVN & MISSILE CMD 

 AMSAM RD PS WF 

 S CORNELIUS 

 S HOWARD 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 

 35898-5247 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY RSRCH OFC 

 B LAMATTINA 

 PO BOX 12211 

 RTP NC 27709-2211 

 1 AIR FORCE ARMAMENT LAB 

 AFATL DLJR 

 D LAMBERT 

 EGLIN AFB FL 32542-6810 

 1 COMMANDER 

 NVL SURFC WARFARE CTR 

 DAHLGREN DIV 

 W E HOYE G22 

 17320 DAHLGREN RD 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448-5100 

 3 COMMANDER 

 NVL SURFC WARFARE CTR 

 DAHLGREN DIV 

 R GARRETT G22 

 T SPIVAK G22 

 F ZERILLI 

 17320 DAHLGREN RD 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448-5100 

 2 DARPA 

 W SNOWDEN 

 S WAX 

 3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

 ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714 

 1 LOS ALAMOS NATL LAB 

 P HOWE MS P915 

 PO BOX 1663 

 LOS ALAMOS NM 87545 

 1 LOS ALAMOS NATL LAB 

 L HULL MS A133 

 PO BOX 1663 

 LOS ALAMOS NM 87545 

 2 DIR LLNL 

 D BAUM L099 

 M MURPHY 

 PO BOX 808 MS L35 

 LIVERMORE CA 94550 

 2 SOUTHWEST RSRCH INST 

 C ANDERSON 

 J WALKER 

 PO DRAWER 28510 

 SAN ANTONIO TX 78228-0510 

 3 DETK 

 R CICCARELLI 

 W FLIS 

 M MAJERUS 

 3620 HORIZON DR 

 KING OF PRUSSIA PA 19406 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

 4 SANDIA NATL LAB 

 DOCUMENT PROCESSING MS0617 

 R BELL MS0836 9116 

 D CRAWFORD MS0836 9116 

 E HERTEL MS0836 9116 

 S SILLING MS0820 9232 

 PO BOX 5800 

 ALBUQUERQUE NM 87185-0100 

 1 TEXTRON DEFNS SYS 

 C MILLER 

 201 LOWELL ST 

 WILMINGTON MA 01887-4113 

 1 LOCKHEED MARTIN ELECT & MIS 

 G W BROOKS 

 5600 SAND LAKE RD MP 544 

 ORLANDO FL 32819-8907 

 4 GD OTS 

 C ENGLISH 

 T GRAHAM 

 D A MATUSKA 

 J OSBORN 

 4565 COMMERCIAL DR A 

 NICEVILLE FL 32578 

 2 GD OTS 

 D BOEKA 

 N OUYE 

 2950 MERCED ST STE 131 

 SAN LEANDRO CA 94577 

 1 ZERNOW TECH SVS INC 

 L ZERNOW 

 425 W BONITA AVE STE 208 

 SAN DIMAS CA 91773 

 1 PM JAVELIN PO 

 SSAE FS AM EG 

 C ALLEN 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 

 35898-5720 

 1 PM TOW 

 SFAE TS TO 

 J BIER 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 

 35898-5720 

 1 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SVCS 

 JET RESEARCH CTR 

 D LEIDEL 

 PO BOX 327 

 ALVARADO TX 76009-9775 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TECH 

 S BLESS 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 NORTHROP GRUMMAN 

 DR D PILLASCH B57 D3700 

 PO BOX 296 

 1100 W HOLLYVALE ST 

 AZUSA CA 91702 

 1 INTRNTL RSRCH ASSOC 

 D ORPHAL 

 4450 BLACK AVE 

 PLEASANTON CA 94566-6105 

 1 TELEDYNE RISI INC

 J VAROSH

 PO BOX 359 

 TRACY CA 95378 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 33 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD WM 

 J SMITH 

 AMSRD WM M 

 R DOWDING 

 AMSRD WM T 

 P BAKER 

 AMSRD WM TA 

 M BURKINS 

 W GOOCH 

 T HAVEL 

 M KEELE 

 J RUNYEON 

 AMSRD WM TB 

 R EHLERS 

 R BANTON 

 AMSRD WM TC 

 G BOYCE 

 AMSRD ARL SL 

 R COATES 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

 T FARRAND 

 S SEGLETES 

 T EHLERS 

 R MUDD 

 K KIMSEY 

 L MAGNESS 

 D SCHEFFLER 

 S SCHRAML 

 B SORENSEN 

 R SUMMERS 

 C WILLIAMS 

 AMSRD ARL WM BC 

 R ANDERSON 

 A TANK 

 W WALTERS (5 CPS) 

 AMSRD ARL WM TD 

 T W BJERKE 

 E RAPACKI 

 M RAFTENBERG