 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Georgewilliamherbert m (Revert; the comment that Comp B is still used as an artillery shell filler is not true in US or NATO usage, as far as I can tell from manufacturer specs)
Who said anything about the US or NATO using Composition B? I certainly didn't mention it. In fact Composition B is still widely used by western countries, including manufacturers of NATO-approved ammunition such as Mecar in their grenades and mortar shells etc. Take a look at this website:-
Go tell Mecar that they don't use Composition B and they'll laugh at you. They're an approved supplier to the Belgian Army who, as I recall, are NATO members. The last I heard Belgium was a Western country, too.
Here's a photo of the standard 155mm shell used by the US of A from our very own Wikipedia site. Look closely at the photo and you'll see it's got "Comp B" on the side in yellow stencil:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_(projectile)
Incidentally, to put things in perspective, Pakistan Ordnance Factories are still using pure symmetrical TNT in their artillery shells. They still haven't got as far as using Composition B yet.
Admittably, successors to Composition B are available and are coming into service. However, I predict that Composition B will be around for a long time yet because it's cheap and it does the job.
huh?
I could have sworn that I read several years ago that Composition B contained no RDX, that it was designed to be a low-sensitivity castable explosive with safe handling as the highest priority, that it was about half TNT, a third ammonium nitrate, and the remainder paraffin wax, and that it resembled brown soap or plastic. I am not doubting what I see here, but I am wondering what it is I'm remembering that IS composed of TNT/ammonium nitrate/paraffin wax. It can't be amatol because amatol contains little or no wax.
Also, pure uncut TNT in artillery shells? Is this only for export, or for domestic use? Pure TNT's shelf life isn't great, especially in the tropics. It begins to break down after several years and ooze puddles of dinitrotoluene when stored under hot conditions. I seem to recall that TNT can also crystallize in various structures over a period of years, with significant changes in bulk density, to the point where artillery shells filled with TNT left in an ammo dump for ten or fifteen years may split open or have bulk TNT oozing out the fuze socket in the point. I seem to recall reading that one of the many crises to beset the British in 1940 was that their stockpiles of artillery shells left over from the prior World War were badly affected by such deterioration. Are we sure the Paks are doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Comp B
editComp B is 60% TNT/40% RDX, with one percent wax added to this mix. It is very stable (storage) and about as insensitive as C-4. Due to the RDX, it is not as insensitive as cast TNT, which is the old gold standard of insensitivity. I have been involved with consulting on cleaning up underwater UXO in Pearl Harbor and Vieques, and almost all of the comp b and TNT fills are still in pristine condition, if the shells were not damaged.
The problems you are talking about in storage and exudate and such are exactly what the problem was with amatol. The hygroscopicity of the AN would cause the breakdown in long term storage. That is why it was replaced by WWII. Msjayhawk (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)