15:20 May 17, 2010 

... at least for this patent ;-)

15:10 May 17, 2010 

I finally came across three more occurrences of "voraus" in the text, and it is apparent that "directly ahead" would be the best translation.

21:27 May 15, 2010 

I think some person in Israel has developed something like this for tanks and is probably a pretty good thing to have if you are sitting in the tank

16:18 May 15, 2010 

I'm not very much into the patent type language so hard for me to tell whether it's the typical wording but the content seems to be ok. Just one or two things - the way I understand it: the cone is fixed to the forward-looking longitudinal datum line (coaxially) of the projectile and will not compensate for strong winds (so the actual flight path and the cone centreline may not be the same; though this might be neglectable owing to the high velocity of the grenade), and it does not open towards the target because this wording would imply that the cone would "look" towards the target which would actually delay the fusing sequence up to a point where it might be too late.

12:45 May 15, 2010 

Thank you very much, Bernd, for the useful informative description. So, maybe this is a bit closer: "According to that, the reception characteristics of the proximity fuze delineate the edge of a hollow cone, set coaxially with the shell, which widens, ahead of the shell, in the direction of the trajectory and towards the approaching projectile/aerial vehicle."

11:25 May 15, 2010 

The fusing mechanism starts when a target (missile/rocket) passes through the "cone wall" of the device's (might be radar or optical) detection pattern. A head-on target which never passes the outer edge (stays within the let's say 45° opening) of the detection cone would not fuse the explosive charge of the projectile although it would end in a head-on collision still achieving the objective.
Example: Projectile tracks south with the co-altitude target north-bound with a sideways offset of 175 ft. Assuming a 45° opening in relation to projectile centerline (resulting in a 90° cone) the explosive charge would go off at a distance of 175 ft along track and 250 ft slant range to the target (which is in the 1:30 or 10:30 position at that time). The frag spreads transversely to the projectile's flightpath and builds a barrage for the target to fly into and fuse its warhead way before the intended target or hits the missile/rocket directly from its 3/9 o'clock hoping to destroy flight controls, hydraulic lines, cables and/or seeker head electronics.

09:35 May 15, 2010 

Yes, that just might have been the author's intention.

17:15 May 14, 2010 

This (ground-based air defence) sentence puzzles me. "Thereafter/then/according to that, the reception characteristics of the proximity fuze describe (?) the transformation (?Wandlung) of a hollow cone, set coaxially with the air defence shell axis, which widens, ahead of the shell, in the direction of the trajectory and towards the approaching projectile/aerial vehicle." Is this about fuze reception or hollow/shaped charge detonation? Are there one or more typo's?

16:39 May 14, 2010 

Maybe the author wanted to distinguish between the orientation of the detecting and firing-initiating cone and the direction of the fragmentation blast which spreads transversely to the flight direction.