This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not quite sure what you mean there.

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

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

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

These things don't have warheads:

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

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

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

As it´s writed on the article, a warhead does not need to propell by itself. Like the kinetic type warheads, wich redirects to projectiles. This is ambiguous and needs to be clarified, because the first section says that it needs to have an explosive material, and kinetic or conventional projectiles generally does not have explosives and are not self-ppropelled. Also, the gravity bombs are explosive, but not have a propulsion system. --Damërung (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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