Concrete Bombs vs ships

The Concrete Bombs damadge efect relies on the kinetic energy that they releas in the impact.

But how would such bombs handle against modern ships? Would they just pass through the difrent decs like a hot knife though butter or would they actualy produce a lot of damadge?

If they would fall directly from above (+-90º) would they then produce more damadge or pass all the way to the bottom of the ship?

The US has used concrete bombs for sometime. Initially, for target practice in place of conventional dumb bombs. Then someone got the brite idea that the kinetic energy of even a concrete bomb could do substantial damage. That is without much of the side effects of high explosives. 😮 They started using them in Afghanistan sometime back in 2003. At least thats the first I’ve heard of them being used in a large scale. Then of course they spread to Iraqi. As a matter of fact. I believe the concrete bomb was the inspiration for the Small Diameter Bomb. (SDB) Which, is to say…….with improved accuracy of PGM’s. Smaller weapons could be used to the same effect. With much less collateral damage! 🙂 Back to your question. I wouldn’t think concrete bombs would be to effective against ships. As the bombs would pass directly through in many cases. Causing leaks for sure. Yet, most could easily be handle by Damage Control Parties. During the Faklands War the Argentina Air Forces dropped several iron bombs on Royal Navy Warships that failed to explode. Most passed through the ships causing minor damage. A explosive weapon of somekind is better with a warship. You want to cause as much damage as possible. Especially, structural and fire. 😮 The idea of using concrete bombs was to cut back on collateral damage. (i.e. the killing of civilians) 🙂

I know this sounds crazy but what about theoretical laser guided ” sabot ” round made of high density metal with a depleted uraniun head, could it penetrate armored decks from a high altitude?