Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Misconception on DU munitions

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Misconception on DU munitions
    Posted: 21-May-2006 at 14:39
Originally posted by Russian

 
Du armor protectcion is even simpler, it is just a massive piece of metall, and a less massive piece o metal sollapses with it, so, which one survives? the one that is more massive, but in a few shots it is gonna be penetrated anyways.
    
 
ERA is more vulnerable to multiple hits than DU armor. One hit on ERA and you lose an entire block which needs to be replaced, where one hit on DU leaves a small hole which would be very hard to hit a second time.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2006 at 17:44
Originally posted by Russian

"DU being more dense made for a far better penatrator than tungston and was able to penetrate the new modern armour designs. DU is also a lot cheaper than tungsten as it is a by product of the nuclear power industry."


DU is good, but you can also protect pretty well against DU, with DU armor, like Abrams, or Explosive reactive armor, like russian Kontakt-5 second genetration heavy era, west agreed on the effectiveness of this armor, after their DU rounds were shattered by ERA, I can show you photo if you want, also, there is Kaktus era, third generation, but noone knows what that is and what are capabilities.

Du armor protectcion is even simpler, it is just a massive piece of metall, and a less massive piece o metal sollapses with it, so, which one survives? the one that is more massive, but in a few shots it is gonna be penetrated anyways.
    
 
Show picture please.
Back to Top
Russian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote Russian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2006 at 00:20



Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by Russian

Du armor protectcion is even simpler, it is just a massive piece of metall, and a less massive piece o metal sollapses with it, so, which one survives? the one that is more massive, but in a few shots it is gonna be penetrated anyways.     


ERA is more vulnerable to multiple hits than DU armor. One hit on ERA and you lose an entireblock which needs to be replaced, where one hit on DU leavesa small hole which would be very hard to hit a second time.

    

Lol, ERA are small cubes, my friend, it will be also nearly impossible to hit it again as well, so, it is not much harder to pierce DU armor, if harder at all, plus, after ERA defeated DU, there is no damage to hull.

here is the pic, scroll down to the little article about ERA, you will also find picture of shattered DU ammunition:

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html


it is a bit old though, but still, I heard US and Germany made new APFSDS ammunition, but Russia made Kaktus, new "heavy" type ERA.


Now imagine this:

a tank, which has all russian protection systems, DU armor on turret, not just frontal arc, but most of turret and hull, and ERA, now this would be a PROTECTED tank, lol.
    
    

Edited by Russian - 22-May-2006 at 00:25
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2006 at 01:32
Originally posted by Russian

 
Lol, ERA are small cubes, my friend, it will be also nearly impossible to hit it again as well, so, it is not much harder to pierce DU armor, if harder at all, plus, after ERA defeated DU, there is no damage to hull. 

    
 
According to the article, Kontakt-5 bricks are 10.5cm by 23 cm. Losing one is going to leave a larger portion of a tanks armor vulnerable than a depression caused by a hit on a combination DU Chohbam plate. Once the block is gone so is the protection against AP rounds.
 
I imagine weapons designers are hard at work on fragmentation rounds that will strip away large portions of ERA on modern tanks. That's the problem with this type of armor, once it's gone you need to replace it quickly or be destroyed.
Back to Top
Russian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote Russian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2006 at 03:09



Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by Russian

Lol, ERA are small cubes, my friend, it will be also nearly impossible to hit it again as well, so, it is not much harder to pierce DU armor, if harder at all, plus, after ERA defeated DU, there is no damage to hull.     



According to the article, Kontakt-5 bricks are 10.5cm by 23 cm. Losing one is going to leave a larger portion of a tanks armor vulnerable than a depression caused by a hit on a combination DU Chohbam plate. Once the block is gone so is the protection against AP rounds.


I imagine weapons designers are hard at work on fragmentation rounds that will strip away large portions of ERA on modern tanks. That's the problem with this type of armor, once it's gone you need to replace it quickly or be destroyed.

    

If you read the whole article, you will see that ERA is really hard and is acting only when APFSDS hits it, or other ROUND, and not fragments.

can you hit 20X10 cm area of tank again with super presicion?, then if you would hit the turrent again, and there will be no ERA, I would say that round will have a chance of bouncing off, have you seen the slopes of T-90 or T-80 without ERA? Abrams is not the only tank with sloped armor. I agree that ERA leaves bigger portion of tank to be vulnerable for a second shot, but then again, ERA covers more area of a tank than Abrams DU armor plates, and T-90 is in general way smaller than Abrams and lower profile, and it's turret, compared to Abrams is tiny.
    
Look, here is an article about Abrams that was penetrated by something that disabled it:

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php

This is also one interesting article about impenetratable Abrams:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm

80 tanks knocket out, 5 soldiers inside dead.


I remember someone here said that 50 kg of explosives wouldn't stop Abrams, well, let's see:

"On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was completely destroyed and its driver killed from shrapnel wounds when an extremely powerful improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of three M109A6 155 mm shells with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg detonated next to the tank"

This is from Wikipedia article about Abrams. Now imagine what would 50 kg of explosives do to Abams, it would tear it to pieces.


Edited by Russian - 22-May-2006 at 05:00
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2006 at 11:47
The Abrams has the armor protection of a WW II battleship in the front arc, 50 kgs of HE isn't going to do any damage there. If you set a large charge off in a vulnerable spot it's going to damage any tank, the fact is the Abrams is one of the best protected tanks for combat conditions.
Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Afghan Empire

Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1515
  Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2006 at 11:49
Originally posted by DukeC

DU saves lives in a combat situation which is why it's used.
 
I would really like to know if DU saves lives of some people who many lives it take back in return?
Why do you always look at one side of the game sometimes try to watch and consider about the opposite portion as well.
 
I don't say that you are wronge saying that DU saves lives, what I am saying is if it saves lives it also takes lives.


Back to Top
Russian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote Russian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2006 at 20:29

Originally posted by DukeC

The Abrams has the armor protection of a WW II battleship in the front arc, 50 kgs of HE isn't going to do any damage there. If you set a large charge off in a vulnerable spot it's going to damage any tank, the fact is the Abrams is one of the best protected tanks for combat conditions.


how come those Abrams was ripped apart by 34 kg of explosives?
    
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 12:38
Originally posted by Russian


Originally posted by DukeC

The Abrams has the armor protection of a WW II battleship in the front arc, 50 kgs of HE isn't going to do any damage there. If you set a large charge off in a vulnerable spot it's going to damage any tank, the fact is the Abrams is one of the best protected tanks for combat conditions.


how come those Abrams was ripped apart by 34 kg of explosives?
    
 
Unless the charge was packed into a vulnerable spot I find it hard to believe 34 kg of explosive would do anything more than superficial damage. The Abrams is one of the heaviest armored vehicles ever built and there are armored cars available that allow the occupants to survive such blasts.
 
There's a reason that so much developement has gone into HEAT and AP rounds, it's very difficult to pierce the armor of modern MBTs let alone blow them apart. Think about it, how much damage is a 65 lb. ominidirectional charge going to do to a vehicle made of some of the densest, most structurally strong materials weighing 138,000 lbs.
Back to Top
Russian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote Russian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 13:20


Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by DukeC

The Abrams has the armor protection of a WW II battleship in the front arc, 50 kgs of HE isn't going to do any damage there. If you set a large charge off in a vulnerable spot it's going to damage any tank, the fact is the Abrams is one of the best protected tanks for combat conditions.
how come those Abrams was ripped apart by 34 kg of explosives?     


Unless the charge was packed into a vulnerable spot I find it hard to believe 34 kg of explosive would do anything more than superficial damage. The Abrams is one of the heaviest armored vehicles ever built and there are armored cars available that allow the occupants to survive such blasts.


There's a reason that so much developement has gone into HEAT and AP rounds, it's very difficult to pierce the armor of modern MBTs let alone blowthem apart. Think about it, how much damage is a 65 lb. ominidirectional charge going to do to a vehicle made of some of the densest, most structurally strong materials weighing 138,000 lbs.


once again, you missed the point, it is not a vulnerable SPOT that has been hit, it is INVULNERABLE SPOTS that are on the tank, the tank itself is not covered and surrounded by DU armor, it is only on front arc, and that's it. I agree that 34 kg of explosives will not seriously damage DU armor plates, but it tears apart ALL THE REST, which is not DU, if Abrams would be covered with DU all around, it would weigh 100 tons and wouldn't be able to move.

Abrams is a very armoured vehicle, like all MBTs nowadays, but it still stands no chancce against 50 kg of explosives my friend, no chance in hell, maybe you think Abrams would withstand a shot from "Little David"? I would guess it will be blown away.

While Abrams is hard to take out from front(again, like all MBTs), it is still possible, DU armor IS PENETRATABLE, DU can be burned through, it is ceramic armor that saves Abrams from HEAT, not DU.
    

http://www.waronline.org/analysis/merkava.htm

the link is in russian.

Merkava, which is also one of the most protected tanks, if not THE most protected (yes, merkava might be more protected than Abrams), it was blown up on 100 kg!!!!! of explosives, it's turret that weighed 22 tons was found 10 meters away, it's engine, when it was flying up from the explosion, hit the gun barrel, which acted as lever and ripped turret clean off the tank, all crew members were of course dead.

Abrams would be torn apart as much as this Merkava was, maybe even more.

From what you are saying about explosives, I think you hav a vague knowledge of what C4 and TNT is and on the power of this thing, and what happens when it is applied to tanks and other armoured vehicles in big quantities.

While to make Abrams it costs million or so, to destroy Abrams it costs 2000 dollars. (that's how much it costs to buy 100 kg of C-4)

Edited by Russian - 23-May-2006 at 13:23
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 13:34

It all depends where the charge goes off, 100kgs of explosive isn't going to do much to 70 ton or even 50 ton AFV if most of the force is directed away from the vehicle. That's the whole point of using shaped charges.

As for the Abrams , the side armor of the M1A2 is roughly equivalent to the frontal protection of the original M1 and is substantial. The rear armor is the thinest but still equivalent to the frontal armor of a WW II medium tank.
 
I think your numbers are off for the exploding charge you were discussing also. AFAIK an individual 155mm round weighs over 125 lbs.


Edited by DukeC - 23-May-2006 at 13:35
Back to Top
Russian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote Russian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 17:35

Originally posted by DukeC

It all depends where the charge goes off, 100kgs of explosive isn't going to do much to 70 ton or even 50 ton AFV if most of the force is directed away from the vehicle. That's the whole point of using shaped charges.


As for the Abrams , the side armor of the M1A2 is roughly equivalent to the frontal protection of the original M1 and is substantial. The rear armor is the thinest but still equivalent to the frontal armor of a WW II medium tank.


I think your numbers are off for the exploding charge you were discussing also.AFAIK an individual 155mm round weighs over 125 lbs.

    

I meant that it is gonna be lying on the ground in front of the vehicle.

yeah, but in this round, explosives do not constitute a lot of weight, rather a small amount.

What does AFAIK means?
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 17:58
Originally posted by Russian


Originally posted by DukeC

It all depends where the charge goes off, 100kgs of explosive isn't going to do much to 70 ton or even 50 ton AFV if most of the force is directed away from the vehicle. That's the whole point of using shaped charges.


As for the Abrams , the side armor of the M1A2 is roughly equivalent to the frontal protection of the original M1 and is substantial. The rear armor is the thinest but still equivalent to the frontal armor of a WW II medium tank.

 

I think your numbers are off for the exploding charge you were discussing also. AFAIK an individual 155mm round weighs over 125 lbs.

    

I meant that it is gonna be lying on the ground in front of the vehicle.

yeah, but in this round, explosives do not constitute a lot of weight, rather a small amount.

What does AFAIK means?
 
tank bellies are vulnerable.
 
AFAIK= As Far As I Know
Back to Top
Russian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote Russian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 23:16

Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by DukeC


It all depends where the charge goes off, 100kgs of explosive isn't going to do much to 70 ton or even 50 ton AFV if most of the force is directed away from the vehicle. That's the whole point of using shaped charges.


As for the Abrams , the side armor of the M1A2 is roughly equivalent to the frontal protection of the original M1 and is substantial. The rear armor is the thinest but still equivalent to the frontal armor of a WW II medium tank.


I think your numbers are off for the exploding charge you were discussing also.AFAIK an individual 155mm round weighs over 125 lbs.
      I meant that it is gonna be lying on the ground in front of the vehicle. yeah, but in this round, explosives do not constitute a lot of weight, rather a small amount. What does AFAIK means? [IMG]smileys/smiley24.gif" align=middle>


tankbellies are vulnerable.


AFAIK= As Far As I Know

    
that's what I am saying, in order to be the most protected you must have protection from everything, T-90 for example can detonate mines 50 meters away from the tank.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 23:28
How good is the T-90s mine detection equipment?
 
Many new mines are made of non-ferrous materials and can be hard to find.
Back to Top
Russian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote Russian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 01:45

Originally posted by DukeC

Howgood is the T-90s mine detection equipment?

Many new mines are made of non-ferrous materials and can be hard to find.

    

I don't reallly know, let me try to find, oh, here it is:

it is called KMT-6 mine clearing equipment, but I don't know anymore, as far as I searched, there are no details on it.

I know, it might not detect new mines. Also, IED, can it be detected? How do you think?

Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 12:39
Originally posted by Russian


Originally posted by DukeC

How good is the T-90s mine detection equipment?
 

Many new mines are made of non-ferrous materials and can be hard to find.

    

I don't reallly know, let me try to find, oh, here it is:

it is called KMT-6 mine clearing equipment, but I don't know anymore, as far as I searched, there are no details on it.

I know, it might not detect new mines. Also, IED, can it be detected? How do you think?

 
I'm not sure either, I know some new systems use infrared to detect mines.
Back to Top
Russian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote Russian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2006 at 00:08

    Misconseption on DU ammunition eh?


http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1131274842/Depleted_Uranium
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.