Misconception on DU munitions
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11555
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 22:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Misconception on DU munitions
Posted By: Zagros
Subject: Misconception on DU munitions
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 09:14
|
Many think that the use of DU is harmful, it is, but not for the right reasons. It does cause cancer and it does cause infact deformation. But this is not due to its radio active properties. DU is basically spent uranium, its radioactive properties are harmless. However, Uranium is a heavy metal and like all heavy metals it is poisonous and causes cancers and other ailments. DU rounds largely vapourise on impact, basically they turn to uranium dust. It is this dust which gets into the air, into the soil, into the water and is in one way or another consumed by humans and animals. As far as I am concerned its use is unethical and tantamount to the use of chemical weapons. |
Replies:
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 11:39
|
Zagros- There is already a thread more or less dealing with this in Current Affairs and International Relations. It has been an interesting and open exchange, spirited, but so far we have been behaving ourselves, sort of ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 12:12
|
Yes, that topic was the inspiration for this thread. |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 13:51
You're spot on on the real harmfull nature of DU, but the thing is when DU isn't being used, lead is, and it too is a highly toxic heavy metal. But DU gets all the bad rap. And what exactly are armed forces expected to use in place of heavy metal tipped armour piercing rounds? Its a lost cause really, as ultimatly, you are asking armed forces to not bother shooting tanks and other armoured vehicles, or alternativly, spend even more money using missiles in their stead (which would probably please the arms-industry). -------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 14:41
|
How about not fighting wars unless absolutely necessary? The difference also with lead is that it doesn't vapourise on impact. |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 17:49
|
Lead does vaporise AFAIK, maybe its a matter of how much it vapourises. Its also about half as toxic as DU, but likely more of it would be used to compensate for it not being as *good* as DU when used as munnition. Not fighting wars is as ever the ultimate solution. ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 08-May-2006 at 07:06
|
Cwyr, i have had the opportunity to work at the British Lead Mills (BLM) and know too well the dangers of Lead poisoning. It is under strict regime of hand washes and health and safety initiatives. Even when you go to the canteen and key in for a cup of coffee at the vending machine, u wash ur hand religiously before sitting down. It is not a joke. I forgot a couple of times and though it wasnt a place suited to a person with my absent mindedness. It may also explain why i act all funny sometimes. Here in the UK there is i think still continued use of Mercury in dental amalgam, but in reality few people opt for this free service on the NHS(national health service). most people pay out for other remedies. i think mercury is supposed to be more toxic than lead. This practise will be stopped sooner or later i am sure. As for DU, i think it has radiological as well as toxic effects it give off beta radiation depending on the isotope and a given scenario. The main problem is that it is most hazordous immediately after the impact of a projectile, and dependent on the density of rounds used at a given target. it is this accumulation effect that leads to a serious potential hazard. In the middle-east in dry barren conditions any falling projectiles or penetrators are not likely to burried in the soft ground, like in the balkans. When we consider the quantities used it becomes a serious issue. !000 tns in Afghanistan and 3000 tns in Iraq. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-May-2006 at 10:31
|
APFSDS round do not usually vapourize (since they are not pure uranium 238). I remember seeing a firing demo by the Pakistan Armys Khalid Tank and the shot went through the target's (an old Patton) frontal armour and out the back at 4 Km's and fell way back. They found it and displayed it. Was not even bent. DU ammunition (120 mm NATO ,125 mm Pakistan, 125mm China and the new 125mm Russian) can penetrate any armour at almost all ranges. No way in hell are militaries going to stop.
------------- |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 09:42
Whenever the DU round explodes, and most do in the end, it vapourizes. DU is a good deterrent to have in an arsenal but like nukes shouldnt be used. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 09:51
Tell that to the tank crews when their tungsten AP rounds bounce off the armor of the oppositions tanks. DU saves lives in a combat situation which is why it's used. ------------- |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 10:03
Careful Zagros, else you'll be in on the conspiracy after DukeC has sussed you out ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 12:27
As far as I am aware, the ammunition is DU tipped - the DU provides penetration, allowing the war-head-proper to slip in, and in so doing it vapourises. An otherwise great Russian invention. I think the moral of the story is not to get into any pointless and fruitless wars like that currently being waged in Iraq. |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 09:27
|
DU in the food chain? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1273053.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1273053.stm "So far all the results for every single one of the samples collected in Kosovo is showing some depleted uranium in the urine," he said. http://www.sundayherald.com/14886 - http://www.sundayherald.com/14886
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 10:02
| Thanks for the links. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2006 at 07:08
|
Military necessity will always prevail over enviromental issues. A DU shot made the M60 in the Gulf War able to kill tanks like the T-72.
------------- |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 04:59
|
[QUOTE}
Tell that to the tank crews when their tungsten AP rounds bounce off the armor of the oppositions tanks. DU saves lives in a combat situation which is why it's used. [/QUOTE]Well said!!. DU rounds were created because the invention of modern "chobbam" style tank armour rendered all current APFSDS rounds obselete..
Chobbam was designed to protect tanks from ATGM with hollow charge "HEAT" warheads which it does very well, the unexpected suprise in the package was that it also prevented penetration by APFSDS rounds as well.
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.
As for the ethical argument there is a solution but it costs money and so will not be adopted.
The answer is to have both types of munitions in stock. DU munintions when facing an oppnenent who is equiped with modern "chobbam" armoured tanks and Tungston munitions for use against the "riff-raff".
If this policy had been adopted from the start this argument would never have started because DU munitions would still be untried in combat!!. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 12:32
"Environmental issues" will make military necessity impossible, we are all part of nature, and it is far more powerful than we are, we are gonna run out of resources, it will not. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 13:08
DU rounds do not explode, they're solid shot and contain no explosive charge. Neither do they vaporize when they hit the target, small pieces from the tip of the dart flake off as it passes through armor(that's why they're refered to as self-sharpening) and these ignite when they enter the tank interior. Most of the solid shot remains and in some cases can pass entirely through the target, something that wouldn't be possible if the dart vaporized. ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 14:28
|
"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, 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. |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 14:32
|
"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. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 14:39
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 17:44
Show picture please.
|
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 00:20
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. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 01:32
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 03:09
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. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 11:49
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 20:29
how come those Abrams was ripped apart by 34 kg of explosives? |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 12:38
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 13:20
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) |
Posted By: DukeC
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 17:35
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? 
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 17:58
tank bellies are vulnerable.
AFAIK= As Far As I Know ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 23:16
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. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 24-May-2006 at 01:45
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? |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 24-May-2006 at 12:39
I'm not sure either, I know some new systems use infrared to detect mines. ------------- |
Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 25-May-2006 at 00:08
|
Misconseption on DU ammunition eh? http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1131274842/Depleted_Uranium |