Why didn't the Soviets / Russian use Depleted Uranium in their armor

[brian_heard@hotmail.com]

Just wondering ,I googled it and did not find anything. Was it to expensive or outside their technology base?

thanks

B

[Thewood1]

Tooling is incredibly difficult for DU.  IIRC, there was a scandel in the 80's around Germany selling machine tools that would have been used in USSR for turning DU materials.  So it just might have been the lack of good tooling...just a guess.

[antaress73]

They made DU rounds..

[dan/california]

They made DU rounds..

They are not nearly as good though.  The Soviets/Russians have always been playing catch up in certain kinds of super high tech metallurgy.  They made a specific submarine bulk head close to half a meter thick because they just couldn't get quality control in the plates.  All their stuff is full of not so little complicated fudges like that.  It is a big part of why Western commercial aircraft are so much safer.

[antaress73]

The Soviets yes. But anything made in the last ten years is far closer in quality to western stuff than you may believe. Including aircrafts . Much safer is a strong word. Maintenance was the problem in most of the crashes. Mostly third world countries used Russian aircrafts and you know how it goes. Russia in the nineties was close to a third world country too. Now they make cellphones that are highly rated in review sites. The Yotaphone 2. Pretty expensive and high end too. As an example. Much better than the Chinese ones.

Are you talking about doubled hulled subs ? It so, it was for increased survivability in case of a torpedo hit. But they were indeed noisier in the day than their western counterparts. Had to do mainly with propeller tech and noise absortion and management tech .

Edited February 10, 2015 by antaress73

[dan/california]

I used to do a little non-destructive testing as part my employment.  The guy who certified me for that activity did the same for LOT of other organizations, like say naval shipyards. Either he could keep a complex story straight when several beers in at the end of the day, or the Soviet stuff was as dangerous to its own crews as anybody else.  I am sure it has gotten better in the last ten years, that is not the same thing as caught up.

[Nidan1]

A bit off topic from DU discussion, but fairly relevant;

 

Back in the mid 80s the Soviets purchased complex metal milling equipment from a firm in Norway which furnished. under license. high tech stuff manufactured by Toshiba in Japan. This technology and information obtained from the John Walker spy ring enabled the Soviets to manufacture much quieter submarine propellers, which in turn made later Soviet designs much quieter and harder to detect. Toshiba as a result was banned from selling products in the U.S. for three years, which cost them billions of dollars in lost revenues.

Before this espionage coup, and double dealing by legitimate companies, Soviet Subs had propellers that were so noisey and broad spectrum noises from other sources that were so unique that US Subs could actually tell which individual Soviet Sub they were tracking.

[Alexey K]

Are DU munitions and armour really best choice? 

I've read somewhere that wolfram sabots are better but more expensive.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Alexey K

[MikeyD]

Lets recall that Russia, for all its size, has roughly the economy of Italy. Even West (at the time) Germany decided to forego Chobham armor for it's Leopard 2 largely due to its cost, with other factors thrown in as well. One supposes DU armor would mean a Russian tank 8-10 tons heavier than what they have. Which would mean a new chassis design, which would mean new transport requirements. The difficulties just cascade.

[MikeyD]

Ah! Wolfram! Its been ages since I've heard that other name for tungsten!  Atomic number 74, I believe. 

[Alexey K]

Ah! Wolfram! Its been ages since I've heard that other name for tungsten!  Atomic number 74, I believe. 

 

Oh, yes, tungsten indeed  

In Russian it's "wolfram", forgot about "tungsten"

[dan/california]

DU self sharpens, to the best of my knowledge tungsten doesn't.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/du-1.jpg

 

 

 

http://www..org/military/systems/munitions/images/du-2.jpg

Edited February 10, 2015 by dan/california

[MikeyD]

Its wolfram in German too. Most of the old (English speaking) history buffs no doubt first heard that name associated with German squeeze-bore cannon ammo in WWII.

[Alexey K]

DU self harpens, to the best of my knowledge tungsten doesn't.

Quite interesting. 

Why DU self-sharpens?

[Alexey K]

Its wolfram in German too. Most of the old (English speaking) history buffs no doubt first heard that name associated with German squeeze-bore cannon ammo in WWII.

 

I beleive "wolfram" is a loanword from German. Russian language has several words borrowed from German.

[Agiel]

Are DU munitions and armour really best choice? 

I've read some where that wolfram sabots are better but more expensive.

 

There are four primary reasons why dU is used over Wolfram Heavy/Tungsten Alloys:

 

1. Density: In their purest forms depleted uranium has a density of 18.6 grams per cubic centimeter vs 17.5 to 18.5 grams per cubic centimeter for Tungsten. That said, how much it comprises the actual composition of the penetrator varies.

 

2. As you have said, cost: Depleted uranium is ostensibly "free," being a waste product of the uranium enrichment process. Superpower countries like the US, Russia, France, the UK, China, and so forth have long and established nuclear industries, so they had plenty of the stuff lying around. Using depleted uranium also potentially frees up a country's supply of Tungsten for non-combat purposes (for instance, edges of machining tools).

 

3. The pyrophoric effect: When a depleted uranium penetrator gets through the armour plate, shards of it get shaved off and spontaneously combust, which can be especially deadly if it touches off the ammunition storage.

 

4. (Most importantly) Adiabatic shearing: When the rod strikes plate, narrow bands of weakness form throughout, and bits off the tip get shaved off to form a chisel like point that punches a more energy-efficient hole. Apparently the Germans have replicated the effect with the 120mm DM53/63 series of rounds, but they expended a considerable amount of money and effort in doing so, which brings us back to point 2.

 

Of course dU catches a lot of flak because of the belief that it is a "nuclear" material. Uranium in all its forms *is* a carcinogen, even in its depleted form, but in that case it is totally derived from the fact that uranium is a heavy metal, not from it being radioactive. In that respect, it is identical to Tungsten, which is just as bad for you if you somehow eat a piece of it or it enters an open wound.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Agiel

[Alexey K]

Agiel, thanks for detailed answer. 

[Michael Emrys]

Uranium in all its forms *is* a carcinogen, even in its depleted form, but in that case it is totally derived from the fact that uranium is a heavy metal, not from it being radioactive. In that respect, it is identical to Tungsten, which is just as bad for you if you somehow eat a piece of it or it enters an open wound.

 

Or if you breathe in dust generated by the round striking anything hard, I imagine.

 

Michael

[dan/california]

There are four primary reasons why dU is used over Wolfram Heavy/Tungsten Alloys:

 

1. Density: In their purest forms depleted uranium has a density of 18.6 grams per cubic centimeter vs 17.5 to 18.5 grams per cubic centimeter for Tungsten. That said, how much it comprises the actual composition of the penetrator varies.

 

2. As you have said, cost: Depleted uranium is ostensibly "free," being a waste product of the uranium enrichment process. Superpower countries like the US, Russia, France, the UK, China, and so forth have long and established nuclear industries, so they had plenty of the stuff lying around. Using depleted uranium also potentially frees up a country's supply of Tungsten for non-combat purposes (for instance, edges of machining tools).

 

3. The pyrophoric effect: When a depleted uranium penetrator gets through the armour plate, shards of it get shaved off and spontaneously combust, which can be especially deadly if it touches off the ammunition storage.

 

4. (Most importantly) Adiabatic shearing: When the rod strikes plate, narrow bands of weakness form throughout, and bits off the tip get shaved off to form a chisel like point that punches a more energy-efficient hole. Apparently the Germans have replicated the effect with the 120mm DM53/63 series of rounds, but they expended a considerable amount of money and effort in doing so, which brings us back to point 2.

 

Of course dU catches a lot of flak because of the belief that it is a "nuclear" material. Uranium in all its forms *is* a carcinogen, even in its depleted form, but in that case it is totally derived from the fact that uranium is a heavy metal, not from it being radioactive. In that respect, it is identical to Tungsten, which is just as bad for you if you somehow eat a piece of it or it enters an open wound.

Chapter and verse, that.

[dan/california]

I would add that the manufacturing process for either metal is rather particular, and throws off toxic waste products that have to dealt with.

[Michael Emrys]

Chapter and verse, that.

 

Just so, and I eagerly look forward to more posts from this member. I don't often get to say that.

 

 

Michael

[Agiel]

I wouldn't give myself too much credit . Was just condensing a document by Andrew Jaremkow.

 

He and Willi Odermatt are those guys in my head who have equations scribbled all over their household walls and floors in chalk figuring this stuff out. Generally, my knowledge extends to the historical development and qualitative aspects of weapons systems and platforms and the mathematical things fly over my head.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Agiel

[poesel]

I beleive "wolfram" is a loanword from German. Russian language has several words borrowed from German.

 

Two being 'Butterbrot'  (buttered slice of bread) and 'Schlagbaum' (turnpike). Says a lot about history.

[BTR]

I would attribute the reason for lack of DU in Soviet Armoring to weight. Soviet tanks were not allowed to crest 45 ton mark (well, with a degree of freedom here and there), so alternative methods of armoring had to be found. That said, DU is very expensive as well.  

Edited February 11, 2015 by BTR

[whitehot78]

Soviets and Russians actually produced DU sabot rounds for the 125mm gun.

 

In fact there's a an extensive list of different rounds for that gun at this wikipedia link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition

 

Seems to me that both tungsten and uranium alloys are employed, although I'd be interested to know if and on which conditions a round is carried by operational vehicles