The best of both worlds?

[Username]

Your argument is suffering from the fact that ICBMs arent being used. DU is being used. Tons of it have been used in battle conditions in the 90s.

Sorry but I believe if DU is being used as armor and it is hit, it will give off a nice spray of DU dust.

Why dont you snort a few lines of DU particles and let us know how you feel. Wash it down with some mercury and then suck on some lead. Its not so bad.

Lewis

[Guest R Cunningham]

OK, ICBMs aren't being "used" but they are certainly a threat and more people have died from nuclear weapons than from DU or will likely die from DU in the future.

From the case study (http://www.hackshack.co.uk/du/info/ducasenarr3.pdf) that details extensively the effects of inhaled/ingested DU, no DU plated tank has had even the steel jacket of the DU armor damaged by attacking projectiles. The report uses this information to contend that DU armor is superfluous. I think this is far from proven. If his statement is correct, then not one particle of DU has escaped from DU armor arrays when hit.

As for the rest of your post,I don't suppose you have anything meaningful, substantive or rational to add, do you?

Or is it your intent just to get this thread locked up?

[This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 02-29-2000).]

[DesertFox]

Ok guys. here´s my lame attempt to bring this discussion back on topic

German:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Explosive Filler in Armour Piercing Projectiles

All German AP, APC and APCBC projectiles of 20mm calibre or greater had an explosive filler in the warhead. To avoid unnecessary repetition the suffix ‘/HE’ is not used in the data tables. The only possible exception to this is the original Austrian AP ammunition for the 4,7cm Pak(t) for which I have no information <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

British:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Explosive Filler in Armour Piercing Projectiles

No British AP or APCBC projectiles had an explosive filler in the warhead. Even when the British used USA projectiles for the 75mm gun, such as the M61, they removed the HE filler. In the Churchill Service Instruction Book, it is described as M61 Shot, with the diagram showing that the fuse found in the USA projectile was replaced by a plug holding only the tracer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

USA:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Explosive Filler in Armour Piercing Projectiles

All USA APCBC projectiles of 75mm calibre or greater had an explosive filler in the warhead. To avoid unnecessary repetition the suffix ‘/HE’ is not used in the data tables. AP projectiles had no explosive filler.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russian:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Explosive Filler in Armour Piercing Projectiles

With a few exceptions, all Soviet AP and APBC projectiles of 37mm calibre or greater had an explosive filler in the warhead. To avoid unnecessary repetition the suffix ‘/HE’ is not used in the data tables. Solid shot AP projectiles have the suffix ‘SP’ in the ammunition name (e.g. the 45mm BR-240SP projectile has no explosive filler in the warhead).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For online reference, have a look on David Honners site www.wargamer.org

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[SySShockeD]

Sorry maybe I shouldn't but I do want to make a reply. As solid state chemist I know a little about UD there's even research on various compounds containing UD. The problem is that not enough research is done on "toxic" effects of UD.

We (as a Dutchman) saw that with an official commitee of the government investigating the

Bijlmer catastrophe were UD was found as counter weight for the airplane.

Many people who should know said something entirely different but probably it should be something like this:

of course it's a hazardhous material BUT on the other hand it's toxic effects are pretty overated. It's not really poisonous but aspecially the dust particles are pretty bad and of course when those particles are in your lungs they won't come out anymore and cause tissue damage (just like asbestos).

The radiation is af course not good (both alpha radiation and natural fission) for you but you receive more radiation by sitting in the sun in for example Australia or flying a lot at high altitude. But when it's in your lungs it continually radiates without anything blocking it. Alpha radiation is already blocked by a few centimeters of AIR.

I discussed this with my boss who actually works with the stuff so don't say I'm not well informed.

Wouter

PS I'd much rather swallow mercury than lead or UD mercury is only really poisonous in it's vapour state. It just comes out without doing any real harm, but don't try this at home .... you could choke on it.

[Guest R Cunningham]

Helge,

Good show. Babra posted the link to that wargamer page earlier link earlier.

I think I've got the data on the 4.7cm(t) round. I'll post later what I find.

Gotta admit I never really thought much about the explosive filler before. Any ideas on whether it was significant in making a penetration a brew up or how much it increased crew casualties?

[Username]

You continue to compound your mistakes Mr Cunningham. How many people have been killed by ICBMs? You like to ignore what makes you look somewhat ignorant I suppose.

As someone else also posted, The effects of DU are non-lethal but definetly a long term health risk with devastating consequences.

I believe it should be immediately withdrawn from use in combat and held as a emergency reserve in case of an all out attack where Tungsten can not be used.

As for HE fillers being effective, I have read many accounts of Shot (and perhaps shell that failed to explode) that have entered tanks by surviving crewmen. I cant remember anyone relating an experience where an AP shell enters and explodes.

Lewis

[Guest R Cunningham]

The 4.7cm Pzgrpatr. 36 (t) does not appear to have had an explosive filler. The schematic I have shows a large internal cavity but it is not labeled as being a HE charge.

Losername, plase ban Vx, Tabun, GB, Sarin, Anthrax, bubonic plague and any other chemicals and biological agents that are designed expressly for killing before you get to DU that presents a hazard only as a side effect.

Please tell me what I ignored? I acknowledged that ICBMs have not killed anybody.

Now run along my sweet boy. Go save the world.

[Guest hunt52]

Just as a techincal point: if you are firing a hunk of heavy metal at something at very high speed aren't you trying to kill it? I mean - you are shooting at the tank to kill it. If depleted uranium is *more* lethal wouldn't that make it better... note that I personally am opposed to war, but I say if it is impossible to not fight a war (a very miniscule number of circumstances) - well you better fight to win.

Also - does anyone know the halflife of DU and how it decays?

- Bill

[DesertFox]

Well, concerning the 4,7-cm-Pak(t) which was produced by Skoda, my source [Fritz Hahn "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des Deutschen Heeres"] says that its 3,1 kg heavy PzGr 36(t) had a 1,65 kg heavy APC/HE which carried 16g HE, it had a muzzle velocity of 775 m/s and was able to penetrate 55mm at 1000m (angle not specified)

To the effect of the HE-Filler charge which was used with all german guns of 3,7 mm and above, I think we can pretty much rely on what Thomas L. Jentz writes in his books:

In all calibers of 3.7 cm and above, the normal armorpiercing round designed by the Germans contained a high explosive filler with a delay fuze. Penetration of a British tank by a German armor-piercing shell frequently resulted in crew members being wounded as well as destruction of the tank by causing irreparable damage or by setting it on fire. Not until 1942 did the British investigate the cause of fires in the tanks and began to install armored bins to protect the ammunition.

As recorded by Major G.B. Jarrett in May 1942: The German projectiles which have caused the greatest amount of damage to Allied tanks in the Western Desert campaigns have been the A.P.-H.E. type in 47 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm and 88 mm respectively. These projectiles at long ranges need only attain a partial penetration and the explosive charge can complete the destruction of at least the tank crew. At closer ranges the destructive effect is very great, where in many cases destruction of the tank is permanent.

When the 7.5 cm K.Gr.rot Pz. was fitted to an American casing and fired from the 75 mm M2 gun, in May 1942 Lt.Col. Gruver reported: Each German AP-HE round fired may safely be presumed to have put the tank out of action. In this connection it was noted that the fuze functioned perfectly, that is to say it functioned only after penetration and then always in the fighting compartment where the most damage is done. Parts also frequently penetrated into the engine compartment.

The destructive effect of the Pzgr.40 after penetration was based solely on whatever kinetic energy remained in shot fragments when it shattered and/or fragments of armor plate broken off by the hit.

About the british guns Jentz writes:

The destructive effect of the 2-pounder AP-Shot after penetration was based solely on whatever kinetic energy remained in the solid shot, shot fragments if it shattered, and/or fragments of armor plate broken off by the hit. Starting with the design of the Pz.Kpfw.I, German designers had taken extra precautions to reduce the probability of fire as a result of penetration. Fuel tanks were separated from the crew compartment by a firewall (about 5 mm thick). In the case of the Pz.Kpfw.II, the fuel tank, located on the right side of the crew compartment, was isolated by 8 mm thick armor plate. As a further precaution, the main gun ammunition in the Pz.Kpfw.III and IV was stowed in bins whose sides were 4 to 6 mm thick. In addition, main gun ammunition in the Pz.Kpfw.III and IV was stored low in the hull. Thus, even when a 2-pounder AP-Shot managed to penetrate through the armor, it needed sufficient residual kinetic energy to penetrate the firewall or ammunition bins in order to destroy the tank by setting it on fire. Penetration of a Pz.Kpfw.III or IV by 2-pounder AP-Shot fired at 600 to 1500 yards range frequently resulted in crew members being wounded but infrequently resulted in destruction of the tank by causing irreparable damage or by setting it on fire. Of those Pz.Kpfw.III and IV knocked out in combat by AP-Shot, fewer than 20 percent were destroyed by fire or damaged so severely that they couldn't be repaired.

[source: Thomas L. Jentz "Tank Combat in North Africa"]

Furthermore the german manual on armour penetration curves states:

The effect of the projectile inside the tank and the probability of hitting the target are not considered in these graphical charts, thus only the complete penetration with the total effect inside the tank is considered. As a rule, this effect is of annihilating power when using armor-piercing shells with a high-explosive charge. When using hard core projectiles, steel or soft iron core projectiles, or hollow-charge projectiles, a completely annihilating effect cannot always be expected with a single shot, because the crew, located in the dead space of the tank, cannot be hit under certain conditions.

A limited effect, without piercing the tank by the projectile (effect produced by back-spalling of armor plate and punching holes (Stanzpfropfen), is frequently achieved with plates that are about 10% thicker than the thickness presented in the graphs.

[source: Thomas L. Jentz "Tiger I & II - Combat Tactics"]

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[This message has been edited by DesertFox (edited 02-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by DesertFox (edited 02-29-2000).]

[DesertFox]

Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I cant remember anyone relating an experience where an AP shell enters and explodes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There might be a reason for that

Helge

[This message has been edited by DesertFox (edited 02-29-2000).]

[Guest R Cunningham]

Good stuff, Helge.

Is that last bit from the Podzun Pallas Tiger I & II Kampf und Taktik? I tried to order it directly from them but they said it wasn't yet available though it is still on their web store.

[John Kettler]

Though it took two posts and a reindexing of the site to get here, I'm glad to see that this AP shell thread has been resurrected, since I believe the issue is most important.

I have been waging a battle for months now to get HE burster charges in AP shells represented in Panzer Elite, after finding out that all AP shell types were being modeled as straight KE penetrators. This led to some serious digging, through which I eventually got in contact with Klaus Bonnesen (On Armour) and David Honner (Guns vs. Armour)--links to both sites in Links at http://pedg.tripod.com--Panzer Elite Development Group Web site. Thanks to them, it became possible to present a potent set of arguments as to why this was important.

I'm running on a loaner computer, hence don't have my E-mail files handy to quote from directly, so I'll summarize.

Operational experience in the Western Desert showed that even a partial penetration of a German antitank shell of 47mm or larger, followed by its detonation, was enough to disable the tank and kill or injure most of the crew. Often, the tank was so thoroughly wrecked that it couldn't be fixed (K-kill, catastrophic kill).

By contrast, hits on German tanks with AP shot tended to inflict mostly repairable damage and to leave the crew largely unharmed. This is one of the major reasons Rommel was able to do so much, for so long, with so little.

Part of this large difference between British and German antiarmor lethality can be traced to poor survivability design by the British (exposed ammo, etc.) and good survivability design by the Germans (armored bulkheads, armored ammo storage, etc.), but much of it is directly related to the difference between the damage potential of a single small projectile pushing its way through armor and creating secondary missiles in the process, vs. a projectile which doesn't have to get more than halfway through the armor plate and detonate to do its lethal work.

When the AP shell hits, you get not only the same kinds of kinetic effects that AP shot provides, but you also get the blast, temperature rise and hordes of red hot steel shards traveling at many thousands of feet per second, all of which occur in an enclosed, very small steel box jam packed with men, delicate equipment, explosives and gasoline.

The answer, then, to the original question is that the explosive fill, though only a few ounces, makes a big difference in several areas of military significance.

1. Marginal penetrations by AP shell can kill tanks and crews under conditions in which AP shot would not.

2. Ammunition expenditure is reduced because it is much easier to observe the effects of a hit on the target, thus limiting the need to pour shot after shot into the target. As noted in the report, a single solid hit was generally enough to knock out the tank.

3. More targets can be engaged in a given amount of time, thanks to prompt visual feedback, i.e, burning or exploding tank.

4. AP shell imposes additional logistic and manpower requirements on the foe which shot does not. More tanks have to be built and shipped to the theater of war, and repairs are more complex and expensive. Macerated/incinerated crews translate into morale problems, major medical requirements, constitute an acute drain on trained manpower and require more men be trained as crew replacements for those lost or incapacitated.

From the above it should be obvious that this topic assumes even greater leverage in a campaign setting (Combat Mission Meta Campaign), where the issues of crew replacements, tank replacements and ammunition availability loom large indeed.

Lest the Allied players get too excited, I refer them to Tanks For The Memories (www.tankbooks.com), where they can learn how desperately shorthanded the Americans were in both men and equipment. The author, whose dad served in a Sherman battalion, presents accounts of luckless infantrymen dragooned into service as tankers and the tragic fates which befell them. He talks about the schemes resorted to to get spare tanks and the critical shortage of tanks armed with 76mm guns.

The Sherman also figures heavily from a vulnerability standpoint, since it was so prone to catching fire when hit that the Germans called it the "Ronson" ("Lights every time!"). Beta demo players are used to late war Shermans with wet ammo stowage. These are some four times less likely to catch fire than their forebears of the same name. Rude awakenings await in Normandy!

I hope this sheds some light on an evidently poorly understood topic.

Let me now say a couple of things regarding the DU side thread.

First of all, there is a full length book on DU and its effects. It's called Metal of Dishonor and is by Drs. Helen Caldicott and Michio Kaku. I haven't read it myself yet, but it was extensively covered in a long NPR interview which I found thought provoking, highly informative and disturbing.

Second, DU appears to be an aspect of the complex ailment known as the Gulf War Syndrome. I refer all interested readers to the American Gulf War Veterans Association site (www.gulfwarvets.com). There, you'll find a wealth of information on every conceivable aspect of the problem, including the documented, sordid history of the government's using U.S. soldiers for decades as uninformed medical guinea pigs. The group is run by a former Air Force Reserve nurse captain who was never in theater, but who got the disease after treating someone who was and nearly died from it.

That's all I have for now.

John Kettler

[Username]

Cunninghambone

You are out there. The weapons you list arent being used.. DU is being used.. thats what you are missing. I am happy you feel you have a point. You are in the US military? Get your Anthrax shot yet?

Theres no point in discussing the issue of DU with you. You of course ignore everyone else that is posting against it and focus on me. You ignore my point about using Tungsten and only using DU if it is an emergency.

So save your name calling for someone else. (that sweet boy remark shows you to be a flaming "dont ask dont tell" kind of soldier)

HE in AP

Yes I agree with Kettler and others about the increase in tank killing/ammo conservation. I was being tongue in cheek about not reading personal accounts of crewmen experiencing AP shells.

Heres an experiment .. maybe you can do this for us Cunningham.. take an M80 or M100 firecracker and set it off inside a M113 with all the hatches closed. Post the results. Those of you who live in dumpsters can try it also.

Lewis

[DesertFox]

Very informative John

You are right, if it comes to Guns and Armour, David and Claus definitively are the best reference.

Bob

Nope I have the Schiffer book publication (s) of Jentz Tiger book (s). I know it has been announced by Podzun Pallas in Okt? last year for 99´release but there seems to be significant delay. If you can wait, go for the Podzun Pallas book (58,- ?), since it will be only half the price of the Schiffer book (128,-).

But I have a weblink for everyone interested in military books (especially english literature) http://www.zinnfigur.com/Buch/Frame-SetBuchneuheiten.html

I order most of my books that I can´t get from Amazon.de from them.

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[Guest R Cunningham]

Losername,

Hello? Is this thing on? I already said I'm in the Army, bud. No anthrax shot. Sorry.

Sarin has been used and it has already killed more people (kurds) than DU has.

Time to start another crusade.

What point about Tungsten? Your holy opinion that it should be used and DU only in an emergency? I think any tank crewman will tell you fighting enemy tanks is an emergency. The Army may very well go back to Tungsten penetrators and various research projects are underway.

What do you want? Is your definition of a discussion that I accept you exalted opinion?

I don't know why you didn't like my sweet boy remark, because you obviously are a model, conscientious citizen and the world needs your help to help set it right.

[Guest PeterNZ]

I notice a lot of army-guys get tetchy when they meet with anyone who thinks that some form of control or limits should be placed on their field of expertise. I can understand why, because often their lives are at risk and frankly they don't really give a damn as long as htey live and the other guys don't.

But still, R.C. It should be pointed out that peacenik-hippies have done a lot to limit and control weapons and systems.

I am going to try and list some, just to make my points.

- dum-dums (outlawed according to geneva convention)

- napalm (pretty sure it and flamethrowers are considered BAD, but unsure)

- landmines (by those who signed anyway)

- Biological/Chemical, (although the US keeps a handy stockpile, just for research, you understand

I think if i was a soldier i'd be happy to see lots of nasty stuff limited and outlawed, i'm sure vets with Gulf War Syndrome would probably agree no DU would have been nice, esp. when perfectly acceptable tungs. carb. was available, (unless a tc cored weapon couldn't kill those iraqi tanks).

Of course it's impossible to remove all threats from the wrold, but please don't belittle those who do try to make this more than a dog-eat-dog existence

PeterNZ

[Username]

GI JERKOFF SAID: What do you want? Is your definition of a discussion that I accept you exalted opinion?

Read the other posts soldier boy by the others in this thread. I could care less what you accept, you are in the minority and your arguments are weak. Now go mop a latrine.

[DesertFox]

Hey Losername

Do you have anything constructive to say here?

Do you think wars will be cleaner without DU. Do you think that´ll make dying easier?

Do you think it matters how you lose extremities, by DU or Tungsten?

Go troll elsewhere.

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[Guest Big Time Software]

Username this is the second thread I have found you in purposefully abusing people for no other reason than to get your jollies, or so it seems. Reread the agreement you had to read before signing up. Either behave like an adult (even if you are a kid) or find yourself banned. Nobody wants to read your abusive crap, especially not me.

Steve

[DesertFox]

Well said

Thanks Steve

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[Username]

Nobody wants to read your abusive crap, especially not me.

Steve

[DesertFox]

Username

Please do us all a favour and take your animosities to personal email or discuss this in an appropriate forum.

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[Fionn]

Username,

A bit of friendly advice for you... You may not like DU and you may even be right about all its problems etc etc BUT is it really a point you are willing to get banned over?

Think what you want about R. Cunningham BUT if you say it publicly again on the forum the chances are you're gonna get banned. It simply isn't worth it IMO.

My advice is simply to move on, forget the name and not bother getting into a discussion with him again if it's only gonna get you riled up.

As I said, it simply is NOT worth getting banned over.

[Guest R Cunningham]

PeterNZ,

I don't think I'm being touchy about DU. It could be banned and it wouldn't affect me in any way. I just think there are bigger, better candidates out there. I would like to see biological and chemical agents banned. Apart from their actual effects on people, they are just messy. Once they're in play the situation gets so much more complicated. Where did it hit? Which way is the wind blowing, how fast? What kind of agent is it? Persistant, non-persistant? I hate all of that crap. The problem with banning it all is that everybody will sign up for a ban but will continue testing/development because no one can trust the other guy. Everyone will have a secret stash and we'll still have to run around in cumbersome protective gear just in case. And countries might be sorely tempted to use the stuff when they're losing. On the otherhand, I think most soldiers would not choose to employ chemical weapons. Somehow we made it through WWII without them being used.

J. Kettler. Thanks for posting the info. Interesting stuff. Anybody know of any wargame, ever, that took any of this into account?

[tss]

Username wrote:

As for HE fillers being effective, I have read many accounts of Shot (and perhaps shell that failed to explode) that have entered tanks by surviving crewmen. I cant remember anyone relating an experience where an AP shell enters and explodes.

I made a quick search and managed to find a link to picture of a T-34 that was penetrated by a German AT-shell that exploded and still the commander of the tank survived (for a while, he was later shot when he tried to reach Soviet lines, his tank was a point tank of an attack that was thrown back). The link is http://kyyppari.hkkk.fi/~k21206/finhist.html#war . It is the picture there two Finns with Panzerfausts look at a burning T-34. However, maybe I should point out that the German StuGs hit the T-34 two times, and the commander escaped after the first hit but before the second shell hit...

- Tommi