Grog question (serious) OT

[mensch]

what is the difference from the toughness of Tungsten and Depleted Uranium rounds? Or how should I place my question better? is D.U. Rounds 50% better then Tungsten, 60% better? or can D.U. rounds penetrate thicker armour then Tungsten?

ie if D.U. were avaliable in wwII how much armour could it penetrate at what range and angle.

---------

www.derkessel.com Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by mensch (edited 01-29-2001).]

[mensch]

fecking grogs you all like to talk about how a AP rounds can hit a Assaultboatenpanzerwaffeluftfliegersshiessenauflakaurkommandofloatenthingen at 3002.0837 m at a 14.5 and 5/8ths of a degree but to answer a simple question like this you go all la la.. jeez and I thought you bunch new alot of.. "stuff" like this so go on.. talk about Hamsterkamfkraftfahrzeugrollenball Auf Z on how it could take a High velocity Kokosnußhamsterfaust at 400.54 and 1/19ths m at 35.6 Degrees...

last time I ask a serious question for you grogs.. feh you make me want to chuck my inner croda in the toilet and wash it with toothpaste.

[Slapdragon]

Uranium, with an atomic number of 235is used in science, munitions, and as aircraft counterweights, including in commercial aircraft such as the DC-10. When used as a tank penetrator, according to Dunnigan (from Dunnigan, J, and Bay, A., From Shield to Storm, William Morrow and Co., Inc. Publishers, 1992: 285-286.) it will penetrate about twice the thickness of armor that a tungsten round will, with a much longer and flatter flight patch due to increased sectional density, and much better flight characteristics than a tungsten round which develop a slight wobble at the greatest distance. US M1 tankers and A10 pilots who used this ammo in the Gulf war, were it was first used, called it "plinking" because the 120mm version of the round was observed penetrating both sides of a T72 causing a catastrophic explosion as the hypervelocity missile actually ignited aluminum and had pieces of itself shred during the passage. Tanks so treated have not yet had known survivors since the kinetic energy otten causes the interior air of the tank to burst into a plasma as the round passes through.

When a depleted uranium round impacts a target, up to 70% of the round burns up, causing radioactive and chemically toxic dust to be scattered in and around the target. This dust is minorly radioactive, but is about as poisonous as lead. To date no tank crew person has survived a DU hit so it is not know what the effects of this round would be, but so far there is no evidence that Gulf War or Kosovo syndrome are related to this, as a person would have to litterally lick the tank clean for many many months to develop Luekemia based on our current understanding. A French and a Birist study found no causality between casual contact with a K-Killed tank and any illness. Gulf War syndrome has been linked to a number of causes, but so far not to DU shells.

Deplected uranion comes from nuc power plants. During uranium enrichment, a small amount of the highly radioactive U- 235 isotope is extracted from uranium ore for use in nuclear weapons and reactors. The ‘depleted' uranium which remains is the stuff that turns into uber shells.

While all NATO countries have stocks of DU rounds, only the US and possibly Britian have used them in combat.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

DU rounds have never been tested on a Assaultboatenpanzerwaffeluftfliegersshiessenauflakaurkommandofloatenthingen

[Joe Shaw]

feh you make me want to chuck my inner croda in the toilet and wash it with toothpaste.

Not a bad idea under any circumstances though, I try to give mine a good cleaning every month or so. Mind you I have to use a wire brush and baking soda but then I'm older than you.

Joe

[Mace]

Mensch,

A bit of logic for you. If tungsten was better than Depleted Uranium at penetrating armour, which do you think the US army would currently use?

Anyway, the WW2 tankers are fortunate that they never had to contend with DU AP shells.

In fact, when they died as their tank expired from a catastrophic explosion, I think they would be happy knowing that the tungsten round that just penetrated would have no effect on their long-term health.

Mace

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Mace:

Mensch,

A bit of logic for you. If tungsten was better than Depleted Uranium at penetrating armour, which do you think the US army would currently use?

Anyway, the WW2 tankers are fortunate that they never had to contend with DU AP shells.

In fact, when they died as their tank expired from a catastrophic explosion, I think they would be happy knowing that the tungsten round that just penetrated would have no effect on their long-term health.

Mace

With tungsten, at least the bodies need not be identified by counting calcium carbonate deposites on the insides of the tank.

[Slapdragon]

Finally -- they only real DU document declassified and available to gamers that involves effectiveness is:

Hantel, L. W. ; Hopson, J. W. ; Sandstrom, D. J.: Evaluation of depleted-uranium alloys for use in armor-piercing projectiles, Los Alamos National Laboratory, June 1973 (declassified 1995), LA-5238, AFATL-TR-73-61, 78 p

Available through the GPO under that title.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Tanks so treated have not yet had known survivors since the kinetic energy otten causes the interior air of the tank to burst into a plasma as the round passes through.

Damn, that sucks.

I wonder how many Iraqi tanks actually had crew members in them when they were knocked out?

Jeff Heidman

[Spook]

Most of the Iraqi Republican Guard tanks were manned when the US 1st & 3rd Armored Divisions hit the RG from the west. This was related from Gulf War vets at the Steel Beasts forum (shrapnelgames.com), who have occasionally provided links for added historical info relating to the final ground battles.

[Slapdragon]

Finally mensch me lad -- LANL-LIB has the very document on hand as a PDF discussing DU ammo. You can find it at http://lib-www.lanl.gov/la-pubs/00371778.pdf . Dunnigan's estimate of twice penetration I think he pulled out of his ass, but comments about DU seems to support it anyway.

Check out section IV for the penetration tests.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Spook:

Most of the Iraqi Republican Guard tanks were manned when the US 1st & 3rd Armored Divisions hit the RG from the west. This was related from Gulf War vets at the Steel Beasts forum (shrapnelgames.com), who have occasionally provided links for added historical info relating to the final ground battles.

Only a few US tanks had DU rounds in desert storm, they were still in testing for use, with serious questions about their poisoning of the water table were they are used (since proved unfounded, but they suck in some ways cause plants can pick up DU dust thrown wide from the explosions).

During the 1973 tests, it was intended that DU only be used in 30mm GAU8 cannon shells then in development for the proposed A10/A11 aircraft. DU shells were available apparently in top secret limited number for the 105mm cannon in the 1970s, which is why the Army did not feel they needed to upgun the M1 to 120mm (a move Ashcroft forced on them for the excellent reason of standardization with Europe). Stocks of DU shells, untested in conflict, were assembled in the Reagan years in Europe, and the A10 had a huge number of the shells. They were rarely fired except in controlled conditions. During Desert Storm the assumption was the US would not need them, but being untested the oldest stocks of 105 and 120 were fired off "just to get rid of them". Even with 14 year old ammo (at the worst) it proved devestating.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 01-29-2001).]

[mensch]

wow.. I am spechless.. but what about the Kokosnußhamsterfaust?? typical grog goes on and on and on and on and on.. but totaly missed my point...

-----------

www.derkessel.com Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[bredberg]

Salpdragon:

Could you add some info to this line:

....

and much better flight characteristics than a tungsten round which develop a slight wobble at the greatest distance.

.....

I can't see why the change in material will produce a slight wobble at the greatest distance. The only thing that can do that is an unbalancing moment of the round. This a yawing moment caused by the air resistance. The uranium rounds are most probable at a higher L/D-ratio than a tungsten dito, and will thus likely have a higher tendency to start wobble. (A minor error in the angle-of-attack will mean a yawing moment from the drag force -> wobble).

Practise tungsten rounds in the swedish army is a-symmetric to produce this wobble after a couple of km, just so we weren't able to strike some unhappy people 90km (the maximum firing distance with a S-tank) from the firing ground.

Cheers Jonas

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by bredberg:

Salpdragon:

Could you add some info to this line:

....

and much better flight characteristics than a tungsten round which develop a slight wobble at the greatest distance.

.....

I can't see why the change in material will produce a slight wobble at the greatest distance. The only thing that can do that is an unbalancing moment of the round. This a yawing moment caused by the air resistance. The uranium rounds are most probable at a higher L/D-ratio than a tungsten dito, and will thus likely have a higher tendency to start wobble. (A minor error in the angle-of-attack will mean a yawing moment from the drag force -> wobble).

Practise tungsten rounds in the swedish army is a-symmetric to produce this wobble after a couple of km, just so we weren't able to strike some unhappy people 90km (the maximum firing distance with a S-tank) from the firing ground.

Cheers Jonas

Uranium shapes were much more uniform to manufacture due to the process involved in doing it safely. During the metal forging and heat treatment the impurities in Uranium do not pool in the same manner as they do in tungsten.

There is much more experience in crafting precise shapes in uranium thanks to the manufacture of nuclear bombs -- which is a precise shape of uranium.

Uranium penetrators are darts rather than slugs. The DU rounds are actually lifting bodies at higher velocity. This can also be done with T rounds.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I agree with all that Slapdragon and others have said. The only thing I would add is that as time has gone by, since 1990, the gap between the penetration of DU and tungsten long rod penetrators has declined, for similar generation rounds. Happily, two weeks ago Jane’s Defence Weekly, one of the foremost defence journals, addressed this very question. The quote, which follows, is from their 17th January issue.

“At velocities of current kinetic-energy tank and aircraft ammunition (1000-1800m/s) DU penetrators are superior to those of other heavy metal penetrators made of tungsten alloys because their flow-softening and adiabatic-shear failure modes inhibit the build-up of a large mushroom head on the penetrator. This results in narrower but deeper penetration (10-20%). DU also has significant pyrophoric properties, normally setting the target on fire. DU is also cheaper than tungsten.”

My reading of other defence journals is that the very latest generation of tungsten rounds, such as the German DM53/LKE II, are only about 5-10% behind similar generation DU rounds. So what are the penetration figures?

At 1000m against vertical rolled homogenous armour the DM53 probably penetrates about 850mm when fired from the standard L44 gun. A latest generation DU round when fired from the same gun, and with the same charge, slightly greater than that used in other current L44 rounds, would probably penetrate just over 900mm. Neither would be “quite” enough to penetrate the front turret of a M1A2 or Challenger 2. For that you would need a 140mm gun, in which case life would be getting dangerous.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. For a number of reasons DU rounds are likely to be band world-wide in the next few years. Whether for real or imagined reasons.

[A Arabian]

Its unlikely the USE of DU will be banned worldwide (per Kip's statement). Its just too useful of a weapon. Even nations that can afford to be more pacifistic (r.e. land mine ban) undoubtedly recognize the need for a shell that can effectively penetrate armor.

What might happen is that the PRODUCTION of NEW DU will be banned - which is probably just fine with the majority of the nations - the US hasn't manufactured new DU stocks since the late '70s. New munitions (in the US) have been from old DU stocks built up from 1955 (approx) to 1979 (I think thats when it ended).

What I've been wondering though is, since this is the case, why would there be a noticeable degredation in DU shell performance over time? And if there were, why wouldn't that result in a desire to continue production of new DU stocks?

[kipanderson]

A.Arabian, Hi,

there has been no decrease in the performance of DU rounds. They continue to improve.It is just that tungsten penetrators have improved even more.

When it comes to banning DU the reason I wrote what I did, and clearly it is just my opinion, I do not claim to "know" it will be banned, is that the mood in Europe is "very" anti DU. The British government, the most pro-DU in Europe, just, by the skin of its teeth, managed to hold the line a few weeks ago. I am relaxed about it, but the continental Europeans are not. The Germans and the Italians just will not play ball, in NATO, unless it is banned.

All the best,

Kip.