Depleted Uranium (DU)

[Dead3yez 0]

I think that even you can see the idiocy of this insulting strawman argument, and I'm not going to validate it with a response. Put your critical thinking hat on to divine what I possibly could have been saying.

Answer my question. If you were in a tank, would you want the DU armour or not in a tank battle?

[max power 21]

Answer my question. If you were in a tank, would you want the DU armour or not in a tank battle?

Thanks but no thanks. I don't take orders from people who never learned to get along. I don't appreciate your tone, and will not be responding to you any further. If you decide to act like a human being, we can discuss this issue.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Max Power

[Dead3yez 0]

Thanks but no thanks. I don't take orders from people who never learned to get along. I don't appreciate your tone, and will not be responding to you any further. If you decide to act like a human being, we can discuss this issue.

I'm getting along just fine. If you have any questions you want to ask, I'm perfectly okay with obliging to answer them.

I am a human being and I am acting like one. The question was fairly simple. To answer my own question, I would much rather have the DU armour to reduce the chances of any projectile penetrating and causing damage to a tank which I was in, regardless of the radioactive risks. That is my opinion. This is my "tone".

Since you won't reply, I think it's obvious that in a hyopthetical situations -- when the shit hits the fan -- you'd be grateful for that DU armour.

---------

About DU rounds being used. Prolonged exposure is entirely the iraq / afghanistani's problem. If they don't move radioactive tanks since the gulf etc or deal with them in some other manner, then that's entirely their fault.

War is horrible and the after effects are too. Deal with it.

[max power 21]

Just assume whatever is convenient for you.

[Dosenmais 10]

Answer my question. If you were in a tank, would you want the DU armour or not in a tank battle?

That stuff would kill you if you just touch it. Many italian navy soldiers died just because they did duty service nearby this shit. DU Ammunition before even fired radiates as hell.

Hey by the way. The NATO used tons of DU Bombs during the lybia bombardmend and now that dust comes to europa, isnt that great?

DU was made as a doomsday weapon for an soviet invasion in europa. Germany would been an toxic wasteland in that case, so it wouldn't care anymore.

[dm 9]

That stuff would kill you if you just touch it. Many italian navy soldiers died just because they did duty service nearby this shit. DU Ammunition before even fired radiates as hell.

Hey by the way. The NATO used tons of DU Bombs during the lybia bombardmend and now that dust comes to europa, isnt that great?

DU was made as a doomsday weapon for an soviet invasion in europa. Germany would been an toxic wasteland in that case, so it wouldn't care anymore.

Do you even know what DU is?

Based on your post I really dont think you do, and are just bandwagoning the "NATO is evil and America is the worst for DU"

[Archosaurusrev 12]

I know DU is used in the GAU-8s ammo, it had the best penetration.

More BRRRRRRRRRRRRRT for your buck.

@Dosenmais

Bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[maturin 12]

So far as I know, no one has been able to prove that DU can cause harm just by sitting around in a shell in a loading bustle. Scientifically speaking, it's inert, isn't it?

But when you put it in KE ammo, which by definition combusts and disintegrates during use, and when you use it in something like the GAU-8, which will end up spraying acres and acres of neighborhoods, agricultural fields and irrigation systems...

...well DU-UH!

They should just take the DU rounds out of the A-10's mix. It's obsolete as an anti-tank weapon anyway.

[Archosaurusrev 12]

So far as I know, no one has been able to prove that DU can cause harm just by sitting around in a shell in a loading bustle. Scientifically speaking, it's inert, isn't it?

But when you put it in KE ammo, which by definition combusts and disintegrates during use, and when you use it in something like the GAU-8, which will end up spraying acres and acres of neighborhoods, agricultural fields and irrigation systems...

...well DU-UH!

True, the problem is when it is used. Sure, its less in say, tank use but one burst of a GAU-8 really pollutes the place.

[Daniel 0]

You have to balance the merits of weaponised DU against the legacy of cases of Gulf War Syndrome, outbreaks of lymphoma and increase in birth defects in areas where it saw heavy use. I don't really see an issue in ship-borne weapons, but it does seem irresponsible to stock these sort of weapons for conflicts that break out in inhabited areas.

Of course, the alternative metals don't sound much nicer.

[maturin 12]

Exactly. You can't argue that we NEED to be shooting 30mm DU rounds at insurgents, instead of pure HE or FFARs, for that matter.

You can't say that DU perpetrators saved lives in the Gulf War, when we were able to destroy most of Saddam's tanks with airpower and routinely exposed thin-skinned Bradleys to 125mm tank guns.

It's only for the sake of convenience and efficiency that we use DU most of the time, with our military designed for WWIII.

[kireta21 13]

Exactly. You can't argue that we NEED to be shooting 30mm DU rounds at insurgents, instead of pure HE or FFARs, for that matter.

Actually they DO use HE-I rounds. Matter of efficiency,

[maturin 12]

Actually they DO use HE-I rounds. Matter of efficiency,

But in the default 4:1 mix, as I understand it. There's a video on youtube where non-explosive rounds go straight through a mud brick house.

[Dead3yez 0]

But in the default 4:1 mix, as I understand it. There's a video on youtube where non-explosive rounds go straight through a mud brick house.

Who cares though? If "we're" not there to kill people, then why are we there?

Unless your point is that a HE round would be more efficient at decimating a slum and killing everyone inside, then I possibly agree.

[maturin 12]

Who cares though? If "we're" not there to kill people, then why are we there?

Unless your point is that a HE round would be more efficient at decimating a slum and killing everyone inside, then I possibly agree.

Did you read the topic? I wasn't making a point about the house, just saying that DU rounds are used as anti-personnel weapons.

This is inefficient and poisons the surrounding land. So yeah, if we're over there for the purpose of killing people, as opposed to the Taliban, and giving cancer to civilians, then who cares?

Now, plenty of counter-insurgencies are waged with little discrimination between military and civilian targets, and it's something the US has done before, but that doesn't apply to Afghanistan.

[Dead3yez 0]

Did you read the topic? I wasn't making a point about the house, just saying that DU rounds are used as anti-personnel weapons.

Like, I said, if you meant the HE rounds are meant to kill people better as opposed to cost -- which I was meaning -- then I agree. But, it also depends on cost efficiency and what ammunitions are available at the time.

[Daniel 0]

Mm, gotta love cost effective carcinogens. So, are we looking at this from what's acceptable or from the perspective of an accountant?

[maturin 12]

We spent trillions on Bush's two wars, we could have afforded updating stocks with non-DU rounds. Tungsten will go through mud brick as well.

The military didn't make a conscious decision to put their budget over cancer for cute little Afghan kids. It's just that there isn't a consensus on the effects of DU, and thus no momentum to effect fast change. It's the nature of bureaucracy, of which the military is the purest and most tortured form, even though people like to pretend it isn't.

Ideally, this is where politicians would come in, if criticizing the military in any way wasn't equivalent to politically castrating yourself.

[reconteam 19]

We spent trillions on Bush's two wars, we could have afforded updating stocks with non-DU rounds. Tungsten will go through mud brick as well.

The military didn't make a conscious decision to put their budget over cancer for cute little Afghan kids. It's just that there isn't a consensus on the effects of DU, and thus no momentum to effect fast change. It's the nature of bureaucracy, of which the military is the purest and most tortured form, even though people like to pretend it isn't.

Ideally, this is where politicians would come in, if criticizing the military in any way wasn't equivalent to politically castrating yourself.

Handling too much of any heavy metal, including tungsten, can cause health problems down the road. Inhaling particles of tungsten left over in an impact area is probably just as bad as inhaling DU particles.

Updating stocks with non-DU perpetrators would have been a poor choice. Why? Because tungsten is significantly less effective than DU at penetrating the heavy armor of tanks and other fighting vehicles. It gives a useful edge, plus DU tends to provide a nice after-armor incendiary effect. If the M829 series used a tungsten perpetrator it probably wouldn't be able to punch through the armor of the best Russian designs. And make no mistake, the Russians and Chinese, major exporters of weapon systems, both use DU perpetrators too.

In regards to the GAU-8/A used by the A-10, the standard combat mix is a 4:1 ratio of API to HEI rounds. But (according to the hyper-realistic DCS: A-10C sim at least) there is also a pure HEI loadout.

[max power 21]

Inhaling particles of tungsten left over in an impact area is probably just as bad as inhaling DU particles.

Apparently, it's worse.

Why? Because tungsten is significantly less effective than DU at penetrating the heavy armor of tanks and other fighting vehicles.

I don't think that is correct. They have tungsten replacements for du lined up. I don't think tungsten likes to burn like du, though, so it's less likely to start a fire inside of the vehicle it penetrates.

[kireta21 13]

I don't think that is correct. They have tungsten replacements for du lined up. I don't think tungsten likes to burn like du, though, so it's less likely to start a fire inside of the vehicle it penetrates.

DU also deals better with reactive armor, due to way it breaks. DU penetrators are sometimes described as "self-sharpening", although this refers strictly to tank-fired APFSDS rounds AFAIK.